Supreme Court hears urgent petition over Delhi shutdown ahead of CJP protest

The Supreme Court on Friday took up an urgent petition challenging a sweep of Delhi restrictions set for the Oct 10 rally organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing CPI(M) general secretary MA Baby, listed cancellations of all trains to the capital, the shutdown of 57 metro stations, a temporary internet block and a ban on hotel bookings as the measures he is contesting. He noted that the New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations will be closed from 4 a.m. to 2 p.m. the next day, and that Howrah, Shalimar and Rajdhani Express services have also been pulled. Sibal asked the bench to hear the matter alongside other pending CJP‑related issues, calling the curbs “a crackdown for Delhi on October 10.”

Reaction

The three‑judge bench – Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymlaya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana – queried why the petitioners had not first approached the Delhi High Court. They noted a similar plea from the Indian Youth Congress was pending there. Justice Bagchi pressed on the lack of an identified protest organiser, warning that a gathering without permission could be illegal. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the scale of the security response – 221 CAPF companies, ten planned detention centres and extensive transport bans – required a proportionality review. Advocate Vrinda Grover said Delhi Police had denied the CJP permission to protest, while the Youth Congress had sought a designated site, adding that heavy barricades might render the demonstration ineffective. The chief justice suggested the High Court could be asked to hear the case at 3 p.m., and the lawyers agreed to return at 2 p.m. with further details and a formal plea from an organiser.

Context

India’s election watchdog often faces protests over its independence; curbing movement and services before a demonstration raises questions about balancing security with civil freedoms.