New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in July. The plea raises questions over whether authorities can shut down a public utility without specific legal powers or a formal order.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice on the petition. The court will examine whether the decision to close the stations was legally justified and proportionate.
The petition argued that the closures affected the rights of thousands of ordinary commuters and were not supported by any specific provision under the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act. The petitioner’s counsel said the public was informed about the closures through posts on social media platform X rather than through a formal government order.
The lawyer argued that while police authorities have the power to regulate protests and movement for maintaining law and order, they cannot order the shutdown of a public utility without statutory authority. The plea also sought a standard operating procedure (SOP) for dealing with Metro station closures during large-scale protests.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned whether an SOP could be treated as a mandatory legal requirement in every law-and-order situation. The bench observed that courts generally give authorities some discretion in such matters and intervene when the exercise of that discretion becomes disproportionate.
The court said it would examine how the executive authorities exercised their powers while deciding to shut the Metro stations.
The 17 stations were closed in central Delhi following heightened security concerns around the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. Stations including Rajiv Chowk, Patel Chowk, Central Secretariat, Mandi House, ITO, Delhi Gate, Indraprastha, Khan Market, Jor Bagh, Shivaji Stadium and Supreme Court were among those affected.
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation cited security reasons for restricting entry and exit at the stations, although interchange facilities remained available at some locations.
The closures caused significant inconvenience to office-goers, students, lawyers and other commuters, many of whom had to use alternative and often more expensive modes of transport.
The Supreme Court had earlier taken note of concerns over access to the court during the disruption. The Supreme Court Bar Association had raised the issue, prompting Chief Justice Kant to indicate that the matter would be addressed if the disruption continued.
The latest proceedings have now put the focus on the balance between public safety, administrative powers and the right of citizens to access essential public transport during protests. The Centre’s response is expected to clarify the legal basis for such closures and the limits of executive authority.
Reader Comments 0