New Delhi, Oct 15 — The Delhi Police have told the Supreme Court that preventive measures, including the regulation of Metro services, a request to suspend cellular internet services and the removal of individuals from restricted areas, were taken in good faith and were proportionate to the prevailing situation to maintain peace and prevent any disturbance of public order in the national capital.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court in response to contempt proceedings, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology, while maintaining that there had been no wilful or deliberate non-compliance with the apex court's directions issued on October 9.
The affidavit said the measures were taken against the backdrop of intelligence inputs indicating that people could assemble at Jantar Mantar despite the denial of permission for a proposed protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
"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 submitted that the actions taken by the authorities, including the regulation of Metro rail services, the request to the Centre to suspend cellular internet services and the erection of barricades, were bona fide and proportionate to the situation at the relevant time.
"These measures were directed towards maintaining peace and tranquillity and preventing any disturbance of public order in the national capital," the affidavit said.
The counter affidavit was filed in response to contempt proceedings initiated by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleging violation of the Supreme Court's directions concerning restrictions imposed in Delhi ahead of the proposed protest.
Explaining the circumstances behind the police action, the affidavit stated that maintaining law and order required a delicate balance between the right to protest and the rights of other citizens to lead their normal and peaceful lives.
He said the potential danger to human life, private property and public property also had to be considered.
The Delhi Police referred to an earlier protest on July 20, alleging that an organisation had violated the conditions imposed for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar and subsequently mobilised people for a march towards Parliament without permission.
According to the affidavit, the organisation had initially been granted permission to hold a one-day protest at Jantar Mantar between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., subject to conditions that the gathering remain peaceful, the number of participants be limited, and public movement not be obstructed.
The police claimed that the organisers violated the conditions and continued the protest for 36 days, despite permission having been granted for only one day. It further said that a subsequent call to march towards Parliament on July 20 was made without obtaining permission or even intimating the police administration.
The affidavit stated that the gathering exceeded 35,000 participants, against the prescribed limit of 1,000, and that the protest eventually resulted in a serious public order situation.
It claimed that protesters breached successive barricades despite repeated warnings and that more than 240 police personnel, including women officers, sustained injuries during the incidents.
The police also referred to protest marches held on October 6, 7 and 8, claiming that the gatherings caused severe traffic congestion in central Delhi and resulted in injuries to police personnel.
These developments, the affidavit said, were among the considerations behind the preventive measures taken on October 10.
The Delhi Police stated that an intimation regarding the proposed October 10 protest was received from the organisation on October 7, following which the competent authority rejected the request on October 9, citing public order concerns and the organisation's previous conduct.
It said prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force and that intelligence inputs indicated that people could still gather at the proposed protest site despite permission having been denied.
"Having regard to the complete non-compliance with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court requiring prior permission, the history of disregard for lawful directions on 20.07.2026 as well as on 6th, 7th and 8th October, 2026, and the potential for significant disruption of public order and damage to public and private property and apprehended harm to innocent citizens," the affidavit said, the Centre issued a communication on October 9 to the Directors General of Police (DGPs) of all states and union territories.
The affidavit maintained that the preventive measures were based on the prevailing circumstances and the need to avert a potentially serious public order situation.
On the removal of people from restricted areas, the affidavit said police personnel exercised powers under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and Section 172 of the BNSS only where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force, and individuals resisted or disregarded lawful directions.
It claimed that the people concerned were released within a few hours, well before the maximum period of 24 hours contemplated under the law, and were neither kept in police lock-ups nor lodged in jails.
The affidavit said they were accommodated in makeshift centres and allowed to leave once the circumstances necessitating their removal had ceased to exist. It added that political leaders who were removed were accommodated in police officers' chambers and provided refreshments and meals.
The Delhi Police further submitted that the measures were necessary given the national capital's sensitive nature and the presence of several vital institutions, including Parliament, the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhawan and foreign diplomatic missions.
Seeking the discharge of the contempt notice issued against him, the police chief maintained that the actions taken by the Delhi Police were lawful, proportionate and guided by the need to protect people and property.
"I, therefore, earnestly pray that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take into consideration the peculiar problems and challenges faced by the police administration in discharging its duties in the capital of the nation," he stated.
The affidavit concluded by asserting that a major public order situation had been averted through timely measures and that the Commissioner had neither wilfully nor otherwise breached any order passed by the Supreme Court.