Shifting Waste Incineration Power Plants from Red category to Blue category is scientifically indefensible

Denouncing  21 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). -based Waste -to-Energy (WtE) plants which are currently operational across the country, Dr. Gopal Krishna, a practicing advocate and an environmentalist, the founder of ToxicsWatch Alliance delivered a speech on " Waste-to-energy: Impact on workers, communities and environment " as part Labour Justice Lecture Series. Indian urban population is over 530 million. Although more than 90% of municipal solid waste is collected in India, only 5 4% receives adequate treatment, highlighting a significant gap between collection and effective processing. In practice, only 21 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) -based Waste -to-Energy (WtE) plants have a cumulative installed capacity of 248.8 MW. He dwelt on the issues of waste workers’ rights, privatisation and the politics of waste management. Disregarding public health crisis due to air pollution, union government has exempted Waste-to-Energy (WTE) plants from prior environmental clearance and in an indefensible act shifted them from Red category (high pollution potential) under the Central Pollution Control Board’s industry pollution index, to Blue category. This category was created in 2025 for “facilities essential to control, abate, and mitigate pollution generated from domestic and industrial activities”. Delhi's four waste power plants in Okhla, Ghazipur, Narela-Bawana and Tehkhand promotes biomass burning unmindful of the morbidity and mortality due to air pollution load. This exposes the double speak of governments in Delhi who blame Punjab and Haryana farmers for burning biomass which causes air pollution related public health disaster in the national capital Region. Dr. Krishna's speech is here: 

https://youtu.be/OF8zRyDY0Lw?si=bGBb6oVinNwU14sA

The meeting recalled how waste workers keep cities clean and functional although they face insecure livelihoods, hazardous working conditions and exclusion shaped by caste, class and gender.

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2026. It superseded the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The rules were notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It came into full effect from April 1, 2026. The revised rules refer the principles of Circular Economy and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

The promise of waste-to-energy projects are anti-environment, and anti-people. The callousness of AAP, BJP and Congress towards the sad plight of residents of Okhla, Narela-Bawana and Ghazipur, environment and the livelihood of waste pickers due to hazardous waste to energy incinerators is unacceptable.

Okhla waste to energy incinerator plant has faced opposition since 2005 due to its adverse public health consequences. The plant in question has violated every rule in the rule book. It is a matter of fact that such plants have consistently failed in India.

The consent of the people of Okhla which is a ‘must’ before granting clearances and cumulative impact assessment was never taken. The people of National Capital Region never gave their consent for this hazardous project in their proximity. There is documentary evidence that the public hearing that was conducted was fake, it was conducted at Saket.

The environmental clearance given to the project is also flawed as it has been amended repeatedly to increase the amount of waste treated and energy generated in an apparent effort to grab subsidies being offered by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE).

The cumulative impact assessment of the pre-existing biomedical waste incinerator and the new municipal waste incinerator has never been done. The emissions from both these units are already becoming part of body burden of residents of national capital region and across the country.

The minutes of the Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority for the NCR (EPCA) revealed that Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was asked about the actions taken to improve Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management in Delhi. “To this MCD replied that individual waste to energy projects have been already given to Jindal, Ramky and GMR, which will result in minimal inert residue for land filling along with the generation of electricity,” the minute reads. This is factually deceptive and scientifically incorrect.

As per the Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management, Union Ministry of Urban Development, physical composition of Indian waste shows that inert material constitutes from 43.59 % to 53.90 % and compostable matter constitutes 44.57 % to 30.84 %. Thus, the total inert residue from waste to energy incinerator projects will be significantly higher after the incineration of waste which will produce toxic ash as well that requires disposal in engineered landfills.

This grave situation has emerged due to evidently flawed waste to energy policy of central government, state government and the MCD which are providing incentives to hazardous incinerator and co-incineration incineration technologies like Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

The opposition political parties must promise to work for abandonment of the harmful policy which promotes waste incineration based power plants to save irreparable damage to sustainable and sane municipal solid waste management practice. The Ministry of Power can vouch for the fact that the energy from municipal is inconsequential compared to the colossal public health concerns.

Like the old MSW Rules, new rules ignores the emerging public health threats from the waste to energy incinerator in the vicinity of residential premises. 

Notably, the new rules provide for the levy of environmental compensation based on the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle for non-compliance, including cases of operating without registration, false reporting, submission of forged documents or improper solid waste management practices. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have prepared the relevant guidelines, while State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committe levy the environmental compensation.

Significantly, four-stream segregation of solid waste at source has been made mandatory under the SWM Rules, 2026. Waste is required to be segregated into wet waste, dry waste, sanitary waste and special care waste.

Wet waste includes kitchen waste, vegetables, fruit peels, meat, flowers, etc., which is required to be composted or processed through bio-methanation at the nearest facility. Dry waste comprises plastic, paper, metal, glass, wood and rubber, etc., and is required to be transported to Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) for sorting and recycling. Sanitary waste includes used diapers, sanitary towels, tampons and condoms, etc., is required to be securely wrapped and stored separately. Special care waste includes paint cans, bulbs, mercury thermometers and medicines, etc., which is required to be collected by authorised agencies or deposited at designated collection centres.

The waste generators include entities with a floor area of 20,000 square metres or more, or water consumption of 40,000 litres per day or more, or solid waste generation of 100 kg per day or more. These include central and state government departments, local bodies, public sector undertakings, institutions, commercial establishments and residential societies, among others. Bulk Waste Generators must ensure that the waste generated by them is collected, transported and processed in an environmentally sound manner. This provision is expected to significantly reduce the burden on urban local bodies and promote decentralised waste management. The rules also allow for the levy of user fees on waste generators as per the bye-laws of local bodies

The new rules also introduce Extended Bulk Waste Generator Responsibility (EBWGR), under which bulk waste generators are made accountable for the solid waste generated by them. Bulk waste generators are required to process wet waste on-site as far as possible or obtain an EBWGR certificate where on-site processing is not feasible. This framework aims to strengthen waste management practices, as bulk waste generators account for nearly 30 per cent of total solid waste generation.

The rules introduce graded criteria for development around solid waste processing and disposal facilities to facilitate faster land allocation. A buffer zone is to be maintained within the total area allotted for facilities having an installed capacity exceeding 5 tonnes per day. 

The rules provide for the development of a Centralised Online Portal to track all stages of solid waste management, including waste generation, collection, transportation, processing and disposal, as well as biomining and bioremediation of legacy waste dump sites. Registration and authorisation of waste processing facilities with local bodies and State Pollution Control Boards or Pollution Control Committees shall be carried out online through the portal developed by the CPCB.

The submission of reports by solid waste processing facilities shall also be undertaken online through the portal, replacing multi-step physical reporting. The rules mandate audits of all waste processing facilities. Audit reports are required to be uploaded on the centralised online portal.

Under the revised rules, local bodies are responsible for the collection, segregation and transportation of solid waste in coordination with MRFs which may also act as deposition points for e-waste, special care waste, sanitary waste and other waste streams for further processing. MRFs are formally recognised as facilities for sorting of solid waste.

It is intriguing that local bodies too have been encouraged to generate carbon credits as part of carbon trade, which is a fake environmental/climate  solution. 

Incineration by another name, use of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) by industries

The new rules define Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) as fuel produced by shredding and dehydrating municipal solid waste with high calorific value, primarily consisting of non-recyclable plastic, paper and textiles. Industrial units, including cement plants and waste-to-energy plants that currently use solid fuel, have been mandated to replace it with RDF. This provision ignores the fact that waste incineration or co-incineration is a process which emits green house gases and persistent organic pollutants. It ignores the lessons from the failure of RDF based waste-to-energy  plant in Timarpur, which designed to incinerate 300 TPD of waste and produce 3.75 MW of electricity. 

The rules mandate mapping and assessment of all legacy waste dumpsites and provide for time-bound biomining and bioremediation, with quarterly progress reporting through the online portal.  This is a positive provision. 

The lecture program brought together workers, organisers, researchers and activists to examine how privatisation, waste management policies and waste-to-energy projects affect workers’ rights and livelihoods. It brought out the connection between labour rights, climate justice and laid a roadmap for developing recommendations for waste management that prioritises workers’ dignity, safety and participation. 

The lecture was organised by Lokadhikar, Asangatith Mazdoor Sangarsh Morcha and SRUTI on September 22, 2026 at Indian Social Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Partha Sarthy to hear case of indpendence of prosecutor for admission, will Justice Dr. Anshuman's verdict be declared per incuriam?

In Punit Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of  Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao  and Justice Partha Sarthy to hear a LPA against the 8-page long judgement by Justice Dr. Anshuman who has concluded:"13. In light of the provisions under Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law that, being a Prosecution Officer, he shall always be posted as a District Prosecution Officer, as the Rules governing him, namely the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, itself provide specific provisions for appointment/deputation in other departments as well, wherever the Government or the parent department is in need. 14. So far as the judgment on which the petitioner relied shall not applicable upon the petitioner as those judgments are of 1996 and of 1992 when the Bihar Prosecution Manual has not been enacted. This Court is of the firm view that the services of the petitioner shall be guided by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 and not by any other law till the said prosecution manual any of its provision shall not be declared ultra vires by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Working in any office on deputation cannot be said to be worked under the administrative and disciplinary control of the said department due to the reason that the petitioner is ultimately the employee of Bihar Prosecution Service and the rule framed under Rule 31 of the Manual shall also binding upon upon. 15. In the light of the discussions and reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner has no case and, hence, this writ petition is dismissed." The case was filed on January 28, 2025. It was registered on February 1, 2025.  The LPA is listed for hearing on admission. 

The L.P.A was field on June 9, 2026 and registered on June 10, 2026. The four other respondents are: 2.  The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, 4. The Director, Prosecution, Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Bihar and 5. The District Prosecution Officer, In-charge, Rohtas, Sasaram. It arose from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1855 of 2025.  Notably, Clause 3 of Prosecution Manual, 2003 provides for constitution of Bihar Prosecution Service. Working in any department on deputation puts the one who has been deputed under the administrative and disciplinary control of the department. A joint reading the decision by Justice Dr. Anshuman and the Supreme Court's decision in S.B. Sahane vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1628 reveals that the former is per incuriam as it did not refer to the latter, which has settled the law. 

In M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. 2024 INSC 840, the 5-Judge Constitution of Bench of the Supreme Court has held, “… when dealing with the ignorance of a statutory provision, we may bear in mind the following principles. These may not however be exhaustive: 

(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission. 

(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. 

(iii) If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration. 

(iv) It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply.”

In Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2026 INSC 667, Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment is per incuriam: (a) when its ratio is not reconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or higher strength; or (b) when a particular provision, a statute, a rule or a regulation has not been brought to the attention of the Court. 

Now it is for the Division bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy to ascertain how through a questionable subordinate legislation an attempt  has been made to orient the prosecutors towards securing  more convictions through executive instructions compromised the independence of prosecutors. The undue political influence is manifest in the manner in which criminal cases are withdrawn from prosecution.  Withdrawal from prosecution allows for weaker cases to fall out of the system, however  in practice negligible numbers of cases are  withdrawn in Bihar. The power is mostly usurped by state government to manipulate  the criminal justice system and use it as a site for electoral politics. This practice of the state government combined with the relatively limited discretion prosecutors in Bihar enjoy at the investigation stage and the early stage of a criminal trial  makes them vulnerable to executive interference. While independence from the investigating agencies has been secured, independence from the state executive is  equally important for optimal functioning of the office of public prosecution. The institutional arrangement under which public prosecutors operate have a significant influence on the discharge of their responsibilities inside the courtroom. 

Significantly, unlike Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court, the Patna High Court, Allahabad High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have upheld the need to ensure prosecutorial autonomy in the past. For prosecutorial autonomy and neutrality to translate into reality, questionable provisions under subordinate legislations like the Bihar Prosecution Manual 2003 and notifications under it which undermine prosecutorial autonomy ought to be read down to ensure compliance with Supreme Court's directions in S.B. Shahanae vs.State of Maharashtra. AIR19951628:1995 SCC (Cri)787, wherein, it has held that the appointment of officers or prosecutors of the Police Department as Assistant Public Prosecutors must be free them from the administrative and disciplinary control of the Police Department and its officers. The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which impaired prosecutorial neutrality. 

In Jai Pal Singh Naresh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1976 CRILJ 3, the Allahabad High Court has held:“...if administrative and disciplinary control over the public prosecutors was entrusted to the officers of the Police Department, the very purpose for which Section 25 was enacted would be frustrated...The State government appoints Assistant Public Prosecutors and it can alone dismiss or remove them but that does not mean that the police officers to whom immediate disciplinary control has been entrusted will cease to have any right to exercise powers over the Assistant Public Prosecutors...Once they are liable to answer to the Superintendent of police and Inspector General of Police, in substance they are subordinate officers to them and they would be liable to carry out their orders and directions. The State Government while exercising its power of dismissal or removal is bound to be affected by the reports and opinion of those Police officers who have administrative and disciplinary control over the public prosecutors, therefore the contention that since the ultimate control vests with the State Government the immediate control of Police officers would not affect the independence of the prosecuting agency is fallacious.” 

In Krishan Singh Kundu vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 1989 CRILJ1 309, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held: "That the action of the respondent State of Haryana, in appointing a police officer as Director of Prosecution, that is, in charge of the Prosecution Agency of the State, is wholly illegal and violative of the very letter and spirit of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, by issuing a writ of certiorari, quash the appointment of the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, who happens to be an officer of the Police Department, and by issuing further a writ of Prohibition, we forthwith restrain the State of Haryana from permitting any police officer to occupy the office of the Director of Prosecution."

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of transfer vide Notification No. 145 dated January 16, 2025 at Serial No. 2 from the post of Sub Divisional Prosecution Officer, posted in the District Prosecution Office, Rohtas, Sasaram to the office of Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar as law Officer and further prayer for quashing the relieving order No.8/2025 contained in Memo No. 144 dated April 4, 2025. The counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 1011 dated September 25, 2017 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 2513 dated October 31, 2023, both issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was also submitted that the petitioner, vide Letter No. 20 dated January 17, 2025, made a representation before the Director of Prosecution requesting that he be posted in any District Prosecution Office by rectifying or omitting his name at Serial No. 2 of the transfer notification. A similar representation was also submitted before respondent no. 2, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, but no relief was granted. The counsel also submitted that the High Court, vide order dated November 14, 1995 passed in CWJC No. 5573 of 1995, had directed the State authorities to create a separate prosecution cadre independent of the police department in terms of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to ensure that no Assistant Public Prosecutor remains subordinate to police officers. The order was challenged by the State of Bihar in LPA No. 294 of 1996, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of vide order dated November 4, 1996. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.    

Prior to this in The Bihar Prosecution Officer's Association through its General Secretary & Ors. vs. .The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2013), Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh of Patna High Court has delivered a 35-page long judgement dated January 24, 2013, wherein, he observed:"It is relevant to state that the Law Commission of India suggested that the post of Public Prosecutor must always be filled by the member of the Bar from panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. The Commission further suggested that 50% of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in a district must always be filled by the bar from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under section 24(4) in consultation with the Sessions Judge and remaining 50% of the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in a district should be filled from amongst Public Prosecutor who are in regular cadre of Prosecuting officer. The Commission suggested that 50% post of Additional Public Prosecutor to be filled by the Assistant Public Prosecutor should be from a penal prepared by the State Level Committee consisting of (a) a retired High Court Judge/sitting High Court Judge, nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, (b) the Law Secretary in the State Government, (c) an officer of the rank of Secretary of that State and (d) Director of Prosecution." 

Justice Singh recorded: "The Law Department, respondent no.5, has states in paragraph 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit that after due consideration of 197th report of the Law Commission of India, the Government of Bihar has accorded its assent to the suggestion of the Law Commission and views and comments of Government of Bihar has been communicated to the Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.7.2011. The relevant extract of 197th report of the Law Commission of India on Public Prosecutor‟s appointment is quoted hereinbelow:
“……….We have, therefore, suggested that the post of Public Prosecutor must always be filled by a member of the Bar from a panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge, that 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must also be filled by the Bar from the panel prepared by the District Magistrate under sec. 24(4) in consultation with the Sessions Judge and remaining 50% of the posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor in a District must be filled from among Asst. Public Prosecutors who are in the Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers. We have also recommended an express provision to be inserted in sec. 24(4) that the Sessions Judge must recommend names of lawyers who have personally conducted substantial number of Sessions cases and who bear good character. If such a Central amendment is brought, in case the State Amendments omit the provision of consultation with the Sessions Judge and the selection experience and good character, such a procedure will offend Art.14. Likewise, in regard to sec. 24(6), 50% of posts of Addl. Public Prosecutor, must be filled by Asst. Public Prosecutors from a panel prepared by a State Level Committee consisting of (a) a retired High Court Judge/sitting High Court Judge, nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, (b) the Law Secretary in the State Government, (c) an officer of the rank of Secretary of that State and (d) the Director of Prosecution. That Committee must assess the merit, experience, previous record of performance of the Asst. Public Prosecutors and it must be ensured that the persons selected bear good character. We have also stated that within six months of the proposed amendment to the Code, State Governments must constitute a Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers consisting of 50% of Posts of Addl. Public Prosecutors in a District and all the Asst. Public Prosecutors in the State. The above recommendations answer all the questions posed by the PMO in its letter to the Home Ministry.” It is expected that the State of Bihar would honour its own commitment and would act in terms of the recommendation of the Law Commission to which it has accorded its consent."

Justice Singh concluded:" In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, no mandamus can be issued directing implementation of section 24(6) Cr.P.C. in appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor from Prosecuting Officers, as it would be in teeth of State Amendment substituted vide Act 16/84 substituting the word “may” in place of “shall” in section 24(6) Cr.P.C. of Explanation inserted by Act 25/2005 to the proviso to section 24(6) would not be of much help even assuming their exists even a regular cadre of Prosecuting officers, as long as the State amendment 16/84 to section 24(6) is not altered or declared invalid. Even the Prosecution Manual, 2003 on which the petitioners have placed reliance, also allows discretion under Clause 30¼d½ to the government in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor from amongst the Prosecution Officers. In the facts of the case, I issue following directions:
(i) As the cadre of Prosecuting Officers is working at the moment at less than half of its strength, I direct the Government to complete the process of selection for which requisition of 285 Assistant Public Prosecutor was made to B.P.S.C. between the years 2006 to 2010 expeditiously preferably within six months. All concerned would act accordingly to ensure compliance in public interest so that trial in Courts may not suffer.
(ii) The Government would take steps for appointment of 50% of Additional Public Prosecutor from cadre of Prosecution Officers as per its own affidavit and consent accorded to recommendation of Law Commission.
(iii) The Government in terms of earlier assurance as noted in foregoing paragraphs may in its discretion consider at least appointing 10% of Public Prosecutor under clause 30¼d½ as well as substituted section 24(6) amended under Act 16/84 from amongst Prosecution Officers.
(iv) The Government of Bihar would act in terms of section 25(A) inserted vide Act 25/2005 and take steps for appointment of a regular Director of Prosecution as well as Deputy Director of Prosecution to strengthen the functioning of Prosecution agency in absence of which the provision would remain only a paper worth." 

The Bihar Prosecution Officer's Association's case was adjudicated along with Shambhu Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. and Surya Nandan Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government of Bihar & Ors. (20213). Like Justice Dr. Anshuman and Justice Singh too missed the opportunity to draw on the Supreme Court's decision in S.B. Sahane vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1628, which conclusively settled the law. It held that the administrative and disciplinary control of police over the prosecutors is against the letter and spirit of Section 25 of the CrPC. The prosecutors must be fully free from the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department and its officers.  

Now it is for the Division Bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy to recognize the illegitimacy of encroachment by the state government's subordinate legisaltion to remove the checks on executive power in the matter of  appointments and through the set of rules and  instructions made by the state government that are intrinsically tied to the functioning of prosecutors. 

Also read: Will Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 prevail over High Court's judgments of 1992 and 1996?

Supreme Court orders "Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured, Internet facilities should function unhindered, There shall be no illegal detention, Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties"

In Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Govind Mohan (2026), upon hearing a Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary, a case arising out of 4-page long Supreme Court’s impugned judgment and order dated October 9, 2026 in M.A. Baby vs. Union of India, Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police & Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and  V. Mohana passed a 11-page long order on SUNDAY October 11, 2026, wherein, it concluded: 16. Taking note of such submissions, we direct as follows:

(a) Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2).

(b) Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law and order situation and/or traffic regulations. Imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith to ensure free movement subject to law and order and traffic requirements.

(c) Internet facilities should function unhindered.

(d) There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.

(e) We have been informed that a notice board stating Section 163 BNSS has been invoked in and around the precincts of the Supreme Court has been put up in the Court premises. We direct the authorities concerned to forthwith take down the said board, if not already done, so that there is no apprehension with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court of law.

(f) Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever. 17. List on 13.10.2026 for further consideration along with Diary No. 63952/2026, Diary No. 63943/2026, Diary No. 63944/2026 and application(s) for intervention/impleadment.

The order reads: “1. Application for permission to file contempt petition is allowed. 2. In view of the urgent applications alleging violation of our earlier order dated 09.10.2026 and also alleging illegal detention of large number of individuals at Delhi on 10.10.2026, this Court has assembled for an urgent hearing. 3. During hearing, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Dr. Monika Gusain, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel and Mr. Devvrat, learned AOR along with other learned senior counsel/counsel submitted that there were flagrant violations of directions given in our order dated 09.10.2026; metro railway was not functioning; New Delhi railway station and Nizamuddin railway station remained closed; no traffic advisories were issued and large number of persons were subjected to undue harassment and illegal detention even beyond the area which was covered by the prohibitory order passed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). It was also contended that there was a complete shutdown of the internet and that the city bore a curfew like look with suspension of transport and free movement of people and goods.”

The order further reads: “4. In addition to such submissions, oral mentionings were made in respect of Diary No. 63952/2026, Diary No. 63943/2026 and Diary No. 63944/2026 wherein similar prayers had been made. 5. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy in support of the listed matters being Diary No.63801/2026 (in Diary No.63560/2026) and Diary No.63858/2026 took us through the pleadings, wherein it has been averred that the metro railway stations namely GTB Nagar Metro Station and Viswavidyalaya Metro Station among other metro stations were completely shut out to public and there has been a deliberate and wilful violation of our order as aforesaid. 6. Addressing us on the Habeas Corpus petition (Diary No.63858/2026), Dr. Guruswamy forcibly contended that the prayer re: illegal detention is not merely restricted to the personalities referred to therein but is a plea against widespread illegal detention of about 7,000 individuals in the city. 7. In rebuttal, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India & Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India contend that the petitions which were orally mentioned have not been served on the Union and accordingly they are unable to assist the Court on the issues pleaded therein.”

The order states: “8. With regard to the allegations made in the Diary No. 63801/2026, Mr. Tushar Mehta orally denies and disputes the allegations of violation of order dated 09.10.2026 and contends that the Delhi Metro was functioning normally, however, 45 out of 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order. In response to the Habeas Corpus petition, he denied any one had been illegally detained and otherwise the petition is infructuous as the detenues referred to have since been released. 9. With regard to the submission that the essential services still remain suspended, he assured this Court that all metro stations are open since 10 p.m. yesterday, trains are functioning normally and internet connection has been restored. With regard to a serious insinuation that Section 163 of the BNSS had been clamped in and around the Supreme Court premises, Mr. Mehta sought time to seek instructions. 10. Other counsel have made prayers for intervention in these proceedings and contend that the fundamental freedoms must be exercised in a reasonable manner and must be subjected to reasonable restrictions.”

The Court recorded: “11. Having heard the learned senior counsel as well as the learned Solicitor General of India and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, we note that our order dated 09.10.2026, inter alia, held as follows: “7. It appears that the notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation. Upon our indication that a distinction exists between total ‘prohibition’ and the ‘regulation’ of Metro and other train movements, learned Solicitor General of India has fairly agreed to impress upon the authorities to reassess such prohibitions. Consequently, they will permit the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in such a regulated manner, that no inconvenience is caused to the residents and general public of Delhi, while adhering to the principles of proportionality. 8. Regarding that assurance, we clarify that although there shall be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains, a prudent decision may be made to permit the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in a suitable and regulated manner. Such a decision should be widely publicised to prevent further inconvenience. 9. In this vein, a traffic advisory shall also be published in respect of smooth movement of vehicles in newspapers and on online platforms to ensure that no hardship or inconvenience is caused to the public in the course of traveling within the city. The order will be issued today to ensure that the decision receives publicity and that there is ample clarity on the prevailing circumstances. 10. During the course of hearing, it was suggested, and learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties were ad idem, that it is high time basic amenities were provided to those engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. To that end, suitable alternative sites capable of housing such infrastructure need to be identified and designated. Let the Competent Authority consider this suggestion and take an appropriate decision thereon. 11. Let a compliance report be filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, the requisite Railway authorities and Delhi Police (Traffic) in this regard within four days. 12. Ordered accordingly. 12. In summary, by the said order, firstly, the authorities concerned had been directed to revisit the earlier notification issued by Delhi Metro regarding closure of 57 metro stations keeping in mind the fact that the operation of metro train and other rail services may be regulated in appropriate situations but not prohibited outrightly. Secondly, the order had also directed the authorities to give wide publicity to the reconsidered decision to avoid further inconvenience to the public. Thirdly, the order had directed fresh traffic advisories in newspapers and online platforms in respect of free vehicle movement. The order has also called upon the authorities to submit a compliance report within four days i.e., 13.10.2026.” 

Supreme Court observed: “13. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments in the Contempt Petition, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we issue notice upon the alleged contemnors. They are directed to file counter affidavit to the said petition including a compliance report in terms of our order as aforesaid by 13.10.2026. Their personal presence is dispensed with in the meanwhile. Similarly, notice is issued in Habeas Corpus Petition (Diary No.63858/2026). 14. The other unlisted mentioned petitions shall be served upon the office of the Solicitor General during the course of the day and shall be tagged with the present matters. Intervention/impleadment application(s) shall also be tagged with these matters. 15. Learned counsel have strongly urged for ad-interim reliefs with regard to smooth operation of metro rail, traffic, internet services and free movement of people, especially lawyers, journalists and other professionals. Mr. Mehta has, on instructions, submitted that internet facilities have since been restored and all metro railway stations are fully functional. He also assures the Court that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be impeded in discharge of their professional duties.”