Supreme Court orders protest footage preserved, asks police for the prohibitory orders

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the police and every other agency involved to preserve CCTV footage and other digital material from the protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and told Delhi Police to put on record the prohibitory orders it used to bar gatherings in the capital.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government and Delhi Police on the batch of petitions over the detentions of protesters, lawyers and journalists since 10 October. It also issued notice on a petition challenging Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which lets police detain or remove people who disregard their directions.

The pile of cases has grown fast. With 46 matters now before the court, the Chief Justice asked lawyers to hold back. “We make an earnest appeal to the members of the Bar not to file more petitions,” he said. The bench asked the Solicitor General’s side and the petitioners to each name a nodal counsel to bring the overlapping issues together.

The missing order

A large part of the hearing turned on a document the petitioners had never seen. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who has filed a habeas corpus plea over the detention of political leaders, said the affidavit of the Delhi Police Commissioner left out both the Section 163 orders and the number of people detained.

Justice Bagchi remarked that the lawyers were “arguing against a ghost”, since the complaint was that the order had never been placed on record. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said none of the lawyers had seen it. The court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file the promulgated orders with the authorities’ further affidavits.

In its affidavit, the police defended the restrictions on grounds of public order and the 18th BRICS Summit. It said some orders that reached beyond the protest area were later withdrawn in line with the court’s directions of 11 October. The orders covered New Delhi district before the 10 October protest and barred assemblies of five or more people, processions and dharnas without written permission.

Apologies and contempt

In the contempt case over the closure of Metro stations on 10 October, Mehta argued that the unconditional apology tendered by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan did not stop the government from defending what it had done, and that an apology was part of the procedure. The bench said it was not going by media reports that the authorities had apologised. Delhi Metro chairperson D Thara had offered her own apology in an affidavit on Wednesday.

Jantar Mantar

The court declined to pass an urgent order on the removal of Jantar Mantar from the list of protest sites but sought a response from the authorities. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the de-notification was “purportedly” based on the court’s own directions. Mehta disagreed: a committee had been set up earlier to look at alternative protest sites and had submitted a detailed report, he said.

Justice Bagchi asked whether physical closeness to the seat of power still mattered in an age of technology. Senior advocate N Hariharan replied: “Going by this logic, one can protest from Kerala.” Senior advocate Mukta Gupta argued that the right to protest could not be cut down.

The court also issued notice to the Congress and Rahul Gandhi on a plea over the INDIA bloc’s march to the court, and on the bloc’s petition against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.