Guwahati: Train and Metro services in Delhi must continue under appropriate restrictions rather than face a complete shutdown ahead of the October 10 protests called by the CJP and opposition parties against the Chief Election Commissioner, the Supreme Court directed the Centre on Friday.

The bench said any restrictions must be proportionate and should not leave commuters without transport. It also ordered the Centre to publicise its advisory through newspapers, websites and other channels to prevent inconvenience to the public.

The direction came as the court heard petitions filed by CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby and others challenging restrictions imposed ahead of the protests. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

The case was taken up after senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, AM Singhvi, N Hariharan and Vrinda Grover, among others, made an urgent request for a hearing.

Following the proceedings, the bench recorded that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had agreed to ask the authorities to reconsider a complete ban on train and Metro movement. The services should instead operate under suitable regulations, with the principle of proportionality guiding the decision, the court said.

The order also directed the authorities to decide how transport services could continue with necessary safeguards and make that decision public. It said a complete prohibition on train and Metro movement should not be imposed.

Much of the hearing focused on the effect of the restrictions on people who depend on public transport. Chief Justice Surya Kant told Mehta that the court was particularly concerned about Metro station entrances being closed entirely.

Commuters travelling from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi to earn their livelihood were among those affected, the Chief Justice said. He referred to students, working people and senior citizens who use public transport and said the court’s concern was their access to essential travel, not the protesters or any particular individual.

While the authorities could take steps to control disorderly movement, the Chief Justice said those measures should not bring the entire transport system to a halt. He observed that many people do not own cars or have access to private vehicles and depend on public transport for their daily journeys.

Mehta agreed to take up the court’s concerns with the relevant authorities.

Sibal then informed the bench that trains due to arrive at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10 had been suspended. He questioned whether this would also prevent a train from Kerala from reaching Delhi if it was scheduled to arrive during those hours.

The Chief Justice reiterated that the restrictions must be limited to what was necessary. Although the authorities might have acted out of caution, he said, they also had a duty to protect ordinary commuters, including women and senior citizens, while maintaining law and order.

Justice Bagchi referred to a notice announcing the closure of several Metro stations from 9 pm on Friday until further orders. He said reducing the frequency of services could be a reasonable regulatory measure, but shutting them down completely would go too far.

“Train services can be regulated, but they should not be stopped entirely,” Justice Bagchi said.

Mehta responded that a complete suspension could be proportionate in certain circumstances.

Opposing any advance shutdown, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh argued that services should not be suspended in anticipation of possible trouble.

Mehta rejected the petitioners’ suggestion that Delhi had effectively been shut down. He said the authorities had imposed proportionate restrictions following violence linked to the July 20 attempt by CJP protesters to march towards Parliament.

On the internet shutdown, the Solicitor General said it applied only to certain sensitive areas and would be reviewed based on security assessments. He also alleged that several women police personnel had been harassed and molested by protesters earlier in the week and asked the bench to examine video footage.

The judges clarified that they were examining only the restrictions on transport services in the present proceedings.

Grover also raised allegations that police personnel had visited mosques and advised people against joining the protests.

The court declined to consider that issue, explaining that the protest organisers were not parties to the case.