NEW DELHI, Oct. 12 -- The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Monday approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi and raising concerns over restrictions on internet services, public movement and access to judicial institutions.

The association sought a detailed status report on the police action of October 10, including the legal basis for detentions, the identity of officers involved and the use of force against advocates. It also questioned the scope and implementation of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging that barricades and other restrictions had obstructed access to the Supreme Court and other court complexes in the national capital.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The bench agreed to hear the petition on Tuesday, along with related matters concerning the treatment of lawyers during the demonstrations.

��������������' ������������������ ��������������������

In its petition, the SCBA alleged that several advocates, including senior lawyers, women and senior citizens, were forcibly placed in police vehicles near the Supreme Court on October 10 and taken away without being informed of the grounds for their detention.

The association said it had received videos showing the alleged police action and that the detained lawyers were subsequently released following intervention. However, it maintained that their release did not resolve questions about the legality of the detentions or the conduct of the officers involved.

The petition sought directions requiring the authorities to disclose the number of lawyers detained, the duration of their detention, the legal provisions invoked and the instructions issued through the police chain of command. It also requested information about the officers responsible for the operation and any force used against those taken into custody.

The association argued that the circumstances warranted judicial scrutiny, particularly because the affected individuals included legal professionals seeking to exercise their right to peaceful assembly.

�������������������� ������ ���������������� ����������

Apart from the detentions, the SCBA questioned the restrictions imposed around the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Patiala House Courts and Rouse Avenue Courts.

The petition alleged that barricading and traffic restrictions had interfered with the movement of advocates, litigants and other persons requiring access to judicial institutions. It sought the production of the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, along with the reasons and conditions governing its implementation.

The association also raised concerns over the reported suspension of internet services and the closure of the Supreme Court Metro Station, alleging that these measures had been implemented without consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

It sought directions for reasonable access arrangements, designated routes and clear instructions to facilitate movement towards courts, advocates' chambers and affected residential premises, subject to lawful security checks.

The SCBA further requested the preservation of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings, detention records and other material relevant to the alleged police action. It also sought safeguards for lawyers who were unable to attend court proceedings because of the restrictions.

������ ���������������� ���������� ������������

During Monday's proceedings, SCBA president and senior advocate Pradeep Rai raised the difficulties faced by lawyers amid the continuing demonstrations. Senior advocate Atmaram Nadkarni also mentioned a separate petition concerning the detention of advocates.

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that democratic activities should be allowed to proceed but must not interfere with the functioning of the Supreme Court or prevent lawyers, litigants and court employees from carrying out their responsibilities.

The Chief Justice said the judiciary should not be drawn into political activities and emphasised that access to the courts must remain unobstructed.

He also stated that he had appealed to protesters and political parties to ensure that their activities did not disrupt judicial functioning. The bench subsequently agreed to take up the petitions on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has separately approached the court over alleged police action against lawyers.

�������������� �������������������� ����������

The petitions follow a special sitting of the Supreme Court on Sunday, when a bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana issued directions concerning detentions, restrictions on movement and disruptions to essential services during the protests.

The court directed that peaceful and unarmed persons should not be detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It also ordered that lawyers, journalists and other professionals should not be prevented from discharging their duties.

The bench directed authorities to ensure normal functioning of Metro and railway services unless restrictions were justified by public-order considerations. It also called for a review of barricades and the removal of notices imposing prohibitory restrictions around court complexes where they created apprehensions about access to justice.

The SCBA's petition seeks judicial examination of whether the police action on October 10 complied with these legal safeguards and whether restrictions affecting court access were necessary and proportionate.

�������� ���������� ������ �������� ��������������

The association clarified in its petition that it did not support strikes, boycotts or abstention from court work. Its stated objective was to protect the ability of advocates and litigants to access judicial institutions while seeking accountability for alleged unlawful detentions and excessive use of force.

The petition was drafted by advocate Reepak Kansal and filed through advocate-on-record Pragya Baghel.

The allegations against Delhi Police have not yet been adjudicated, and the Supreme Court has not made a final determination on the legality of the detentions or the restrictions challenged by the association.

The matter is scheduled to be heard on October 13, when the court is expected to examine the concerns raised by the SCBA and other petitioners over police action, internet restrictions and access to judicial institutions during the ongoing demonstrations.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.