The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and other authorities on a plea challenging the closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during student protests in July, alleging that the measure was illegal and disproportionate.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the petition while hearing it along with other pleas concerning the student protests.
The petitioner contended that there is no statutory provision authorising authorities to shut down a public utility merely to control protests. Advocate Sanjiv Narang, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the issue was not about the right to protest but the constitutional standards governing restrictions imposed on the public through the closure of essential public infrastructure.
Narang argued that the decision violated the doctrine of proportionality, particularly the requirement that restrictions affecting constitutional rights must be the least restrictive or invasive measure. The petitioner further submitted that no formal order had been issued directing the closure and that the decision was communicated through posts on X, with authorities citing only generic “security reasons”.
Citing the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, counsel argued that the law gives police no authority to shut down stations during protests. Asserting that police may regulate demonstrations but cannot order a public utility to close, Narang requested a standard operating procedure for future station closures.
Justice Bagchi, however, observed that regulation of movement during law-and-order situations is ordinarily undertaken by police authorities under applicable laws. The Bench questioned whether the impugned measures fell within the executive’s law-and-order powers.
The Court noted that judicial intervention in such matters is generally limited, with courts traditionally deferring to executive decisions concerning law and order. However, Justice Bagchi observed that judicial scrutiny could arise where the exercise of such discretion becomes disproportionate.
The Bench said it would examine how the executive discretion to shut the Metro stations was exercised in the particular circumstances before issuing any conclusion on the legality of the measures.
The Court also sought responses from the Delhi Police, the Delhi Government and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).
The post Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during student protests appeared first on India Legal.