Special Bench issues notices to three individuals over alleged violation of October 9 order
GS2Polity · Governance · IR· Judiciary & landmark judgments· Prelims + Mains·
Judicial review of executive orders regarding fundamental rights and public order: a GS2 Polity case study.
Why in news
A Special Bench issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner, and DMRC chairperson for allegedly violating an October 9 order regarding movement and internet access.
Background
The Special Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana ordered Delhi Police to lift prohibitory orders and restore internet connectivity. The court directed that no detentions occur outside the four-km prohibitory zone in central Delhi, including Jantar Mantar.
Facts for Prelims
- Act / BillSection 163 BNSS: Provision under which prohibitory orders were issued in and around the Supreme Court.
- BodyDMRC: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, whose chairperson D. Thara received a notice.
- PostGovind Mohan: Union Home Secretary.
- PostAnurag Kumar: Delhi Police Commissioner.
- PlaceJantar Mantar: Designated site for protests in central Delhi.
Prelims practice question
With reference to the prohibitory orders in central Delhi, consider the following statements:
- The prohibitory zone was extended to a five-km radius from the Supreme Court.
- The court ordered the Delhi Police to maintain internet blackouts indefinitely.
- Section 163 BNSS is the provision under which the prohibitory orders were issued.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)3 only
- (d)2 and 3 only
Show answer
Answer: (c) 3 only — Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect: The court directed that no detentions occur outside the four-km prohibitory zone. Statement 2 is incorrect: The court ordered Delhi Police to lift prohibitory orders and restore internet connectivity.
For Mains
Q. Discuss the judicial balancing act between upholding the fundamental right to free movement and the State's power to impose reasonable restrictions for maintaining public order.
Dimensions to cover in your answer
- Judicial oversight: Balancing constitutional protections against state-led 'curfew-like' clampdowns during protests.
- Legal friction: Conflict between Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders and the right to access courts and justice.
Keywords: Judicial Review · Fundamental Rights · Public Order · Proportionality · Rule of Law
More Polity & Constitution notes
- AERO reports officials pressured staff to clear 7,82,304 pending hearings by October 12 · 12 October 2026
- Rajasthan-cadre officer Prakash Rajpurohit appointed Deputy Election Commissioner until April 8, 2030 · 11 October 2026
- Supreme Court orders Centre to ensure uninterrupted metro and internet during protests · 11 October 2026
- Court orders removal of barricades and withdrawal of Section 163 during CJP protests · 11 October 2026
- Andhra Pradesh Cabinet accepts Rajeev Ranjan Mishra report to cap reservations at 50% · 11 October 2026
- 124 former officials defend ECI against vote-rigging allegations in Supreme Court case · 10 October 2026
Something wrong, or something missing?
Spotted a mistake in a note, or want a topic, format or PDF that would help your preparation? Write to us. We read every mail and fix errors fast.
This note is generated automatically from SatyaDheesh's news feed and mapped to the UPSC CSE syllabus. Check facts against the original report or PIB before using them in an answer.