The Central government has filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court defending its decision to suspend mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi during the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The Centre denied that it had wilfully disobeyed the court's directions and sought discharge of the contempt notice issued to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan.

What the Centre's Affidavit Says

Filed on Wednesday, 15 October, the counter-affidavit maintained that the temporary suspension of mobile internet services was necessary to prevent a disturbance of public order and constituted a proportionate response to the prevailing circumstances. The Centre argued that the internet was suspended only from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10, and was limited to a 4 km radius around Raisina Hill.

The government stated the decision was taken following a request from the Delhi Police, which had apprehended a possible law-and-order situation during the proposed demonstration — particularly after organisers announced their intention to proceed despite being denied permission. The affidavit also cited the Delhi Police's experience during a similar episode on 20 July 2026 as part of the justification for imposing preventive restrictions.

The Centre's Plea for a Modified Court Order

Beyond defending the shutdown, the Centre has sought a modification of the Supreme Court's existing order to permit suspension of internet services in situations where such a measure becomes necessary — provided the decision is taken in strict compliance with the law and applicable statutory safeguards. Critics argue this could set a broader precedent for future restrictions on digital access during protests.

Background: The October 10 Protest and Court Intervention

The dispute arose amid extensive security restrictions imposed across the national capital ahead of the October 10 demonstration called by the CJP. The party had planned to protest against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed gathering, citing the short notice given by the organisers.

On October 9, the Supreme Court intervened in the matter of restrictions placed on public transport ahead of the protest. The court directed authorities to ensure there was no complete prohibition on the movement of Delhi Metro trains and other trains entering the national capital, while allowing regulation of services wherever necessary. The court also emphasised that security arrangements should not cause undue hardship to members of the public, and directed authorities to widely communicate decisions on transport services.

Contempt Proceedings and Key Respondents

A contempt petition was subsequently filed alleging non-compliance with the court's directions. During a special hearing on October 11, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D. Thara, seeking their responses to the allegations.

The Centre's counter-affidavit maintained that its actions did not constitute a wilful violation of the court's directions and sought relief from the contempt proceedings initiated against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan. The Supreme Court is yet to rule on the Centre's plea for modification of its earlier order.

What Happens Next

The matter is now squarely before the Supreme Court, which must weigh the government's public-order justification against constitutional protections for access to communication and the right to peaceful protest. The outcome — particularly any ruling on the Centre's plea to modify the court's existing order — could have significant implications for how internet shutdowns during protests are regulated across India going forward.