New Delhi: The Supreme Court assembled for an urgent hearing on Sunday, 11.10.2026, on applications alleging violation of its order dated 09.10.2026 and illegal detention of a large number of individuals in Delhi on 10.10.2026, found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case in a contempt petition, issued notice to the alleged contemnors and directed that metro services, free movement and internet services function normally, subject to reasonable restrictions.
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 63801/2026, filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi against Govind Mohan, arising from the order dated 09.10.2026 in Diary No. 63560/2026, along with Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 63858/2026, a habeas corpus petition. Oral mentions were also made in Diary No. 63952/2026, Diary No. 63943/2026 and Diary No. 63944/2026, and the court allowed the application for permission to file the contempt petition.
Senior counsel Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Dr. Monika Gusain, Mr. Shoeb Alam and Mr. Sanjay Hegde, along with Mr. Devvrat and other counsel, submitted that there were flagrant violations of the earlier order: the metro railway was not functioning, the New Delhi railway station and Nizamuddin railway station remained closed, no traffic advisories were issued, and a large number of persons were subjected to harassment and illegal detention even beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was also contended that there was a complete shutdown of the internet and that the city bore a curfew-like look. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy submitted that metro stations including GTB Nagar Metro Station and Viswavidyalaya Metro Station were completely shut, that this was a deliberate and wilful violation, and that the habeas corpus plea was directed against the alleged illegal detention of about 7,000 individuals and not only the personalities named in it.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, and the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S.V. Raju, submitted that the petitions orally mentioned had not been served on the Union and that they were unable to assist the court on them. Mr. Mehta orally denied the allegations of violation, contending that the Delhi Metro was functioning normally, though 45 out of 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order, that no one had been illegally detained, and that the habeas corpus petition was infructuous as the detenues referred to had been released. He assured the court that all metro stations had been open since 10 p.m. the previous night, that trains were running normally and that internet connectivity had been restored, and he sought time to take instructions on the insinuation that Section 163 BNSS had been invoked in and around the Supreme Court premises. Other counsel sought intervention, contending that fundamental freedoms must be exercised reasonably and be subject to reasonable restrictions.
The court recalled that its order dated 09.10.2026 had directed the authorities to revisit the notification closing 57 metro stations, observing that Metro and rail services may be regulated but not prohibited outright, to give wide publicity to the reconsidered decision, to issue fresh traffic advisories in newspapers and online platforms, and to file a compliance report within four days, that is, by 13.10.2026.
Holding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case, the court issued notice to the alleged contemnors, directing them to file a counter affidavit and a compliance report in terms of the earlier order by 13.10.2026, with their personal presence dispensed with in the meantime, and issued notice in the habeas corpus petition. It directed that the other unlisted mentioned petitions be served on the office of the Solicitor General during the day and tagged, along with the intervention and impleadment applications.
Noting the Solicitor General's submissions and assurance that lawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be impeded in the discharge of their professional duties, the court issued ad-interim directions that metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally unless they need to be regulated within the reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2), that free movement of people shall be ensured subject to law and order and traffic regulations, with the imposition of barricades reviewed forthwith, that internet facilities shall function unhindered, and that there shall be no illegal detention, particularly of peaceful unarmed assemblages beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.
It also directed the authorities to forthwith take down any notice board stating that Section 163 BNSS has been invoked in and around the Supreme Court precincts, so that there is no apprehension about ingress and egress to any court, and directed that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in any manner.
The matters were listed for further consideration on 13.10.2026.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Govind Mohan, Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 63801/2026, with Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 63858/2026
