Centre Tells Supreme Court Response on Delhi Detentions Ready but Needs Fine-Tuning

The Union government told the Supreme Court on October 13 that its response to petitions over detentions and restrictions imposed during Delhi protests was ready but required further work. The Court allowed more time and scheduled the matters for October 15. The petitions concern police action and restrictions on public transport around demonstrations linked to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision process.

What the Court dealt with

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that he had reviewed a draft affidavit and wanted to make it more comprehensive. At the petitioners’ request, the Court asked the Centre to share the draft by October 14 if possible, allowing lawyers time to examine it before the next hearing. The adjournment was procedural; it should not be described as a final ruling that all challenged measures were illegal or lawful.

The court proceedings also touched on restrictions affecting metro stations and transport, with the bench cautioning against sweeping shutdowns that create disproportionate disruption. The number of stations covered by an order and the duration of closures should be checked against the actual order and subsequent changes rather than repeated as a permanent policy.

Separate allegations involving journalists and detainees

Media organisations and lawyers raised concerns about alleged physical handling, intimidation and detention of journalists covering the demonstrations. Some petitions also raised allegations of mistreatment of detained students and the legality of detentions after evening hours. These are allegations placed before the Court; they must not be presented as established findings unless the Court or an independent inquiry has made such findings.

The bench asked petitioners to correct procedural defects in fresh pleas and indicated that a senior police officer should be present when allegations concerning assault on women were addressed. Other applications sought lists of detainees, the stated grounds for detention and details of the officers involved.

Why the next hearing matters

The October 15 proceedings may clarify the government’s stated legal basis for the restrictions and whether the Court seeks additional records or safeguards. For readers, the key distinction is between the underlying claims, the government’s forthcoming response, and any enforceable judicial direction. The existence of a petition or an oral observation is not itself a final judgment on the facts.