NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Friday ordered govt not to stop Delhi metro services and trains heading to the capital on Saturday due to law and order “concerns” related to the anti-SIR protest planned by CJP, but said public transport services could be regulated depending on how the situation unfolds.
Responding to a plea challenging govt’s decision on metro and train operations, a CJI-headed bench said it would inconvenience people dependent on public transport, and secured an assurance from the solicitor general that there would be no blanket ban on movement of metro and trains reaching Delhi Saturday.
The hearing saw the SC bench drive home their concern about proportionality by using the popular Hindi expression on using a hammer to swat a fly. Cautioned by SG Tushar Mehta that his remark could be misinterpreted, the bench clarified that they did not use the expression literally.
SC: Issue a traffic advisory so that people don’t suffer
In terms of that assurance, we direct competent authorities to allow plying of metro and trains in an appropriately regulated manner so as not to inconvenience public at large, and such decision may be given wide publicity to ensure citizens are aware of availability of the services,” said the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
“Similarly, appropriate traffic advisory is issued in newspapers and websites to enable people to avoid roads which are blocked and undertake travel inside the city. ”
The bench focused on inconvenience likely to result from closure of public transport, and whether such a prohibition was required. Mehta had defended the suspension of operations by terming it a regulated response to what he called an “emerging law and order situation”.
The urgent hearing that was allowed out of turn was marked by the absence of any challenge to Delhi Police’s denial of permission to CJP to hold an agitation against Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
“The only issue before us is whether the complete stoppage of metro and movement of trains requires reconsideration,” the judges told a team of senior advocates led by Kapil Sibal, who had sought the hearing.
It was at 11.45am that the team of advocates made the mention in the interlude between two listed case hearings to complain that citizen’s fundamental right to peaceful protest was being strangled by orders of police and railways to shut down metro and rail services to Delhi.
“How can this happen in our country,” Sibal asked and said he was appearing for CPM MP MA Baby.
He was joined by senior advocates A M Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover, Nithya Ramakrishna, N Hariharan and G Sankaranarayanan.
The bench agreed to hear them but said someone from CJP, which has planned the protest, should appear.
They held the urgent hearing despite CJP and other organisers of the protest not turning up at 2pm as promised by Sibal and the other advocates.
SC asked Sibal and other counsel that “are any of you appearing for any of the organisers of the protest Saturday? Is Baby an organiser of the protest?”
Sibal said his client was not an organiser.
The bench asked have they sought permission to hold a protest.
Bhushan responded they had sought permission much before but it was denied Friday morning.
SC said the organisers needed to challenge the order of denial.
“No doubt the right to form an association is a fundamental right, but that right must be exercised as per law. Once police deny permission, it needs to be challenged in court,” it said.
“What is the ground reality with regard to protest? If it is with permission, it is a lawful protest. If it is not with permission, it is not in accordance with law. Even if it is not in accordance with law, we do not say people do not have a right to protest. But they are at the pain of prosecution,” the bench said.
SG intervened to say CJP had in July sought permission to hold a day-long protest against the leak of NEET-UG papers, but stayed put at Jantar Mantar for 20 days.
The bench kept its focus on the responsibility of organisers.
“If we know who the organisers are, we can ask them what is the expected number of participants in the protest. We can regulate that and call upon the state to calibrate their responses not in a broad-spectrum way like complete stoppage of metro and rail service. But you say Baby is not an organiser,” the bench said.
Sibal said, “I can come with an organiser, but the court will say where is the order. By that time Oct 10 will be over. Allow us to represent an organiser and hear us at 2pm.”
However, at 2pm, none of the organisers turned up.
‘Jantar Mantar as protest site needs to change’
During the hearing, govt agreed with Sibal and other lawyers that the designated protest site needs to be changed from Jantar Mantar to somewhere else.
SG Mehta informed SC that he agreed with their suggestions that govt soon take a decision to identify a designated protest venue instead of Jantar Mantar.
The CJI-led bench said, “Govt and parties are agreeable to the suggestion that it is high time to identify and designate a proper protest site, instead of Jantar Mantar.... The competent authorities would consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision.”
