New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ordered Delhi government to remove the boards announcing Section 163 (prohibition on public movement) outside the court premises. It also barred Delhi Police from making more illegal detentions, following the mass arrests of thousands on Friday and Saturday.Police detentions began a day before the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.The court ordered the government to restart metro and train services and for internet facilities to remain undisturbed. It said people must be allowed to move freely and that traffic must be permitted to ply. It said journalists doing their duties cannot be detained or harassed.However, the court has also said that authorities must republish advisories on traffic and other issues after due reconisderation and sought a “compliance affidavit”.Police in Delhi falls under the jurisdicion of the Union home ministry.The decisions were delivered by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana has been hearing multiple pleas since Sunday morning.The top court heard all the petitions filed one by one, allowing the state time to respond. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union government and said the travel and internet restrictions had been removed and also that the detained persons had been released.An interesting discussion took place on the restrictions announced near the Supreme Court itself. Mehta said he was unaware of the imposition of Section 163 outside the court. “We don’t want S.163 imposed around Supreme Court. We were not aware of the order,” he said.Senior Advocate Gopal Shanakaranarayan said, “There’s a board outside Supreme Court which says 163 is in force on Bhagwan Dass Road.”Justice Bagchi said, “If you were not aware of the order, that’s good ground to [quash].”Mehta said, “I will have to take instruction.”Justice Bagchi said a while later, when another advocate brought up the issue, “We will take care of it.”Here is a look at all of the other cases and their status so far:1. Preventive detention of CJP leadersThe tone on Sunday was set by the hearing into the preventive detention of the top three in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leadership – Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka – after which its legal team approached the court seeking their release.Partial relief has been granted to the three by an executive magistrate’s court in Delhi. Special Executive Magistrate, South West District, Delhi Cantonement police station, has ordered the release of Dipke, Das and Ranka.They were picked up when the flight they were on landed in Delhi. They were on their way to join a protest their own outfit had called on Saturday morning when police boarded their plane and took them away.They were charged under Section 126 (security for keeping peace) and 170 (arrest to prevent commission of cognisable offences) of Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).All three were produced in court early on Sunday morning. It is worth mentioning that while Dipke was in police custody, his grandmother passed away, but he could not immediately leave to be with his family due to his detention.The provisions they were charged under give a magistrate the power to enforce a bond (legally binding committment) to ‘maintain the peace’ for up to a year and the latter (Section 170) gives police the power to make preventive arrests without producing a warrant.The court enforced the first provision, a magistrate’s powers, under Section 163, against all three in the group leading CJP, saying they must furnish bonds saying they will not breach the peace for a year. The preventive detention in confinement itself was not upheld.Both provisions survived the Union government’s de-c0lonising effort waged against the criminal law provisions.Nearly 2,500 protesters were detained across the capital on Saturday, as per the Delhi Police, LiveLaw reports, in addition to 1,000 arrested or detained the day before, across the country, to prevent protests against Kumar and the SIR.The estimates, however, vary, with some citing triple the number of detentions over Friday and Saturday.On Sunday afternoon, Dipke has announced that he is returning to his house in Maharashtra to attend the last rites for his deceased grandmother.The preventive detention, mass arrest and regular detention cases were also heard in the Supreme Court separately as a PIL.2. Challenge to mass arrests in Supreme CourtSo widespread were the detentions and arrests on Satuday that the Supreme Court scheduled a special sitting on Sunday to hear petitions related to them. Former chief ministers, students, journalists, lawyers and even passers-by were detained by thousands of Delhi Police officials on Saturday, all to prevent a protest.This petition has been moved by Rashtriya Janta Dal MP and Delhi University professor Manoj Kumar Jha. He moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent directions against the Delhi Police’s alleged illegal detentions, abductions and house arrests of unarmed protesters, student leaders, advocates, politicians and civilians.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Jha.Jha’s petition went to the root of the issue – Section 163 of the BNSS, which banned the presence of more than four people across central Delhi on Saturday.It also sought relief as an active participant of the protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. He has sought declaration of Delhi Police’s actions between October 9-10, including illegal detention, internet suspension, shutting down of metro/train services, disproportionate use of force as illegal.The petitioner argued, as per Live Law, that the Section 163 order was illegal and that the police played a partisan role in not taking action against armed goons who threatened and assaulted unarmed protesters on Saturday.The court has ruled that no illegal detention can take place of those peacefully gathering.Live Law reports:“Yesterday, we were one step away from Police State,” said Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, arguing on the same issue in court, “Kindly restore citizens’ right to protest peacefully in the capital. Yesterday, that right was destroyed,” he said.Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the situation is such that practicing lawyers cannot move around the city and that pictures circulated are self-explanatory.Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan referred to various screengrabs from videos and submitted that Section 163 had been imposed outside the Supreme Court as well.The court has instructed the Delhi Police to remove that board so that it does not appear as if the Supreme Court cannnot give citizens justice.Senior Advocate Sibal said that the police was picking up people from trains and anyone outside the 4 km radius of the Jantar Mantar area where Section 163 was imposed. He also said that there was suspension of internet in the area and that 45 metro stations remained shut despite the judicial order on Friday.Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that access to justice includes access to lawyers and if lawyers are prevented from doing their duties, it’s Supreme Court’s dignity that is directly impacted, Live Law also said.Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing as a petitioner in person (in her own case) said before the court, “45 detention centres reported as set up all across Delhi. Opposition leaders picked up. MPs barricaded into their houses. This is not just. Young people have decided to lawfully protest because they feel election system is not fair. Interim prayer is there. Constitution says in Art. 358 that Article 19 rights can be restricted when emergency is imposed. Is the State saying there is undeclared emergency?”Solicitor General Mehta said that the habeas corpus petition may not survive as those detained had been released.Justice Bagchi said, “Are advisories [being issued] by railway authorities? Please file your response to these petitions and compliance by Tuesday [October 13]. In the meantime, the metro functioning should continue in accordance with the normal schedule, subject to a public order condition envisaged under Art.19(2).“No advocate should in any way be hindered in discharging their professional duties. we are consciously saying ‘professional’. Internet facility to city has to be restored,” Justice Bagchi said.3. Contempt of court petitionThe Supreme Court had clearly said that the Delhi government and police’s clampdown on travel by metro within Delhi and the restrictions imposed on travel to Delhi by Indian Railways were sweeping and unjustifiable. Yet the restrictions remained in place – a petition had been filed against this as well.Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana also heard this petition. The court has issued notice to the contemnors to file affidavits and submit a compliance report.The outcome is that the Supreme Court bench has restored mobility in the NCR region, including in central Delhi, where thousands of police and other armed forces had gathered to prevent protests by blocking access to trains and metro services.The court directed that free movement in the city be permitted subject to traffic regulations. It further ordered that the imposition of barricades be reviewed forthwith, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions, reports Live Law.All the government departments at the NCR, state and Union level announced these restrictions throughout Friday and Saturday, including extensions of the bans.Also read: Relief to Protesters Unclear as Supreme Court Says No Complete Shutdown on October 10The contempt petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Live Law reports, and it says the authorities continued to close Delhi Metro stations and restrict train services despite the Supreme Court’s October 9 directions in M.A. Baby v. Union of India.Prasad’s plea sought contempt proceedings against Union home secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D. Thara for allegedly wilfully disobeying the court’s October 9 directions.4. Detention of political leadersThe court will also hear a habeas petition filed by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy against the detention of political leaders.Guruswamy’s Article 32 petition is listed to be heard by the special bench on Sunday. A short while ago, the court said it would hear all the petitions one by one, since there were many, and then come to the state.Her petition specificially refers to the detention of former chief ministers of Delhi, West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura CM and others.5. PIL against suspension of mobile internet servicesA Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the orders behind the sweeping bank on mobile internet access within a 4-km radius of the Janpath and Kartavya Path in central Delhi on October 9 and 10.It has been filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami.This is a developing story and is being updated.