Delhi Police Imposed Strict Movement Bans Weeks Before Anti-CEC Protests Erupted
Seven separate prohibitive orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) restricted free movement across the national capital well before crowds gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Delhi Police Commissioner submitted these foundational orders in an affidavit to the Supreme Court, revealing that six of the directives were issued on August 20, 2026, or immediately around that date, following July 20 protests against alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leaks that turned violent in the New Delhi district. One specific restriction runs from September 26 to November 24, with each order carrying a maximum 60-day lifespan valid through late October. Issued ex-parte without hearing objections, the police stated that individual notices could not be served to everyone concerned.
Security Rationale and Jurisdiction Breakdown Across Central Zones
Official police reports warned that unrestricted public gatherings, processions, and demonstrations threatened to obstruct traffic, endanger human safety, and shatter public tranquility, necessitating speedy preventive measures. These seven administrative orders blanketed vital sub-divisions including Connaught Place, Tughlak Road, Parliament Street, and Chanakya Puri—housing the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the Prime Minister’s residence, and foreign embassies—alongside Barakhamba Road, Defence Colony, and Safdarjung Enclave in south-west Delhi. The orders prohibited public meetings, processions and demonstrations in the covered areas.
Supreme Court Scrutiny Over Mass Detentions and Transit Shutdowns
The police chief’s affidavit reached the apex court in defense against numerous petitions filed by political figures and advocates—including A.A. Rahim, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi—challenging the en masse detention of roughly 7,000 protesters, students, journalists, and lawyers on October 10 and 11. Petitioners argued that these crackdowns violated the rule of law during demonstrations demanding the CEC’s resignation. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by counsel Chand Qureshi, contended that the resulting shutdown of vital public transport systems, including the Delhi Metro, directly breached an October 9 Supreme Court directive ordering authorities to avoid inflicting hardship on ordinary commuters through blanket bans.
Balancing Fundamental Rights and Daily Commerce at Jantar Mantar
As the legal battle unfolded, the Supreme Court addressed separate pleas concerning the economic toll of prolonged demonstrations. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard trader organizations demanding compensation and restrictions on festive-season protests, noting that public spaces cannot be held indefinitely. You can’t occupy a site at all times. Where will farmers, journalists, etc., go? Everyone has the right to protest. Designated time must be given for designated period,
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta maintained that protest organizers must bear responsibility for public disruptions, noting that the July 20 march toward Parliament lacked proper authorization. Meanwhile, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar defended the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, pointing to committee recommendations designed to protect the security and uninterrupted functioning of nearby constitutional landmarks.
More on Supreme Court
The Delhi Police Commissioner submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 3, 2026) that Jantar Mantar is not a “site” but a “public road”. He said no one can insist on a fundamental right to protest at a particular place and the State can shift venues of protest to other…
Worth a look
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.