Judge unwell, Supreme Court defers hearing on Delhi protest crackdown till Thursday

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to October 15 a clutch of petitions challenging alleged detentions, assault of protesters and sweeping restrictions on public transport ahead of a demonstration demanding chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, as one of the judges on the bench was unwell.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, deferred the batch of around a dozen petitions after both sides agreed to an adjournment to enable Justice Mohana to recover. The court also granted Delhi Police and other authorities time until Wednesday evening to file their responses to notices issued in contempt proceedings alleging disobedience of its earlier directions.

The bench said fresh petitions could also be taken up on Thursday, provided their filing defects were cured. It remains unclear whether a separate petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders, challenging alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), would be heard alongside the batch.

Also read | 'Don't drag Supreme Court into politics': CJI Surya Kant amid Delhi protests row

The adjournment comes amid mounting legal scrutiny of the police action against protesters in Delhi and restrictions imposed ahead of Saturday’s demonstration called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other political groups over alleged irregularities in the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

On Sunday, a special bench of justices Bagchi and Mohana directed that peaceful, unarmed protesters could not be detained except in accordance with the “procedure established by law”. It also ordered that metro and railway services operate normally, internet connectivity remain undisturbed and free movement be restored, subject to lawful restrictions. The bench further directed authorities to remove notices imposing prohibitory restrictions around the Supreme Court and other court complexes to prevent any apprehension about access to justice.

Also read | Supreme Court stresses due process as detentions continue; Opposition and CJP vow to press on with protests in Delhi

The directions followed allegations that sweeping restrictions had been imposed on public movement, protesters had been detained beyond areas covered by prohibitory orders and the city had witnessed a curfew-like situation. Petitioners also alleged that authorities had failed to comply with an earlier order directing them to reconsider proposed restrictions on metro and railway services rather than shutting them down outright.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, disputed the allegations, maintaining that metro services had operated normally, 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 file affidavits explaining the circumstances in which protesters were detained, the manner of their detention and the legal justification for the action.

Explained | SC order on Delhi protest crackdown: Why ‘procedure established by law’ matters and what it means

The court’s intervention came against the backdrop of concerns raised by lawyers over alleged police excesses, including the detention and manhandling of senior advocates. During Sunday’s hearing, senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), described the situation in Delhi as suppressive, while senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that lawyers, students, women and children had been pushed, shoved or assaulted during the crackdown.

On Monday, CJI Kant cautioned lawyers against allowing the Supreme Court to be drawn into the political contest surrounding the protests, while making clear that the court had no objection to democratic activities conducted at designated places.

“There should not be any obstruction in the functioning of the Court. There should not be any impediment in the movement of the lawyers, their clerks, court staff or litigants,” he told Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Pradeep Rai, who sought the listing of a fresh petition concerning the alleged detention of lawyers and suspension of internet services.

Also read | CJI steps in as Delhi Police detain lawyers, women advocates outside top court

“I have appealed to the protesters as well but court should not be dragged into any politics,” the CJI said, reiterating that the functioning of the court must remain unaffected.

The developments unfolded alongside the Opposition’s legal challenge to the ECI’s functioning. Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and nine other INDIA bloc leaders personally appeared at the Supreme Court on Monday to file a petition seeking an independent, time-bound inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Kumar, besides a suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise pending the inquiry.

However, the petition will not be heard on Tuesday after the Supreme Court registry flagged 14 defects, including a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine petitioners. The petitioners’ legal team has sought listing on Wednesday after curing the defects.

Among those whose vakalatnamas were missing were Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.

The petition alleges that decisions concerning the electoral process, including the June 2025 decision to undertake the SIR, were taken unilaterally by the chief election commissioner despite objections from fellow election commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It seeks the production of files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections relating to the disputed decisions, arguing that the alleged exercise of collective powers by a single member raises questions about compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.