Supreme Court Defers Delhi Protest Petitions to October 15; Police Asked to Respond to Contempt Charges

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has postponed until October 15 the hearing of a group of petitions challenging the Delhi authorities’ handling of a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The decision was taken on Tuesday after a member of the three-judge bench fell ill and both sides agreed that the proceedings should be deferred.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also gave Delhi Police and other authorities until Wednesday evening to respond to notices issued in contempt proceedings.

The proceedings concern allegations that officials failed to comply with directions previously issued by the court.

The judges indicated that additional petitions could be considered on Thursday if the procedural defects in their filings were corrected.

The court has yet to clarify whether a separate plea brought by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders over the functioning of the Election Commission of India will be heard with the existing batch.

Court examines restrictions imposed around protest.

The case follows a demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other political groups over alleged irregularities in the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Petitioners have questioned the detention of protesters, alleged instances of assault and restrictions affecting public movement and transport.

In an order issued on Sunday, a special bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana said peaceful and unarmed demonstrators could not be detained except in accordance with the law.

The court also directed that metro and railway services should function normally, internet access should not be disrupted,d and public movement should be restored, subject to restrictions permitted by law.

The bench further asked authorities to remove notices imposing prohibitory restrictions in the vicinity of the Supreme Court and other court complexes, with the aim of ensuring that people did not face apprehension or difficulty in accessing justice.

The directions came after petitioners alleged that the restrictions had significantly curtailed movement across parts of Delhi, that demonstrators had been detained outside areas covered by prohibitory orders and that the situation had taken on the character of a citywide shutdown.

They also accused the authorities of failing to properly reconsider proposed restrictions on metro and railway services, as required by an earlier court order.

Centre disputes allegations; police asked to explain detentions

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, contested the claims concerning public transport.

He told the court that metro services had continued to operate, although entry and exit were restricted at 45 of the Delhi-NCR network’s 303 stations.

The bench sought details of the affected stations and directed the authorities to submit affidavits setting out why protesters were detained, how the detentions were carried out and the legal grounds relied upon.

These responses are expected to help the court assess the competing accounts of the police action.

Concerns about the treatment of demonstrators and lawyers were also raised during the proceedings. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, described the situation as suppressive.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that lawyers, students, women and children had been pushed, manhandled or assaulted during the police action. These allegations remain subject to judicial examination.

On Monday, Chief Justice Kant warned against turning the Supreme Court into a venue for political confrontation.

At the same time, he made clear that lawful democratic activity at designated locations was not objectionable, provided the court’s work and access to it remained unaffected.

“There should not be any obstruction in the functioning of the Court,” the CJI said while responding to Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Pradeep Rai, who had sought an urgent hearing on a fresh petition concerning the alleged detention of lawyers and suspension of internet services.

The Chief Justice said he had also appealed to protesters, adding that the court should not be drawn into political disputes.

He stressed that lawyers, their clerks, court staff and litigants must be able to move freely and that judicial proceedings should continue without disruption.

INDIA bloc’s separate plea faces filing objections

Alongside the protest-related proceedings, Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders have sought judicial intervention over the Election Commission’s functioning.

Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and nine other opposition leaders personally appeared at the Supreme Court on Monday to submit a petition seeking an independent investigation within a fixed timeframe into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Kumar.

The petition also asks for the ongoing SIR exercise to be suspended until the proposed inquiry is completed. However, the matter could not be listed on Tuesday after the Supreme Court registry identified 14 filing defects.

These included a court-fee shortfall of ₹220, an illegible photocopy of Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine petitioners. The legal team has sought a hearing on Wednesday after rectifying the objections.

Those whose vakalatnamas were reported missing include Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.

The petition questions decisions concerning the electoral process, including the move in June 2025 to conduct the SIR. It alleges that Kumar acted unilaterally despite objections from fellow Election Commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The opposition leaders have sought access to relevant official records, including files, agendas, minutes, internal notings and objections relating to the disputed decisions.

Their plea argues that the alleged exercise of collective powers by a single office-holder raises questions about compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

The Supreme Court’s next hearing on the protest-related petitions is scheduled for October 15, while the separate election-related plea may be considered once its filing defects have been corrected.