New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Sunday issued notices to the Centre and Delhi Police in a contempt of court plea over restrictions imposed in Delhi amid the ongoing CJP protest. The court has sought their replies by Tuesday and issued interim directions to prevent disruption to public movement, internet services and access to courts.
The court emphasised that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must be able to move freely and safely while carrying out their work. It also directed the authorities to ensure that internet services remain undisturbed and that public movement is regulated in accordance with public order.
The directions come amid restrictions and detentions linked to protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
What Did The Supreme Court Say About Internet And Public Movement?
The court directed the government to ensure that internet services remain uninterrupted. It also stressed that the movement of the public should not be obstructed, subject to maintaining public order.
The interim directions seek to ensure that restrictions imposed in the name of security do not unnecessarily affect daily life or prevent people from accessing essential services and carrying out professional responsibilities.
What Did The Supreme Court Direct About Barricades?
The Supreme Court asked the authorities to review the positioning of barricades, keeping public safety and the smooth movement of people in mind.
The direction comes after security restrictions were imposed in parts of the national capital amid the protests. The court’s observations underline the need to balance security arrangements with the public’s ability to move through the city.
What Did The Court Say About Section 163 Of BNSS?
The court said there should be no illegal detention, particularly beyond areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) have been imposed.
It also emphasised the position of peaceful protesters, signalling that preventive restrictions should not become a basis for unlawful detention.
Section 163 empowers the competent authority to issue urgent preventive orders in situations involving potential threats to public safety or public order. Its application does not, by itself, remove the need for authorities to act within the law.
Why Did The Supreme Court Ask Authorities To Remove Section 163 Notices Near Courts?
The court directed the authorities to remove Section 163 BNSS notices displayed around the Supreme Court or other courts of law so that people do not apprehend restrictions on access to justice.
The direction highlights the importance of ensuring that security measures do not discourage or prevent lawyers, litigants and other members of the public from approaching courts.
What Happens Next In The Contempt Plea?
The Centre and Delhi Police have been asked to respond by Tuesday. The interim directions address movement, internet connectivity, barricading and detention while the matter proceeds.
The court’s notice seeks responses to the contempt plea; it should not be treated as a final finding that the authorities are guilty of contempt.
