New Delhi: Expressing its concern over the closure of 57 Metro stations and cancellation of trains coming to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations due to upcoming protest here, the Supreme Court on Friday observed that the Centre “cannot use a hammer to kill a fly” and ordered that there cannot be complete prohibition.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that the court was concerned with the complete closure of these Metro stations from 9 pm on Friday till further orders, and cancellation of main and express trains.
The top court was hearing a petition challenging the suspension of trains to Delhi and Metro services in the national capital ahead of the protests announced by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition parties demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
“One very important principle that we follow for every citizen is the principle of proportionality… You have to prevent certain things. Take measures only to the extent necessary to prevent them.
“But that does not mean you use a hammer to kill a fly. That principle must be kept in mind,” CJI Kant told Mehta.
The solicitor general said he understands the concerns of the court and will discuss with the authorities concerned, but said that the remark of the CJI on use of a hammer was just an example and it should not be reported that the Chief Justice of India told the government that it is using a hammer to kill a fly.
CJI Kant said, “Exercise caution in abundance. There is nothing wrong with that.
“You are responsible for maintaining law and order. But that responsibility is not merely about protecting the State property; it is about protecting people. That is your sovereign duty.”
The bench said there are daughters, young children, senior citizens, very elderly people and patients who travel through public transport, and they need to be protected.
“There is absolutely no difficulty with taking appropriate measures. But make sure that everything is not brought to a halt. There cannot be complete prohibition,” it said.
At the outset, the bench said it has serious concerns about the orders passed by the authorities with respect to the closure of Metro stations in the national capital and cancellation of trains.
“Our concern is not with respect to any protester or any individual. Our concern is about the hundreds and thousands of commuters who come from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi to Delhi for their livelihood.
“They are students, employees and senior citizens who travel by public transport. We are speaking on behalf of the common citizens of this city. The law enforcement authorities are certainly entitled to take regulatory measures. There is no doubt about that.
“If you want to restrict unruly movement, you can do so. But that does not mean you can bring everything to a halt and leave people without any transport facility,” it said.
Justice Bagchi said while reducing the frequency of trains and Metro stations can be a regulatory measure, the complete closure of services till further orders would be an extreme step.
“You can regulate the frequency of trains, but don’t stop it altogether,” Justice Bagchi told Mehta.
The solicitor general said that depending on the prevailing circumstances, complete stoppage might be a proportionate measure and the situation cannot be foreseen in advance and some leeway has to be given to law enforcement agencies.
Justice Bagchi agreed with the contention but flagged that the order issued by the authorities saying that Metro stations will be closed from 9 pm on Friday onwards cannot be a regulative measure.
Justice Mohana also raised her concern after lawyers said that the entire city was barricaded and police were not allowing free flow of traffic.
“If tomorrow anything untoward happens, who will be responsible? Some measures are required but in a proportionate manner,” she said.
Mehta said the impression given by the lawyers from the opposite side that the entire city has been shut down is far from the truth, and claimed that the authorities have only taken proportionate measures in view of the violence which followed the July 20 Parliament march attempt by the CJP protesters.
“I have taken instruction and I am being told that the internet shutdown was only effective in certain sensitive pockets in the vicinity of the President’s House in a radius of 4 kilometres and that too will be reviewed based on the security inputs,” he said.
The bench stated that it is confining the consideration only to the issue of transport services as none of the parties, who have organised the protest on October 10, were before the court.
When advocate Vrinda Grover raised the issue of police visiting mosques and hotels and advising people not to join the protests, the bench told her that it would not go into the issue on the basis of statements made and none of the aggrieved parties was before it.
The bench also asked the Centre to consider whether another location should be designated for peaceful protests in place of Jantar Mantar.
“During the course of hearing, it was also suggested, and senior counsel/ counsel for parties are ad idem that it’s high time that some suitable place where all basic amenities can be provided for peaceful and lawful protestors needs to be identified and designated. Let the competent authority consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision,” the court ordered.
