Metro Curbs Despite Supreme Court’s Call for Regulation? Contempt Plea Alleges Defiance in Delhi
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Petitioner says station closures and train cancellations persisted after the court ruled out a complete transport shutdown ahead of the October 10 protest.
New Delhi, October 10, 2026 — a contempt petition has been moved before the supreme court alleging that restrictions on Delhi metro and railway services continued despite the court’s direction that transport should not be brought to a complete halt ahead of protests planned in the capital. the petitioner has asked the court to examine whether the authorities’ actions complied with its October 9 order. the allegations have not been adjudicated.
Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has sought contempt proceedings against union home secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi police commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi metro rail corporation (dmrc) chairperson D. Thara. the petition alleges wilful disobedience of the court’s directions and says continuing restrictions disrupted public life and caused hardship to commuters.
The Order at The Centre of The Dispute
the plea follows the supreme court’s October 9 order in M.A. Baby v. union of India, concerning transport restrictions announced ahead of the October 10 protest by the cockroach Janta party and opposition groups against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
a bench comprising chief justice of India Surya Kant and justices joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohanna considered notifications affecting metro stations and rail services.
the court distinguished between regulating transport and prohibiting it altogether.
it said there should be no complete prohibition on metro and train movement, while allowing authorities to adopt suitable, proportionate arrangements in the interests of security and public order.
it also called for the decision and relevant travel advisories to be given wide publicity, so commuters would not be left without clear information.
the contempt petition alleges that the subsequent measures did not satisfy that direction.
According to the plea, metro station entry gates remained shut and train services were cancelled or curtailed, notwithstanding the court’s insistence that operations be regulated rather than wholly stopped.
Petitioner Describes Conditions at Stations
Tripathi’s petition states that he visited GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya metro stations at about 9:30 p.m. on October 9.
It alleges that entry was barred at the stations while some gates were being used to permit passengers to leave. at GTB Nagar, the petitioner says, gate no. 2 was locked and other gates were closed or controlled.
The plea says he recorded video footage and is prepared to provide it with location information. these are assertions in the petition and have not been tested by the court.
the plea also refers to a dmrc advisory stating that entry and exit at affected stations would remain closed from 9 p.m. on October 9 until 6 p.m. on October 10, subject to security review.
The number of stations covered had reportedly been reduced from 57 to 45, but the petitioner contends that the revised restriction still amounted to an impermissible blanket curtailment.
Tripathi further says that, when he visited Jantar mantar and nearby areas later that evening, he saw police and paramilitary personnel but no gathering that, in his view, justified maintaining sweeping transport curbs.
The petition characterises the restrictions as disproportionate and says they left ordinary commuters including people travelling for work, education and essential needs to bear the consequences.
Relief Sought
as interim relief, the petitioner has asked the court to direct the authorities to withdraw blanket prohibitor measures affecting metro and railway operations and to ensure services run under a regulated schedule, with prompt public notice.
the court’s consideration of those requests, and any decision on whether contempt proceedings should follow, remain separate questions. the filing of a petition does not itself establish that the order was breached or that any official is guilty of contempt. the matter places before the court a question at the intersection of public safety and access to essential transport: whether the measures taken on the ground remained within the limits of regulation identified in the October 9 order. any determination of wilful disobedience will rest with the court.
