New Delhi, October 15, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
Delhi Police have defended the restrictions imposed in the national capital ahead of the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, telling the Supreme Court that measures including Metro service regulation, a request for internet suspension and the removal of people from restricted areas were necessary and proportionate to maintain public order.
In an affidavit filed in response to contempt proceedings, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology but maintained that there had been no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the Supreme Court’s directions issued on October 9.
The affidavit said the preventive measures were based on intelligence inputs suggesting that people might assemble at Jantar Mantar despite the denial of permission for the proposed demonstration.
“The preventive measures undertaken on 10.10.2026 were based upon intelligence inputs and an assessment of the prevailing and ever changing ground situation, with the objective of preventing any disturbance of public order,” the affidavit stated.
The police chief said the regulation of Metro services, the request to the Centre to suspend cellular internet services and the erection of barricades were undertaken in good faith to maintain peace and prevent disruption in the national capital.
The affidavit was filed in response to contempt proceedings initiated by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who alleged that restrictions imposed ahead of the proposed protest violated the Supreme Court’s directions.
Explaining the rationale behind the action, the police said the authorities had to balance the right to protest with the rights of other citizens to carry on their daily lives peacefully. Potential threats to human life, public property and private property were also taken into account, it said.
Police cite previous protests and alleged violations
The affidavit referred to a protest on July 20, alleging that an organisation had violated the conditions imposed for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar and subsequently mobilised people to march towards Parliament without permission.
According to the police, permission had initially been granted for a one-day protest between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., subject to conditions requiring peaceful conduct, a limit on participants and no obstruction to public movement.
The police alleged that the organisers continued the protest for 36 days despite permission being granted for only one day. They further claimed that the gathering exceeded the permitted limit of 1,000 participants, with more than 35,000 people assembling.
The affidavit said protesters breached successive barricades despite repeated warnings, resulting in injuries to more than 240 police personnel, including women officers.
Delhi Police also cited demonstrations held on October 6, 7 and 8, claiming they caused severe traffic congestion in central Delhi and resulted in injuries to police personnel.
These incidents, the affidavit said, formed part of the assessment that led to the preventive measures imposed on October 10.
The police stated that they received information about the proposed protest on October 7. The competent authority rejected the request on October 9, citing public-order concerns and the organisation’s alleged previous conduct.
Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force, and intelligence inputs indicated that people might still gather at the proposed protest site despite the denial of permission.
The affidavit also referred to a communication issued by the Centre on October 9 to the Directors General of Police of all states and Union Territories, citing concerns over compliance with judicial directions and the potential for disruption, property damage and harm to the public.
Police defend removal of people from restricted areas
Defending the removal of individuals from restricted areas, the police chief said personnel exercised their powers under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and Section 172 of the BNSS only where prohibitory orders were in force and individuals resisted or disregarded lawful directions.
The affidavit claimed that those removed were released within a few hours, well before the maximum period of 24 hours contemplated under the law. They were neither kept in police lock-ups nor lodged in jails, it said.
Instead, they were accommodated in makeshift centres and allowed to leave once the circumstances necessitating their removal had ceased to exist. Political leaders who were removed were accommodated in police officers’ chambers and provided refreshments and meals, the affidavit added.
The police further argued that the national capital’s sensitive character and the presence of key institutions, including Parliament, the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhawan and foreign diplomatic missions, required special consideration while planning security arrangements.
Seeking discharge of the contempt notice issued against him, Commissioner Anurag Kumar urged the Supreme Court to consider the challenges faced by the police administration in maintaining security in the national capital.
He maintained that the measures were lawful, proportionate and guided by the need to protect people and property.
The affidavit concluded that timely preventive action had averted a major public-order situation and that the police commissioner had neither wilfully nor otherwise breached the Supreme Court’s directions.
FOLLOW NOW
