Supreme Court Orders Removal of Barricades and Restoration of Internet Services in Delhi
The Supreme Court has directed the removal of barricades and restoration of internet services in Delhi amid protests against police restrictions.
New Delhi, October 11 (Daily Kiran) : The Supreme Court has issued a directive to remove barricades and restore internet services in New Delhi following a special hearing on Sunday. This decision comes amidst protests organized by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) against restrictions imposed by the Delhi police. The court emphasized that internet services should not be interrupted and that traffic regulations must ensure free movement.
Petitioners approached the Supreme Court in response to the Delhi police’s actions on Saturday, which involved detaining protesters and several opposition leaders, including former chief ministers, demonstrating against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
During the hearing, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan instructed that metro and rail services should operate normally, internet services must continue without disruption, and the movement of people and traffic should be permitted.
The court mandated that metro and rail operations remain unaffected unless a disturbance in law and order necessitates restrictions. It also ordered an immediate review of the decision to install barricades, taking into account the current law and order and traffic situations.
Additionally, the Supreme Court instructed officials to remove signage related to Section 163 around the court premises to eliminate any barriers to access, ensuring that individuals can reach the courts without hindrance.
The court asserted that there should be no illegal detentions, emphasizing that actions must align with the law. The bench instructed that peaceful, unarmed gatherings outside the boundaries of Section 163 should not be subjected to police action.
After hearing all parties and reviewing statements regarding the contempt petition, the court issued notices to those in contempt. It requested affidavits in response to the contempt petition and directed compliance reports in line with its orders. The court also noted that other non-listed petitions mentioned would be combined with the contempt proceedings.
