Petitioners challenge the alleged closure of 57 Metro stations and cancellation of long-distance trains ahead of the October 10 protest.
Kapil Sibal and other lawyers argue that the restrictions affect citizens’ movement and the right to peaceful protest.
The Supreme Court says it must balance protesters’ rights with public access to transport and essential facilities; the matter will be heard further at 2 pm.
Several petitioners on Friday moved the Supreme Court challenging the alleged closure of 57 Delhi Metro stations and cancellation of long-distance trains ahead of an October 10 protest in the national capital demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The matter was urgently mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. According to Bar and Bench, the petitioners contended that the restrictions on public transport and access to essential services were disproportionate and causing inconvenience to the general public.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for MP MA Baby, told the court that the alleged restrictions had severely affected movement across Delhi.
"All trains are cancelled. Metro stations are closed. You cannot move anywhere. Hotels are closed to people. Nizamuddin is closed. RWAs are being told that people cannot come out. What is happening to my country? This is a peaceful protest," Sibal said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also submitted that the entire city had been shut down, while senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that 57 Metro stations had been closed.
Sankaranarayanan argued that the right to peaceful protest was a fundamental right and that an entire city could not be shut down in anticipation of a demonstration.
Justice Bagchi said the right to association had to be exercised in accordance with the law, including applicable requirements for seeking permission. Sankaranarayanan countered that the protest was scheduled for the following day and that citizens were being affected by disproportionate preventive measures.
The bench said it would have to balance the rights of those seeking to protest with the rights of other citizens to access public transport and essential facilities.
"Before us is a document which appears to impose a blanket ban on certain common facilities relating to transport, access to other essential facilities and designated places. That definitely affects ordinary citizens," Justice Bagchi said.
Sibal argued that the measures amounted to an imbalance, while the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court not to reach any final conclusion at that stage.
Sibal also told the bench that the Indian Youth Congress had approached the Delhi High Court, which had declined an urgent hearing and listed the matter for Monday.
The Supreme Court said it would hear the matter further at 2 pm on Friday.
