The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi government to reconsider restrictions on metro and train services and resume operations in a regulated manner, after curbs on trains headed to Delhi stranded planned passengers, including travellers on at least two Mumbai-Delhi services.
The government had decided to curb or cancel trains coming into Delhi on October 10. The restrictions also affected metro services within the capital. The court’s direction, reported on Friday, calls for a resumption framework that does not cause discomfort to commuters, according to the Times of India report.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka said the restrictions could violate citizens’ fundamental right to move freely throughout India under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. He said the government would need to establish that the restrictions fall within the reasonable limitations permitted under Article 19(5).
Article 19(5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free movement for two specified purposes: in the interests of the general public or to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes. The public-interest grounds can include measures related to epidemics, public health, crime prevention, traffic regulation and dangerous areas.
Justice Oka said the government must show that stopping long-distance train services and restricting metro operations are governed by a law satisfying the requirements of Article 19(5). His remarks came as legal experts examined whether mobility restrictions intended to manage public-order concerns could themselves interfere with constitutional rights.
Justice V M Kanade, a retired Bombay High Court judge and former Maharashtra Lokayukta, said the Supreme Court had acted appropriately by asking the government to reconsider the curbs. He said the authorities would have to reconcile the constitutional right to assemble and protest peacefully with the need to impose reasonable restrictions to prevent a breach of public order.
Kanade distinguished public order from ordinary law-and-order issues. Public order, he said, concerns peace, tranquillity and the functioning of society at a broader level, while a localised incident affecting individuals would ordinarily fall within law and order. Communal rioting, major mob violence and armed uprising were cited as examples of situations that could affect public order.
He added that if the government anticipated disorder, authorities could consider preventive measures such as restricting assemblies of more than five people except at designated protest sites, rather than stopping train services altogether. The report did not specify the government’s detailed justification for the train and metro restrictions or the operational timetable for their regulated resumption.
The Supreme Court’s direction places the immediate focus on how Delhi authorities will balance commuter access, protest-related security concerns and the constitutional test for reasonable restrictions. The next step is for the government to reconsider the curbs and set out the conditions under which train and metro services can resume.
