New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Sunday (October 11) issued notices to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), railway authorities and the Delhi Traffic Police on a contempt plea alleging violations of its October 9 order on restrictions on transport and internet services in the capital during protests against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).The court sought affidavits and a compliance report from the authorities, as petitioners alleged that restrictions imposed during the October 10 protests had effectively shut down essential transport services and curtailed the movement of people.A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the allegations in the contempt petition made out a prima facie case and issued notice to the alleged contemnors, directing them to respond by Tuesday (October 13).The contempt petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, 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. The petition said that the Delhi Police’s actions amounted to an “intentional attempt to bypass and undermine the authority and majesty of this Hon’ble Court”.The 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.Justice Bagchi asked whether railway authorities had issued advisories to the public and directed them to file responses to the petitions and report on compliance with the court’s orders.“In the meantime, the metro functioning should continue in accordance with the normal schedule, subject to a public order condition envisaged under Article 19(2),” he said.The Wire has been reporting on the situation on Sunday, which, too, saw a large number of detentions.Petitioners allege transport shutdown, illegal detentionsThe petitioners alleged that Delhi Metro services were disrupted during the October 10 protests, while New Delhi Railway Station and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station remained closed. They also claimed that no traffic advisories had been issued and that people were subjected to harassment and illegal detention, including outside areas covered by orders issued under Section 163.A separate petition challenged the legality of the Section 163 order itself.The government had imposed restrictions on communication and transport services amid the protests. The petitioners also challenged arrests and detentions carried out on October 9 and 10, alleging that the restrictions extended beyond what was necessary to maintain public order.During Sunday’s hearing, the bench referred to allegations that the city had experienced a shutdown of internet services and transport, restricting the free movement of people and goods in areas far outside the so-called protest zone.“It was also contended that there was a complete shutdown of the internet and that the city bore a curfew-like look with suspension of transport and free movement of people and goods,” the bench observed.Court reiterates October 9 orderThe bench reiterated its October 9 order, which had drawn a distinction between regulating “essential services” and imposing a “total prohibition”.“It appears that the notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation,” the court had said in its earlier order, passed a day before the October 10 protest.Earlier on Sunday, the court had directed the authorities against illegal detentions following the mass arrests reported on Friday and Saturday. However, reports of continued detentions continued to arrive on October 11.Delhi Police falls under the jurisdiction of the Union home ministry.The court issued directions concerning the resumption of metro and railway services, the uninterrupted availability of internet facilities, the movement of people and vehicles and the protection of journalists covering the protest.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, told the court that the travel and internet restrictions had been lifted and that those detained had been released. He meant to say that the habeas corpus petition had become infructuous as a result. The court, however, served notice on that petition as well.Police detentions across the countryFormer chief ministers, students, journalists, lawyers and passers-by were among those reported to be detained by Delhi Police on Saturday, October 10, as the police sought to prevent protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the SIR.A petition challenging the detentions was filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal MP and Delhi University professor Manoj Kumar Jha. He sought urgent directions against Delhi Police’s “detentions, abductions and house arrests” of unarmed protesters, student leaders, advocates, politicians and civilians. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Jha.The petition challenged the restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which bars any gatherings of more than four people across parts of central Delhi on Saturday. It also sought a declaration that the police actions between October 9 and 10 – including alleged illegal detentions, internet suspension, the closure of metro and railway services and the disproportionate use of force – were illegal.According to LiveLaw, the petitioner also alleged that the police had acted in a partisan manner by failing to act against armed individuals who allegedly threatened and assaulted unarmed protesters.During the hearing on Sunday, the Supreme Court directed that people peacefully gathering should not be subjected to illegal detention. However, reports of journalists being detained by Delhi Police continued to emerge throughout the day.Habeas Corpus petitionThe court also heard a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy.Guruswamy told the bench that 45 detention centres had reportedly been set up across Delhi, opposition leaders had been picked up and MPs had been confined to their homes.“This is not just. Young people have decided to lawfully protest because they feel election system is not fair,” she said. She said the state must clarify based on its restrictions whether it was an Emergency in the country, since, as per Article 358 of the constitution, the restriction of Article 19 rights under that provision is tied to the proclamation of an Emergency.She noted that her plea was not confined to the individual political leaders named in it.“Dr Guruswamy forcibly contended that the prayer regarding illegal detention is not merely restricted to the personalities referred to therein but is a plea against widespread illegal detention of about 7,000 individuals in the city,” the court observed on Sunday.The court issued notices in the matter.Lawyers raise concerns over right to protestSenior Advocate Shadan Farasat urged the court to restore citizens’ right to protest peacefully in the capital. “Yesterday, we were one step away from Police State,” Farasat said, according to LiveLaw. “Kindly restore citizens’ right to protest peacefully in the capital. Yesterday, that right was destroyed.”Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the restrictions had reached a point where practising lawyers could not move freely around the city, adding that photographs circulating at the time spoke for themselves.Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that access to justice includes access to lawyers, and that preventing lawyers from performing their professional duties directly affects the dignity of the Supreme Court, LiveLaw reported.Sibal alleged that police were picking people up from trains and detaining individuals beyond the four-kilometre radius of the Jantar Mantar area where Section 163 restrictions had been imposed. He also alleged that internet services had been suspended in the area and that 45 metro stations remained shut despite the court’s earlier order.Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised the importance of allowing lawyers to work and restoring internet access.“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,” he said.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.All three were produced in court early on Sunday morning. Special Executive Magistrate, South West District, Delhi Cantonement Police Station, ordered their release.They had been charged under Section 126 (security for keeping peace) and 170 (arrest to prevent commission of cognisable offences) of Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) while coming to Delhi to attend their own protest call.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 charge, a magistrate’s powers under Section 126, against all three CJP activists, saying they must furnish bonds that they will not breach the peace for a year. The preventive detention was not upheld.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.The outcome until Sunday night 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 have gathered once again 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, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions, reports Live Law.Section 163 restrictions near Supreme CourtThe hearing also saw an exchange over the imposition of restrictions under Section 163 near the Supreme Court. Mehta said he was unaware that such an order had been imposed. “We don’t want Section 163 imposed around Supreme Court. We were not aware of the order,” he said.When several senior advocates informed the bench that a notice board had been placed outside the Supreme Court declaring that Section 163 was in force on Bhagwan Dass Road.“If you were not aware of the order, that’s good ground to [quash the order],” Justice Bagchi said.Mehta responded that he would have to take instructions.When Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised the issue again, Justice Bagchi said, “We will take care of it.”This is a developing story and is being updated.