Gridlock at the Gates of the Capital: Apex Court Hears Urgent Plea Over Train Cancellations, Metro Closures and Internet Curbs Ahead of October 10 Protests
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, October 9, 2026-The Supreme Court was moved on Friday against a sweeping set of restrictions in the national capital on the eve of the October 10 demonstration against the Chief Election Commissioner.
The protest was called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The petition challenges the cancellation of rail services into Delhi, the closure of metro stations and the suspension of internet access.
An urgent mentioning before the Chief Justice
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal made an unlisted, urgent mentioning before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought an immediate hearing. Describing the situation with evident alarm, he asked, in effect, what was happening to the country.
Sibal told the Bench that several trains due at New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations between 4 AM and 2 PM on October 10 had been cancelled.
He added that hotels had reportedly been told to stop accepting guests, and that 57 metro stations across Central, South, North, North-West, North-East and East Delhi were to be shut from 9 PM on Friday.
The Bench asks why the High Court was bypassed
The Chief Justice asked why the petitioners had not approached the Delhi High Court. Sibal answered that a similar plea by the Indian Youth Congress was already before that court, which had put the matter off until Monday.
The Bench then asked whom Sibal represented. He said he appeared for CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby, who is not himself an organiser of the protest.
Justice Bagchi’s caution: no permission, no protest
Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that no organiser had come before the Court and no permission to protest had been sought. A gathering without permission, the judge observed, would be unlawful, and participants could face prosecution.
He then signalled that the Court would be even-handed. It could restrain the curbs, he indicated, but it could equally restrain the gathering itself.
Proportionality and the rights of residents
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Delhi residents affected by the restrictions.
He argued that the Court must test whether the State’s measures were proportionate, and that restraining the gathering would not be a proportionate answer. He urged the Court to strike a balance between the two interests.
Singhvi paints a picture of an unprecedented security build-up
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi described the measures as unprecedented for the capital. He pointed to:
- 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces deployed
- 10 detention centres reportedly being readied
- regulation of train movements
- hotel platforms told to halt fresh bookings
- action against YouTubers
- media persons asked to carry identification
- a Delhi Police advisory urging people not to join the protest
Heavy barricading and a refused permission
Advocate Vrinda Grover told the Court that Delhi Police had refused permission to the CJP to hold its protest, though the party was not challenging that order.
She said permission had been sought only for a designated site, which was now so heavily barricaded that no one could reach it.
The Indian Youth Congress, she added, had gone to the Delhi High Court for permission, and that matter was listed for Monday.
The Chief Justice noted that this timing could leave part of the dispute infructuous, since the protest would have taken place by then.
Matter to return at 2 PM
Sibal and the other counsel agreed to return at 2 PM with fuller particulars, including a petition from an actual protest organiser. During the hearing, the Chief Justice floated the idea of asking the Delhi High Court to take up the matter the same day at 3 PM.
