New Delhi, Oct 13 The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended time till October 15 for the filing of response by the Centre on a batch of petitions arising from the closure of metro stations and disruptions in train services in Delhi ahead of October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, which was scheduled to conduct the crucial hearing on a litany of petitions, deferred the hearing to Thursday as Justice Mohana was indisposed.
At the outset, the CJI told lawyers that Justice Mohana was unwell but still came to the court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the bench to adjourn the hearing, saying that health issues should not be ignored. Other senior advocates, including Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also agreed to the deferment.
Mehta told the bench that the time granted to the Centre to file its response on the plea alleging contempt for disobeying the apex court’s direction not to completely halt metro and train services ahead of the October 10 protest was till Tuesday.
“The affidavit is ready. I would like to add something to make it more comprehensive,” Mehta said.
The bench extended the time to file the affidavit and said the same be supplied to the counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Besides the Solicitor General and Sankaranarayanan, senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, CU Singh, Nitya Ramakrishnan and Indira Jaising appeared in the proceedings.
The bench also issued notice on a fresh petition filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act.
The provision grants immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners in respect of certain acts undertaken in the discharge of their official duties. ADR has challenged the constitutional validity of the provision.
The top court also sought the presence of a senior Delhi Police officer to respond to allegations by women journalists that they were assaulted while covering the protests.
Earlier, the bench, in its special sitting on Sunday, directed that no person be detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in connection with peaceful and unarmed assemblies outside areas covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The authorities were also directed to remove, if not already done, the board announcing the imposition of Section 163 restrictions in the area around the Supreme Court, so that there was no apprehension regarding access to courts, including the ability to enter and leave court premises.
The bench further directed that metro and rail services should function normally unless restrictions were necessary to address disturbances to public order, consistent with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Free movement within the city was to be permitted subject to traffic regulations, while lawyers, journalists and other professionals were not to be obstructed in discharging their professional duties.
The proceedings stem from petitions challenging restrictions imposed by the Centre and Delhi authorities ahead of protests against the CEC and the Election Commission’s SIR exercise.
On October 9, a bench led by the CJI directed the Centre not to completely suspend train and metro services in Delhi in anticipation of a protest scheduled for October 10 by the Cockroach Janta Party and others.
Taking note of police communications directing the closure of 57 metro stations and the cancellation of trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations, the bench had observed that the measures appeared to overreach by imposing a complete prohibition on essential public transport.
It held that metro services could be regulated but should not be subjected to an outright ban, in keeping with the principle of proportionality.
Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi subsequently filed a contempt petition alleging that the authorities had closed metro stations and restricted train services despite the court’s directions.
He sought action against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC Chairperson D Thara.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy’s petition challenged the alleged detention of several political leaders, including former chief ministers Arvind Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee, Pinarayi Vijayan and Manik Sarkar.
The petition alleged that some leaders were picked up from their residences and taken to undisclosed locations before they could reach the protest site.
RJD Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha also approached the top court, alleging disproportionate use of force, illegal detention and house arrest of protesters, students, lawyers and political leaders, as well as sexual harassment of women protesters.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has sought an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and manhandling of lawyers by Delhi Police during the October 10 protest march.
The Supreme Court Bar Association has also approached the court over the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers near the Supreme Court.
(PTI News)
