Delhi Police Defends Preventive Measures Amid Supreme Court Scrutiny

The Delhi Police has defended its preventive measures taken during recent protests in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court. The police commissioner apologized for any perceived non-compliance with court orders while asserting that actions, including regulating Metro services and suspending internet access, were necessary to maintain public order. The affidavit details the context of these measures, citing intelligence inputs and previous protest incidents that raised concerns about potential disturbances. The police emphasized the need to balance the right to protest with the rights of citizens to live peacefully, arguing that their actions were lawful and proportionate to the situation. This ongoing legal scrutiny highlights the complexities of managing public demonstrations in the capital.

By Narendra Chaudhary Oct 15, 2026, 11:33 IST

Delhi Police's Justification for Actions Taken

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has been informed by the Delhi Police that they implemented preventive strategies, such as regulating Metro services, requesting a suspension of cellular internet, and removing individuals from restricted zones, all in good faith to maintain public order in the capital.

In an affidavit submitted in response to contempt proceedings, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar expressed an unconditional apology, asserting that there was no intentional disregard for the Supreme Court's directives issued on October 9.

The affidavit indicated that these actions were prompted by intelligence suggesting that individuals might gather at Jantar Mantar despite the denial of permission for a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The police stated, "The preventive measures taken on October 10, 2026, were informed by intelligence assessments and the dynamic situation on the ground, aimed at preventing any public order disturbances."

The police chief emphasized that the measures, including Metro service regulation, requests for internet suspension, and barricade placements, were legitimate and appropriate given the circumstances.

According to the affidavit, these actions were intended to uphold peace and prevent any public disorder in the national capital.

This counter affidavit was filed in response to allegations by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who claimed that the Supreme Court's orders regarding restrictions in Delhi prior to the planned protest were violated.

The affidavit elaborated that maintaining law and order necessitates a careful balance between the right to protest and the rights of others to live peacefully.

It also highlighted the need to consider potential threats to human life and property.

The Delhi Police referenced a previous protest on July 20, where an organization allegedly breached the conditions set for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar and mobilized participants towards Parliament without permission.

The affidavit noted that the organization had been granted permission for a one-day protest at Jantar Mantar from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with stipulations for peaceful assembly, limited participants, and unobstructed public movement.

However, the police claimed that the organizers violated these conditions, extending the protest for 36 days despite only being authorized for one day. They also stated that a subsequent call to march towards Parliament on July 20 was made without prior approval or notification to the police.

The affidavit reported that the gathering exceeded 35,000 participants, far surpassing the limit of 1,000, leading to a significant public order crisis.

It was claimed that protesters broke through multiple barricades despite warnings, resulting in injuries to over 240 police personnel, including women officers.

The police also mentioned protest marches on October 6, 7, and 8, which caused severe traffic disruptions in central Delhi and injuries to law enforcement.

These incidents were cited as factors influencing the preventive measures taken on October 10.

The Delhi Police indicated that they received notice of the planned October 10 protest from the organization on October 7, which was subsequently denied by the competent authority on October 9 due to public order concerns and the organization's past behavior.

The affidavit stated that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were active, and intelligence suggested that individuals might still gather at the protest site despite the denial.

The affidavit emphasized that the preventive measures were necessary to avert a potentially serious public order situation.

Regarding the removal of individuals from restricted areas, the affidavit clarified that police acted under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and Section 172 of the BNSS only when prohibitory orders were in effect and individuals resisted lawful directions.

It was claimed that those removed were released within hours, well before the maximum 24-hour period mandated by law, and were not detained in police lock-ups or jails.

The affidavit stated that they were housed in temporary centers and allowed to leave once the reasons for their removal had dissipated. Political leaders who were removed were reportedly accommodated in police chambers and provided meals.

The Delhi Police further asserted that these measures were essential due to the sensitive nature of the national capital and the presence of key institutions, including Parliament, the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhawan, and foreign embassies.

In seeking to dismiss the contempt notice against him, the police chief argued that the actions taken were lawful, appropriate, and aimed at safeguarding people and property.

"I respectfully request that this Hon'ble Court consider the unique challenges faced by the police in fulfilling their duties in the nation's capital," he stated.

The affidavit concluded by asserting that timely actions had prevented a major public order crisis and that the Commissioner had neither intentionally nor otherwise violated any Supreme Court orders.