The Supreme Court ruled on Sunday that gatherings of people exercising their right to peaceful assembly may not be subjected to unlawful detention. A two-judge bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also directed the central government to keep Delhi Metro services running and maintain uninterrupted internet access, within the limits of what public order may require.

The bench took up a contempt petition alleging that authorities had breached the court's October 9 order, which had prohibited any blanket suspension of metro and train services. Notice was issued to the Centre. The petition attributed the earlier service disruptions to a rally organised by the Cockroach Janta Party and directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The CJP and various student organisations had raised concerns about how the Election Commission had been conducting its operations, with the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls drawing particular scrutiny. Those concerns prompted a call for protest action.

Heavy police deployment at Jantar Mantar on Saturday brought a planned gathering to a halt. Authorities detained more than 7,000 people, a group that included CJP leader Abhijit Dipke, opposition representatives, and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.

Three directives were placed before Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: that Metro services continue on their regular timetable, that internet access remain uninterrupted within the bounds of the law, and that neither lawyers nor journalists face obstacles in carrying out their professional responsibilities.

The bench stated that its ruling on internet access leaves intact the statutory powers conferred by the Information Technology Act. The court also held that any detention of persons must follow the procedure established by law, a requirement extended specifically to the dispersal or confinement of gatherings in areas where Section 163 of the BNSS has been invoked.

A board posted near the Supreme Court premises carrying notice of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — a provision barring gatherings of five or more persons — was directed to be removed so that lawyers and members of the public could move freely to and from the courts.

Four senior advocates — Kapil Sibal, Menaka Guruswamy, Shadan Farasat, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan — placed before the court accounts of detentions on a broad scale, among them the holding of lawyers, the closure of approximately 45 metro stations, and what they described as the use of force against protesters who had gathered peacefully.

Mehta put forward the position that access restrictions covered only 15 per cent of the metro network and that the great majority of those detained had by then been freed. Additional petitions tied to habeas rights and allegations of unlawful force remained pending before the bench.

Three CJP figures — Abhijit Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, and Saurav Das — who had been held at Delhi airport on preventive grounds were brought before an executive magistrate and subsequently freed on Sunday morning. Each was released under a surety of Rs 50,000, with a court-imposed obligation to keep the peace and conduct themselves without incident over the following twelve months.

The CJP characterised the outcome as a legal win, pointing to the release of its members following a detention period of close to 24 hours. Delhi Police authorities maintained that the precautionary detentions had been conducted in keeping with established legal protocols.

Opposition parties announced a procession toward the Supreme Court building, disclosing their intentions ahead of Monday's demonstration. Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, representing the Opposition, brought a memorandum to a scheduled afternoon meeting with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The memorandum covered four demands: an end to voting irregularities that had been reported, the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, suspension of the SIR exercise, and a return to paper ballots.

Gandhi characterised the march as a gathering of ordinary citizens acting in common cause, stating that no single party could claim ownership of the movement. Kharge contended that the security arrangements pointed to the government's nervousness about youth-led protests and what he described as an informal state of emergency.

Indian National Congress party leaders alleged that police had deployed disproportionate force and had singled out journalists along with women taking part in the demonstrations. The CJP called for a fresh gathering at Jantar Mantar, even as a substantial police presence remained deployed across New Delhi, with security personnel paying particular attention to the area around the demonstration site.