New Delhi, Oct. 12 -- The Supreme Court on Sunday ordered that peaceful, unarmed protesters cannot be detained except in accordance with the "procedure established by law", while further directing that metro and railway services in Delhi operate normally, internet connectivity remain undisturbed and free movement of people be restored. The court also ordered authorities to remove a notice imposing prohibitory restrictions around the Supreme Court and other courts to ensure unhindered "access to justice". A special bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directions after an urgent hearing on petitions alleging mass detentions, restrictions on movement, suspension of internet and non-compliance with the court's October 9 order on transport curbs ahead of Saturday's protest against chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The bench directed that metro and rail facilities run normally unless restrictions are required to address a public order situation within the framework of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It further ordered that people's free movement in the city be permitted subject to law, internet services remain undisturbed, and no person be detained except in accordance with the law, particularly in the case of peaceful, unarmed assemblies beyond the area covered by a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS. It went on to issue notices to the alleged contemnors in the contempt proceedings, including the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), the railway authorities and Delhi Police, seeking responses to claims of non-compliance with its October 9 order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the allegations, maintaining that metro services had operated normally on Saturday, although entry and exit had been restricted at 45 of the network's 303 stations. The bench sought details of the affected stations and directed the authorities to file their responses by Tuesday, while listing the matter for October 13. The court directed authorities to take down the notice of Section 163 BNSS in and around the Supreme Court complex, saying the measure was necessary to remove any apprehension regarding access to the court of law. The directions came a day after the court's intervention against sweeping restrictions on public transport ahead of the protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other political groups demanding Kumar's resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. On Friday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had directed the authorities to reconsider the closure of metro stations and regulate, rather than prohibit outright. At Sunday's hearing, the bench took note of allegations that the Friday order had been flouted, with petitioners claiming that metro stations and railway facilities remained inaccessible, people were detained beyond the area covered by prohibitory orders, and the city witnessed a curfew-like situation. "We would like to ponder on how far the police acts fall in sync with requirement of expression under Article 19 (right to protest and free movement)," observed the bench, as it considered the competing claims of public order and the right to peaceful protest. "Courts are agnostic of identity of the individuals, be it a police officer or a lawyer. Response and concerns of the court is to protect rights and liberty of all individuals," it said. The petitions were moved after a police crackdown on Saturday, during which Opposition leaders, students, lawyers and other protesters were detained amid heightened security across Delhi. Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy challenged the preventive detention of Opposition leaders, including four former CMs, while other petitions questioned the legality of restrictions and sought accountability for alleged police excesses. Senior advocates KK Venugopal, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and others appeared before the bench, while the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and other lawyers also raised concerns about restrictions and the detention of advocates....