Lawyers Released After Chief Justice’s Intervention Amid Protests in Delhi
In a significant development on Saturday morning, Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, stepped in to assist several lawyers, including women advocates, who were detained by Delhi Police while peacefully protesting near the Supreme Court complex. This intervention occurred just a day after the Chief Justice’s bench expressed concerns about blanket restrictions on public transport in light of the planned demonstration.
According to sources, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) reached out to the Chief Justice, urging him to take action regarding the unjustified detentions of lawyers in proximity to the nation’s highest court. Responding quickly, the Chief Justice contacted government officials to ensure the lawyers’ prompt release. Shortly after, he was informed that the lawyers had been freed.
This incident unfolded against a backdrop of heightened security measures in the capital, ahead of a protest organized by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other groups. They were demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of irregularities in the election process.
SCBA Vice President Rahul Kaushik reported receiving alerts about the detention of senior advocates, including Uttar Babbar and PV Dinesh, as well as other lawyers, who were taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex. He indicated that their release was secured only after the Chief Justice intervened.
SCBA President Pradeep Rai voiced his concern about the detention on social media, calling it unsettling and calling for the immediate release of the detained advocates. He later publicly thanked the Chief Justice for his quick action and said he had spoken with Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, who assured him that any lawyer in custody would be released promptly once their details were confirmed.
Rai mentioned that the SCBA had been updated on the status of the lawyers’ release and emphasized the need for authorities to respect the dignity, safety, and professional independence of legal professionals.
This incident occurred just after the CJI’s bench had stepped in to address extensive restrictions imposed prior to the planned protest. The court stated that while security measures could regulate public transport, they shouldn’t completely disrupt access for ordinary citizens.
On Friday, the bench, which included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, instructed the authorities to reconsider their heavy-handed restrictions on metro and railway services, stressing that public safety measures must be proportionate. The court responded to planned closures of entry and exit gates at numerous metro stations and the cancellation of certain train services.
“There is a major difference between stopping operations and regulating them,” the bench remarked. They added that authorities could not apply extreme measures to handle minor issues and needed to consider the impact on commuters relying on public transport for daily activities.
The court directed that metro services should continue to operate, albeit in a regulated manner, and ordered the publication of revised traffic advisories to minimize inconvenience for commuters. They instructed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, railway officials, and the Delhi Police’s traffic department to submit a compliance report within four days.
The situation was further complicated by police denying permission for the CJP’s protest at Jantar Mantar, citing security concerns. During this heightened security period, many protesters faced detention or arrest as police and armed forces enforced strict controls across the city, leading to traffic disruptions and barriers affecting access to public spaces.
Concerns over preventive measures by authorities to deter public participation were also highlighted. Prior to the protests, lawyers had raised alarms about police visiting hostels and residences to discourage youth from attending. The court refrained from commenting on these allegations due to a lack of official reports, suggesting that separate legal petitions might be necessary for further examination.
