India's Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a newly filed petition contesting restrictions placed on protest activity in Delhi, following arguments by advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan that police had acted with excessive force during demonstrations directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision process.
Sankaranarayanan told the court the petition addressed two distinct issues: the absence of any publicly accessible prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and a question over the constitutional validity of one of that provision's clauses. A three-judge panel — comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana — announced that the case, together with connected petitions, would come before the court on Tuesday.
A separate legal petition lodged by advocate Ashima Mandla on behalf of Samriddhi Das challenges two provisions of the BNSS — a prohibitory order dated 9 October issued under Section 163, and the validity of Section 172, which grants police authority to detain or remove individuals who do not comply with official directions. That petition also challenges restrictions on bus and rail services and mobile internet access put in place before the 10 October demonstration at Jantar Mantar, contending that those measures ran contrary to constitutional guarantees covering expression, peaceful assembly, and freedom of movement.
Sankaranarayanan informed the bench that senior advocate M.R. Farasat had been physically dragged through the streets, with two additional advocates held inside buses. He also stated that private individuals armed with sticks and lathis had attacked children — striking some in the head — while law enforcement did not intervene. Sankaranarayanan said he intended to present video footage of the disputed incidents to the court, and argued that the same standard of restraint being urged on defence lawyers ought, in his view, to apply equally to police.
Addressing legal practitioners and Bar members, the Chief Justice stated that peaceful gatherings at designated venues remained within their rights, while drawing a distinction between that entitlement and any activity that would turn the apex court into a venue for disorder.
In a separate development, A.A. Rahim — a Rajya Sabha member and national president of the Democratic Youth Federation of India — also filed a petition in the matter. The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, contended that DYFI members had been detained and beaten by police at Connaught Place on 11 October.
Rahim's petition states that demonstrators heading toward Jantar Mantar were forcibly loaded onto a bus at around 12.30 pm, transported to an isolated location, and subsequently moved into a police vehicle fitted with five separate compartments. According to the petition, those held in the vehicle were subjected to physical abuse before being transferred to Surajmal Stadium, where they remained until approximately 7.30 pm. Rahim further contends that arrest documentation was never drawn up, that the detainees received no explanation for why they were being held, and that no magistrate was presented with their cases.
Among the remedies the petition sets out are an independently conducted inquiry under court oversight, the preservation of surveillance footage and vehicle tracking data, the identification of personnel who took part, financial redress for those affected, and a framework of rules governing how detentions are handled during protest situations. The petition cites the Supreme Court's directions of 11 October, which addressed the detention of gatherings that were both peaceful and unarmed in locations where Section 163 of the BNSS had not been brought into operation.
Additional petitions connected to the unrest in the capital are also before the court, covering matters including contempt proceedings and applications for habeas corpus relief.
A bench of identical composition took up a separate petition on Monday concerning what the filing described as unilateral decisions by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the SIR exercise. At that hearing, the bench stated that the Election Commission's updated Form 6 for voter registration had received neither endorsement nor rejection from the court. Form 6 is the form submitted by first-time voter registrants. A revised version of the form has been rolled out across several states as part of the active SIR process.
The Supreme Court issued notices to parties behind petitions challenging the CEC's alteration of Form 6, with those petitions arguing the change ran contrary to established rules. The bench noted that during the court's adjudication of petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, the revised Form 6 had not yet been in existence and had not formed part of those proceedings.
The bench clarified that remarks attributed to the Chief Justice of India on 5 October — to the effect that the modified Form 6 had not received judicial endorsement — did not amount to any formal position by the court on that document, given that the matter had not at that stage been placed before it for consideration. Justice Bagchi further clarified that the absence of a ruling on the matter carried no implication of endorsement or rejection by the Supreme Court.
Counsel appearing on the new petition drew on the Chief Justice's remarks from 5 October to argue that the revised version of Form 6 had been introduced without any endorsement from the Supreme Court, citing the bench's own statement on that date that the form carried no approval from the court. A notice issued by the Election Commission had stated that the revised Form 6 had received clearance from the Supreme Court. The lawyer told the court that guidance on the matter was being sought, to which the Chief Justice replied that no application relating to the new Form 6 had been filed.
