New Delhi: The Central government has defended its decision to suspend mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi during the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, telling the Supreme Court that the restriction was necessary to prevent a disturbance of public order.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Centre denied wilfully disobeying the court’s directions and urged it to discharge the contempt notice issued to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan over the restrictions imposed during the protest.
The government has also sought a modification of the Supreme Court’s order to allow internet suspensions in situations where they become necessary, provided such decisions comply with the law and applicable statutory safeguards.
Centre Cites Public Order Concerns
The dispute arose amid extensive security restrictions imposed in the national capital ahead of the October 10 demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The party had planned to protest against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Delhi Police denied permission for the proposed gathering, citing the short notice given by the organisers.
According to the Centre’s affidavit, the decision to suspend mobile internet services followed a request from the Delhi Police, which had apprehended a possible law-and-order situation during the demonstration.
The government maintained that the suspension was limited to a four-kilometre radius around Raisina Hill and remained in force from 10 p.m. on October 9 to 10 p.m. on October 10.
It said the police had raised concerns about the potential consequences of the gathering, particularly after the organisers announced their intention to proceed despite being denied permission. The Centre described the measure as a proportionate response to the prevailing circumstances.
The affidavit also referred to the Delhi Police’s experience during a similar episode on July 20, 2026, as part of the justification for imposing preventive restrictions ahead of the protest.
Supreme Court Had Issued Directions on Transport Restrictions
On October 9, the Supreme Court intervened over restrictions on public transport ahead of the planned demonstration.
The court directed the authorities to ensure there was no complete prohibition on the movement of Delhi Metro trains and other trains entering the national capital, while allowing services to be regulated wherever necessary to maintain public order.
It also stressed that security arrangements should not cause undue hardship to the public. The authorities were directed to communicate decisions regarding transport operations widely so commuters could make alternative arrangements if required.
Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with the court’s directions.
During a special hearing on October 11, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D. Thara, seeking their responses to the allegations.
Centre Seeks Relief From Contempt Proceedings
In its counter-affidavit, the Centre argued that the internet suspension was imposed to prevent a potential disturbance of public order and did not amount to a wilful violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The government has requested that the contempt notice against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan be discharged. It has also sought modification of the court’s order to permit temporary internet suspensions when necessary, subject to compliance with legal requirements and statutory safeguards.
The matter concerns the government’s justification for the restrictions imposed during the October 10 protest and the allegations of non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.