Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to remove barricades across Delhi unless they were absolutely necessary, emphasising that the free movement of people and traffic must be restored amid restrictions imposed during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest on October 10.

A special bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also made it clear that people peacefully gathering cannot be subjected to illegal detention. The court directed that Metro and railway services should function normally, internet facilities should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law, and access to justice must not be obstructed.

The directions came while the court was hearing multiple petitions challenging police action during the CJP protest, including allegations of illegal detentions, restrictions on internet services and the closure of Delhi Metro stations.

The bench said barricades should be removed unless they were “absolutely warranted”, adding that restrictions on movement could be imposed only where justified by a public-order situation.

The court also directed authorities to remove the Section 163 notice board displayed outside the Supreme Court, stating that it should not create apprehensions among people about accessing justice.

During the hearing, the bench reiterated that citizens have the right to protest but must exercise that right within the framework of the law.

“You have a right to protest, absolutely no quarrel on that, but the process in which you protest has to be within the Police Act,” the court observed.

Justice Bagchi told the petitioner that the right to protest could not be treated as being beyond the scope of the Police Act.

The proceedings included a contempt petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which referred to the Supreme Court’s October 9 order concerning restrictions imposed on Metro services and train operations ahead of the planned CJP demonstration.

The earlier proceedings had addressed the closure of several Metro stations and the cancellation of trains to Delhi amid preparations for the protest.

During Sunday’s hearing, the bench said it would take the government’s assurance on record that Metro services had resumed and would operate normally unless a public-order situation necessitated restrictions. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) was also asked to provide a map identifying the stations that had been closed.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns about people allegedly being detained outside the designated protest area, including near railway stations. He also questioned the suspension of internet services and the closure of Metro stations, seeking interim relief from the court.

The bench acknowledged the concerns raised during the proceedings, with Justice Bagchi indicating that the court was not seeking to minimise the seriousness of the issues. He also referred to the need to restore Sibal’s faith in the judicial system after the senior advocate expressed frustration over repeatedly having to approach the courts for relief.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who alleged that he had been assaulted and detained during Saturday’s protest, argued that the matter extended beyond individual cases of detention and concerned the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also raised concerns over the alleged detention of political leaders, lawyers, journalists and ordinary citizens, arguing that the proceedings involved broader questions about the protection of constitutional rights.

Separately, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association approached the court over alleged police action against protesting lawyers. It sought an independent inquiry, preservation of CCTV footage and accountability for alleged excesses.

The Supreme Court is considering multiple petitions concerning the alleged illegal detention of protesters and political leaders, alleged assaults on lawyers and journalists, internet restrictions and the suspension of Metro services.

The bench also examined the contempt petition alleging that restrictions on Metro and train services had violated the court’s October 9 directions. Justice Bagchi questioned whether certain allegations could be considered within the contempt proceedings without a formal application.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the government during the hearing, which followed the detention of several CJP leaders and other protesters during Saturday’s demonstrations.

The court’s directions underscore the need to balance public-order requirements with citizens’ rights to peaceful assembly, free movement and access to justice. They also signal that restrictions imposed during protests must have a lawful basis and should not unnecessarily disrupt essential public services or prevent people from exercising their legal rights.