A court order handed down on a Sunday barred the detention of peaceful demonstrators without legal justification, directed Metro and rail services to restore normal schedules, protected freedom of movement for the public, and required uninterrupted internet access — each of these provisions subject to any restrictions lawfully established for the preservation of public order.

A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana convened in a special sitting to hear a petition contending that Delhi Police and associated authorities had disregarded the court's directions of October 9 by placing restrictions on public transport and detaining a large number of people — among them Opposition leaders, lawyers, and students — during Saturday's demonstrations over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Operating hours for Metro and rail services were to continue without interruption, the bench ruled, unless a genuine threat to public order made restrictions warranted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The directive required unhindered passage for people to move about under applicable legal provisions, while authorities were directed to examine existing barricades without delay, weighing both public order and the flow of traffic.

Detention carried out without the backing of legally established procedure amounts to an unlawful act, the bench stated, with the observation directed particularly at assemblies in locations falling outside the scope of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bench further noted that gatherings held outside designated zones were to be permitted to proceed, provided they remained within the bounds of applicable law.

The bench additionally ordered that any notice board proclaiming the enforcement of Section 163 BNSS within and around the Supreme Court's precincts be taken down where this had not yet occurred, holding that unobstructed access to justice for citizens and lawyers depended on it. Justice Bagchi noted that the court carried a constitutional obligation under Article 32 to uphold and give effect to fundamental rights.

Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal put forward the position that no statutory enactment could strip away the right to protest, and that any restriction on fundamental rights under Article 19 found its constitutionally recognised footing in the ground of public order alone. No prior approval or formal permission, he contended, stands as a prerequisite for any person wishing to exercise the right to protest.

The bench noted that any demonstration or act of protest is to follow the steps and requirements set out under the applicable procedure.

Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal told the court that an associate had been placed in a police vehicle, driven roughly nine kilometres, and then left at a point around eleven kilometres from the original location. Counsel put forward that court access had been withheld from her, with officers on the scene carrying no identification and no explanation for her detention having been provided.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who stated he was detained and subjected to physical force at Saturday's protests, described conditions as restrictive, adding that individuals were being loaded into vehicles and removed from streets despite standing without aggression. He framed the matter as one touching every citizen's freedom to demonstrate, rather than a professional entitlement confined to members of the legal profession.

Testimony before the court indicated that a number of legal practitioners, among them holders of senior advocate status, had been held outside the boundaries of the area set aside for protests. Petitioners alleged that force had been deployed against protesters, students, and others who had assembled peaceably, with detentions across Delhi and the National Capital Region tallying in the thousands.

Representing the Centre before the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta put forward the position that a large proportion of those detained had been set free within hours of their detention, and that this fact rendered the habeas corpus petition potentially moot.

Of the 4,157 Metro train trips on the schedule for October 10, every one ran as planned, though passengers found entry and exit unavailable at 45 of the network's 303 stations. Justice Bagchi called for a map distinguishing which stations remained open from those that were shut down, directing the Centre to produce it so the bench could assess how far the restrictions had affected public access.

Mehta gave assurances that there would be no interference with the professional work of lawyers, journalists, and others carrying out their duties.

A contempt petition brought the matter before the court, which responded by issuing notices to the relevant authorities and directing that sworn affidavits be filed explaining the Metro closures, together with a formal compliance report on its earlier order. The case was scheduled to return before the court on Tuesday.

Justice Mohana called upon protesters to give assurances that any gatherings would be conducted without violence and would not serve to provoke others into unrest.