Delhi Police and Home Ministry Defend Preventive Curbs and Telecom Suspension Before Supreme Court

Preventive Policing and Internet Suspension Under BNSS

The Delhi Police Commissioner and the Union Home Secretary submitted affidavits before the Supreme Court explaining preventive enforcement measures taken in the national capital, including the short-term detention of demonstrators and localized cellular data suspension. Responding to contempt notices before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the authorities tendered unconditional apologies while maintaining that the actions were necessary, proportionate interventions aimed at safeguarding public order around sensitive institutions.

Relevance for UPSC Aspirants

This development has strong relevance for Polity and Governance (GS Paper II) and Internal Security (GS Paper III), illustrating key administrative and constitutional considerations:

• Statutory Powers Under BNSS: The operational use of Section 163 (prohibitory orders replacing earlier preventive codes) and Section 172 (duty of persons to conform to lawful police directions) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• Doctrine of Proportionality: The legal requirement that executive actions restricting fundamental liberties—such as mobile data suspension and mobility curbs—must satisfy strict tests of legitimate state aim, necessity, and geographical restraint.
• Right to Protest versus Public Order: Balancing citizens' democratic freedoms of assembly and movement against the administration's mandate to secure sensitive national establishments and diplomatic zones.
• Judicial Review: The role of higher courts in examining whether police preventive actions adhere to statutory boundaries and constitutional safeguards.

Key Legal and Administrative Background

The official affidavits invoked Section 163 and Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alongside Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which authorizes the removal of individuals who disregard lawful police instructions, subject to statutory time limitations. Law enforcement justified the measures—including temporary transport restrictions and cellular internet suspension within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill—by highlighting the security imperatives of housing numerous foreign embassies, constitutional courts, and high offices in central New Delhi. The case underscores the evolving jurisprudence around preventive detentions and administrative curbs under India's reformed criminal procedural statutes.