The Supreme Court on Sunday, 11 October 2026, orally observed that while citizens' right to protest is beyond dispute, the manner in which demonstrations are held must comply with the Police Act — underscoring that fundamental rights cannot be exercised in isolation from the procedure prescribed by law. The remarks came during an urgent hearing into contempt petitions alleging violations of the court's earlier directions on public transport restrictions and movement of people in New Delhi ahead of a proposed demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

What the Court Said

A bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana stated plainly: 'You have a right to protest, absolutely no quarrel on that, but the process in which you protest has to be within the Police Act.' Justice Bagchi further indicated that the apex court would examine the extent to which the Police Act's requirements are in sync with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. The bench made clear that protesters cannot claim their right to demonstrate operates beyond the Police Act's framework, while reiterating that the process of holding a demonstration must conform to the law.

Arguments Before the Bench

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) could not be invoked beyond the four-kilometre area covered by the prohibitory restrictions. He contended that there could be no detention, obstruction to traffic, or barricading outside the notified area, and that citizens should be permitted to hold peaceful protests even within the restricted zone, subject to public order. Sibal also maintained that citizens were entitled to protest without being required to submit a prior application to authorities, as a designated demonstration site was available. He further argued that no police law could override the protections guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), subject only to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, objected to the petitioners' submissions.

Key Directions Issued

In its order passed on Sunday, the Justice Bagchi-led bench directed authorities to ensure that Metro trains and railway facilities function normally, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), and that internet services remain unhindered. The court also directed that the free movement of people be ensured, subject to law and order and traffic regulations, and that barricades on roads be reviewed forthwith to minimise public inconvenience. The bench made it unambiguous that there should be no illegal detention — particularly in cases involving peaceful and unarmed gatherings — beyond the area where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were operative. Taking note of the Solicitor General's submission that internet connectivity had been restored and all Metro stations were functional, the court recorded the assurance that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals would not be obstructed in discharging their professional duties.

Internet and Press Freedom Concerns

Sibal also sought interim directions for the restoration of internet services across the national capital and raised concerns about journalists being prevented from performing their professional duties — both within and outside the affected area. The court's order recording the government's assurance on internet restoration and journalist access signals that these concerns were treated with urgency. Notably, this dimension of the case — restrictions on press access and digital connectivity in a democratic protest context — adds a dimension beyond the immediate law-and-order question.

Background and What's Next

The hearing arose from contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the court's 9 October order, which had directed authorities to reconsider restrictions on Metro and railway services ahead of the proposed protest, clarifying that public transport could be regulated but not outright prohibited. Alleged contemnors have been directed to file counter-affidavits and a compliance report by Tuesday, explaining their adherence to the earlier directions. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 13 October, along with related petitions seeking intervention. The case is shaping up as a significant constitutional moment — one that could clarify the interplay between police powers under the BNSS and the fundamental right to protest.