Centre, Delhi Police Defend Curbs, Actions During October 10 CJP Protest

The Central government and the Delhi Police have filed affidavits before the Supreme Court defending the restrictions imposed on October 10 in parts of the Capital in the wake of a protest call by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, in the Centre's affidavit, while offering an unconditional apology to the court, has defended the decision to suspend mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi on October 10 and has denied that the Centre wilfully disobeyed the court's directions.

In the affidavit filed on Wednesday, the Centre maintained that the temporary suspension of internet services was necessary to prevent a disturbance of public order and constituted a proportionate response to the prevailing circumstances.

Read | 'No Trains Cancelled During Protest': Delhi Metro To Supreme Court

On October 9, the Supreme Court intervened in the matter of restrictions placed on public transport ahead of the protest. The court directed the authorities to ensure that there was no complete prohibition on the movement of Delhi Metro trains and other trains entering the national capital, while allowing the regulation of services wherever necessary to maintain public order.

Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with the court's directions.

During a special hearing on October 11, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D Thara, seeking their responses to the allegations.

Read | A Step Behind Neha Bora: What Rahul Gandhi's Gesture Says About Congress' Gen-Z Pitch

In its counter-affidavit, the Centre said the decision to suspend mobile internet services was taken following a request from the Delhi Police, which had apprehended a possible law-and-order situation during the proposed demonstration.

The Centre argued that the internet was suspended only from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10. The internet suspension was limited to a 4 km radius around Raisina Hill.

Photo Credit: NDTV

The affidavit also referred to the Delhi Police's experience during a similar episode on July 20.

It maintained that the decision was not a wilful violation of the Supreme Court's directions and sought relief from the contempt proceedings initiated against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in connection with the restrictions imposed during the protest.

In his separate affidavit filed late on Wednesday night, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar informed the Supreme Court that permission was denied for the CJP protest in the wake of violation of conditions and violence during the earlier protest on July 20.

"The police force cannot permit any organization to disrupt law and order... if that organization was allegedly linked to incidents of mob violence, damage to property, and injuries to people during the July 20 protest," the affidavit stated.

It further maintained that taking the protesters into preventive custody was necessary to maintain law and order. Calling the measures "proportionate", the Delhi Police chief said they were essential steps taken to uphold public order.

Read | Accused Of Sex Abuse During Protest, Delhi Cop Files Case Against Journalist Under SC/ST Act

Referring to the July 20 protest by the CJP, the affidavit pointed out that the organisers had committed to 1,000 protesters, but over 30,000 protesters gathered and a serious law-and-order situation arose.

Photo Credit: PTI

In the affidavit, the Delhi Police claimed that the protest organisers violated the prescribed conditions and mobilised people to march toward Parliament.

The affidavit also stated that during the July 20 protests, police personnel were attacked by the crowd and that about 240 men and women on duty were injured. Citing the protests that took place on October 6, 7, and 8, the affidavit noted that these events also led to issues concerning law and order and traffic.

According to the affidavit, buses used to transport detained protesters were vandalised, and their tyres were damaged.

On the issue of permission for the October 10 protest, the police have stated that the CJP had merely provided notification regarding a protest at Jantar Mantar scheduled for October 10, but had not submitted a formal application seeking permission.

Police have also maintained that restrictions on metro services were a precautionary measure. According to the police, there are a total of 303 metro stations in Delhi, and the restrictions were limited to only about 15 per cent of the network.

Asserting that the police did not wilfully violate the Supreme Court order and that the actions were in accordance with the law and to maintain public order, it has requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the contempt notice.

The PIB-Ministry of Home Affairs later clarified that the apology was procedural.

"Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter all other facts and arguments are presented. This is mandatorily followed in every contempt petition," it wrote on X.

"Following this practice, the first paragraph of the affidavits filed by the Home Secretary,  Commissioner of Police, and other concerned officials complied with this requirement. Thereafter,  detailed particulars in the affidavit have been furnished, by which it has been clearly established that all actions taken by the Government and the Police are fully compliant with the law, and no case of contempt is made out against them," it added.