🗞️ Why in News On Sunday, 11 October 2026, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, held a special sitting on petitions arising from the Delhi Police’s handling of the 10 October protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India. In interim directions, the Bench said there shall be no detention except in accordance with the procedure established by law, that peaceful assembly be permitted beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS orders are in operation, and that Metro, rail, internet and free movement continue, subject to public order. It issued notice on a contempt petition; replies and compliance reports are due on Tuesday, 13 October.
New to this topic? Start here: the basics in plain words (revision card 1 of 6)
What the Court Directed
The Hindu reports that the Court called the hearing an “extraordinary, exceptional” Sunday sitting. The Bench passed interim directions, not a final ruling. It did not decide whether the detentions of 10 October were lawful, and, as The Hindu notes, “The court did not explicitly comment on the legality of the prohibitory orders.”
The five directions, as dictated in open court:
| # | Subject | What the Bench directed | The rider |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metro and rail | “Metro and rail facilities shall function normally” | “unless regulations are required to be imposed, keeping in mind disturbance to public order as envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution” |
| 2 | Movement and barricades | “free movement of people in the city shall be permitted” | “subject to traffic regulations”; barricades to be “reviewed forthwith, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions” |
| 3 | Internet | “Internet facilities shall remain undisturbed, as per law” | Justice Bagchi added orally: “we are not taking away the powers under the Information Technology Act” |
| 4 | Detention and assembly | No detention of any person except in accordance with the procedure established by law | Assembly “shall be permitted in accordance with law, particularly in respect of peaceful assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation” |
| 5 | Notice board near the Supreme Court | Take down the board announcing Section 163 BNSS “in and around the vicinity of the Supreme Court”, “if not already done” | “so that citizens as well as lawyers can have access to justice”, including entry to “the Supreme Court or any other court of law” |
Notice, not a finding of contempt
The Bench began to dictate a direction to show cause why contempt proceedings should not begin. The Solicitor General asked, “Please issue notice rather than showcause,” and the Bench then issued notice to the alleged contemnors to file an affidavit in response and a compliance report. The petition names Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC chairperson D. Thara. The Court has made no finding that its earlier order was violated.
What the Court recorded from the government
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court, on instructions, that “the Metro Railway is functioning fully and that all stations are open since 10 p.m. yesterday, trains are functioning normally, and internet connectivity has been restored.” He also assured the Court that “lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be impeded in the discharge of their professional duties.”
Questions the Court kept open
- The Court said it would like to be addressed on “how far the Police Act falls in sync with requirement of expression under Article 19” (LiveLaw).
- Justice Bagchi asked for an affidavit giving the locations of the Metro stations that were closed (The Hindu).
- On a submission that police officers were also injured on 10 October, Justice Bagchi said the Court was agnostic about the identities of the injured and would look into grievances equally (The Hindu).
- Near the end of the hearing, Justice Bagchi said: “We are duty-bound under Article 32 to protect and enforce fundamental rights.” As the hearing ended, Justice Mohana appealed to the petitioners’ side: “All who are protesting in public interest, please take to peaceful means” (The Hindu).
The Matters and the Parties
The Court’s 9 October order in M.A. Baby v. Union of India had held, as the Bench summarised it on 11 October, that “the operation of Metro trains and other rail services may be regulated but not prohibited in appropriate cases.” We covered that order in Current Affairs Today, 10 October 2026.
The petitions heard on Sunday:
- Contempt petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleging that Metro restrictions continued despite the 9 October order.
- Habeas corpus petition by Senior Advocate and Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy, challenging the detention of several political leaders. In court she said the plea concerned the wider detention of “an alleged 7,000 individuals”.
- Petition by RJD Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha, alleging disproportionate force and illegal detention and challenging the curbs on public transport and mobile internet. It seeks a declaration that the authorities’ actions between 9 and 10 October were illegal and unconstitutional (LiveLaw).
- Other petitions, impleadment pleas and intervention applications “will be tagged with the main matters on Tuesday”.
Who said what
| Side | Main submissions (claims, not findings) |
|---|---|
| Petitioners | Detentions went beyond the area covered by the prohibitory orders; Metro stations were shut and the internet suspended; Ms Guruswamy cited Article 358 and asked whether the State was claiming an “undeclared emergency” (LiveLaw) |
| Interveners | “fundamental freedoms must be exercised in a responsible manner and are subject to reasonable restrictions” (Bar & Bench) |
| Union and Delhi Police (Solicitor General) | “zero reduction in the total volume of Metro service”, with entry and exit restricted at some stations; protesters “removed at 2 p.m. and released at 6 p.m. on October 10” (The Hindu); the habeas plea “may not survive as those detained had been released” (LiveLaw); the legality question “is for Your Lordships to decide” |
| Delhi Police (outside court) | Detentions followed violations of Section 163 BNSS orders in the New Delhi district (The Hindu) |
How many were detained? Only claims so far
No official figure was placed before the Court. Ms Guruswamy said the State was not giving out official numbers (LiveLaw).
| Figure | Who gave it |
|---|---|
| About 7,000 “reported as detained” | Menaka Guruswamy, petitioner, in court |
| “more than 6,000” | Manoj Jha’s petition |
| “nearly 2,500” during the day, plus “around 1,000” picked up overnight in preventive operations | Delhi Police sources, as reported by The Hindu |
The Constitution: Which Clause Covers What
Right to protest: right, limit, tool, safeguard
Where the 11 October 2026 interim directions sit in the law.
| Provision | What it says | Why it matters here |
|---|---|---|
| Article 19(1)(a) | Freedom “of speech and expression” | Protest is expression; the internet as a medium of expression (Anuradha Bhasin, 2020) |
| Article 19(1)(b) | Right “to assemble peaceably and without arms” | The right at the heart of a street protest |
| Article 19(2) | Reasonable restrictions on speech, on grounds that include “public order” | The clause the Bench cited for regulating Metro and rail |
| Article 19(3) | Reasonable restrictions on assembly “in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order” | The restriction clause for the right to assemble |
| Article 21 | No deprivation of life or personal liberty “except according to procedure established by law” | The phrase in the Court’s detention direction |
| Article 22(1) and (2) | Grounds of arrest to be given “as soon as may be”; right to consult a lawyer; production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours | Safeguards for a person arrested and detained in custody |
| Article 32 | Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights | The basis of the Sunday sitting |
| Article 358 | While a Proclamation of Emergency on the ground of war or external aggression is in operation, Article 19 does not restrict the State’s power to make laws or take executive action | Cited by petitioner’s counsel; no Emergency is in force |
Two clauses, one ground. The dictated order speaks of public order “as envisaged under Article 19(2)”. Article 19(2) is the clause that limits speech and expression, and public order is one of its grounds. The right to assemble is limited by a separate clause, Article 19(3), which allows reasonable restrictions only for the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. Public order is a ground in both. For Prelims: assembly is 19(1)(b), and its restriction clause is 19(3).
During the hearing, LiveLaw reports, Justice Bagchi remarked that the Chief Justice of India had made it clear that “Article 19(2) is not a prohibition, but is a regulation.” The same idea runs through the Constitution Bench ruling of 1972 in Himat Lal K. Shah (see the case table below).
Brief detentions: the open question
The Hindu reports that legal experts questioned the basis for detaining protesters beyond the New Delhi district, where the Section 163 orders were in force, and that there was “no clarity on the legal authority invoked” for those detentions. It adds that the safeguards for such brief detentions during protests “have not been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.” Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S. Oka said, as The Hindu reports, that Article 22 requires the grounds for depriving a person of liberty to be communicated “as soon as may be”, and that this protection cannot be avoided merely by calling the restraint a detention rather than a formal arrest.
The BNSS also has a separate police power in Section 172 (Chapter XII, “Preventive action of the police”): a police officer may detain or remove a person who resists, refuses, ignores or disregards a lawful police direction, and must either take the person before a Magistrate or, in petty cases, release the person as soon as possible within 24 hours.
Section 163 BNSS: The Prohibitory-Order Power
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It sits in Chapter XI, “Maintenance of public order and tranquillity”.
| Feature | Section 163 BNSS |
|---|---|
| Who issues | A District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or another Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government |
| When | Where “immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable” to prevent obstruction, danger to life, health or safety, a disturbance of the public tranquillity, a riot or an affray |
| Form | “a written order stating the material facts of the case” |
| Without notice | May be passed ex parte in an emergency, or where notice cannot be served in time (Section 163(2)) |
| Whom it binds | A person, or “the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area” (Section 163(3)) |
| How long | Not “more than two months”; to prevent danger to life or a riot, the State Government may extend it by notification for a further period “not exceeding six months” (Section 163(4)) |
| Change or withdraw | The Magistrate may rescind or alter the order (Section 163(5)) |
In Delhi. Delhi Police said the orders were in force in the New Delhi district. In the hearing, the Bench and counsel referred to a four-km zone around Jantar Mantar.
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) laid down that “The power under Section 144, Cr.P.C cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights,” and that such an order “should state the material facts to enable judicial review of the same.” That ruling was given under Section 144 CrPC; how far it governs Section 163 BNSS has not been decided in these proceedings. Section 163 itself, however, requires a written order “stating the material facts of the case”.
Internet Suspension: The Law Now
The Court’s direction was that internet facilities “shall remain undisturbed, as per law”, with Justice Bagchi’s oral remark about the Information Technology Act. Separately, press reports of the 9 October suspension order (South First) say it was issued under Rule 3(1) of the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, read with Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, for 24 hours from 10 pm on 9 October around the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing.
| Feature | Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the 2024 Suspension Rules |
|---|---|
| Power | Section 20(2)(b): on a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, direct that a telecom service “shall be suspended” |
| Grounds | Sovereignty and integrity of India, defence and security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to an offence |
| Who orders | The Union Home Secretary (Centre) or the State Home Secretary; a Joint Secretary-level officer may act if authorised, subject to confirmation within 24 hours |
| Limits | Published order; a clearly defined area; a specified duration “not exceeding fifteen days”; only if the aim “cannot be achieved by any other reasonable means” |
| Review | Central review committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary; it meets “within five days” of an order |
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that expression and trade over the internet enjoy constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), that restrictions must meet the test of proportionality, and that “An order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible” under the 2017 Rules then in force. The 2024 Rules now carry the fifteen-day ceiling.
The Case Law: The Right to Protest and Its Limits
| Case | Decided | What the Court said |
|---|---|---|
| Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (five-judge Constitution Bench) | 15 September 1972 | Chief Justice S.M. Sikri for the majority: “The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.” Rule 7 of the Ahmedabad rules, which required prior permission for meetings, was declared void. |
| Re Ramlila Maidan Incident (Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar) | 23 February 2012 | “Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of a democratic system.” Preventive steps “should be founded on actual and prominent threat endangering public order and tranquility”. |
| Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (Jantar Mantar protests) | 23 July 2018 | “The right to protest is, thus, recognised as a fundamental right under the Constitution.” But these rights “are not untrammeled and unlimited in their scope”. |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai) | 10 January 2020 | Internet expression is protected; proportionality; Section 144 cannot suppress legitimate expression; orders must state material facts. |
| Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh) | 7 October 2020 | “Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.” Public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. |
Reading them together: the right to protest is a fundamental right; the State may regulate it for public order, but may not abolish it; and protest cannot mean the indefinite blocking of public ways. The 11 October directions follow this pattern: movement, transport and assembly are allowed, “subject to” public order and traffic regulation.
Beyond the Courtroom
UN statement and India’s reply. On 10 October, the UN human rights office (OHCHR) said it was “concerned” by reports of “mass detentions” in Delhi; its spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said, as The Hindu reports, that any restrictions should meet the test of “necessity and proportionality”. The Government of India rejected the statement, calling the concerns “misplaced” and “unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India”. India’s Permanent Mission in Geneva said: “As in every democracy, Indian citizens exercise this right subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.”
The CEC question is a separate matter. The protesters demand the resignation of the CEC over the deletion of names from electoral rolls, as The Hindu reports. The Supreme Court on Sunday was not hearing that dispute. Under the proviso to Article 324(5), the Chief Election Commissioner “shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”, that is, by the process in Article 124(4): an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting, on the ground of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
What Happens Next
- Tuesday, 13 October (scheduled): the authorities are to file their responses, the contempt affidavits and compliance reports; all the tagged matters are to be heard together.
- The Court is to be addressed on how far the Police Act is “in sync” with Article 19.
- Until then, the interim directions apply, “subject to law and public order”, in The Hindu’s words.
Two Views
| The case for firm regulation | The case for wider protest rights |
|---|---|
| Public order is a constitutional ground for restricting both speech (19(2)) and assembly (19(3)) | Himat Lal (1972): the State may regulate assembly in aid of the right, not prohibit it on every public street |
| Amit Sahni (2020): dissent must be in designated places; public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely | Ramlila Maidan (2012): preventive steps need an “actual and prominent threat” |
| Interveners: freedoms must be exercised responsibly; counsel for some police officers said officers were injured too | Anuradha Bhasin (2020): proportionality, and orders stating material facts open to judicial review |
| Solicitor General: Metro volume was not reduced, and those removed were released the same day | Article 22 safeguards apply to every deprivation of liberty, whatever it is called (Abhay S. Oka) |
The Court’s middle path: directions that restore movement, transport, the internet and peaceful assembly, each “subject to” public order, and an appeal from Justice Mohana to protest peacefully.
Way Forward
- Publish the orders. Prohibitory and suspension orders should be public and should state material facts, as Anuradha Bhasin requires and Rule 3(2) of the 2024 Rules provides.
- Narrow tailoring. Regulate the time, place and route of protests rather than shutting a city’s transport or internet; Rule 3(4) itself asks whether “any other reasonable means” would do.
- Detention safeguards. Record each detention and tell the person the grounds, in line with Article 22, so that courts can review it.
- Designated and adequate sites. Amit Sahni and MKSS point to protest sites that work for both protesters and residents.
- Police law and Article 19. The question the Court has asked about the Police Act is an opening for aligning police powers with constitutional standards.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2: Fundamental rights (Articles 19, 21, 22, 32); the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction; the Election Commission (Article 324).
GS Paper 3: Internal security and the role of the police; communication networks and internet shutdowns.
Prelims: Article 19(1)(b) and 19(3); Article 358; Section 163 BNSS (successor of Section 144 CrPC); Telecommunications Act, 2023 Section 20; the 2024 Suspension Rules; Himat Lal, Ramlila Maidan, MKSS, Anuradha Bhasin, Amit Sahni.
Mains: Balancing the right to protest with public order; proportionality in prohibitory orders and internet shutdowns; safeguards in preventive detention during protests.
📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia
Prelims, statement-ready facts:
- Article 19(1)(b): the right “to assemble peaceably and without arms”; restricted under Article 19(3).
- Article 19(3) grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India and public order only.
- Section 163 BNSS replaced Section 144 CrPC; the order must state the material facts.
- A Section 163 order lasts up to two months; the State may extend it by up to six months.
- 2024 Suspension Rules: a shutdown may last at most 15 days; review committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
- Article 358: while an Emergency declared on the ground of war or external aggression is in operation, Article 19 does not limit the State’s law-making or executive power.
Prelims, the traps:
- The Court issued notice on the contempt plea; it did not hold anyone in contempt.
- The 11 October directions are interim; nothing was struck down or quashed.
- 19(2) restricts speech; the assembly restriction clause is 19(3). Public order appears in both.
- Amit Sahni (2020) is about designated sites and blocked roads, not a ban on protest.
Mains, arguments and keywords:
- Right to protest; regulation, not prohibition; proportionality; necessity; designated sites; procedure established by law.
- Prohibitory orders and shutdowns must state material facts so courts can review them (Anuradha Bhasin).
Interview, be ready for:
- “Should the police be able to stop a protest before it begins?” Weigh public order and others’ movement against Article 19(1)(b) and the need for an actual threat.
Revision Cards
UjiyariThe law behind it: card 3 →UjiyariTest yourself on card 4 →Show answer
Show answer
UjiyariTraps and recall on card 5 →R1Which BNSS section replaced Section 144 CrPC?
R2Longest suspension allowed by the 2024 Rules?
R3Who chairs the central review committee?
R4Which case tied dissent to designated places?
UjiyariWrite the Mains answer on card 6 →UjiyariNow take today’s quiz →Sources: LiveLaw, “Supreme Court hearing on Delhi protests”, 11 October 2026; Bar & Bench, live updates of the Sunday hearing, 11 October 2026; The Hindu, 11 October 2026; The Hindu, UN human rights body on Delhi detentions, 10 October 2026; The Hindu print, 11 October 2026; BNSS, 2023 (MHA gazette copy); judgments via Indian Kanoon: Himat Lal K. Shah (1972), Re Ramlila Maidan (2012), MKSS (2018), Anuradha Bhasin (2020), Amit Sahni (2020). Earlier: Current Affairs Today, 10 October 2026; editorials Mass Mobilisation Meets an Immovable State and internet shutdowns and the Telecom Act.
Source: SC Sunday Order on Delhi Protests: Article 19 and BNSS 163 — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs
