October 10 detainees provided ‘hot, fresh, good meals’, only cellular internet was suspended: Delhi Police to SC

Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar has told the Supreme Court that “preventive measures” taken on October 10 were based on intelligence inputs, ever-changing ground situation, and with an objective of preventing any disturbance of public order.

Follow Anti-CEC protest LIVE updates

The police chief said detainees of the October 10 protests were provided “hot, fresh and good meals”. They were not locked up in jails, but kept in makeshift centres. They were allowed to leave “after the occasion which necessitated their removal ceased to exist”. The police said the detainees were confined only for two to six hours.

Mr. Kumar said political leaders, “similarly removed”, were “requested to sit in the chambers of the Station House Officers and were provided tea, coffee, meals and other refreshments while fully maintaining the dignity of the office they held or were holding”.

Mr. Kumar said only cellular internet services were suspended, not “internet per se”, and that too within a four-km radius of Raisina Hill.

The “preventive measures” taken by the police were meant to retain the “peace and tranquility and public order ” of New Delhi, the police chief said.

Not naming the Cockroach Janta Party directly, Mr. Kumar pointed out that “no police administration can permit any breach of public order in the national capital, particularly when a call is given by an organisation with a recent history of mob violence, destruction of public and private property, and incidents resulting in injuries to several individuals”.

His response to petitions challenging the crackdown and detention of protestors demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 10 covered several pages detailing the July 20 “unlawful assembly” and “illegal march” to the Parliament, which culminated in violence.

The affidavit was filed merely hours before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is due to hear a series of petitions filed by CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby, represented by advocate Subhash Chandran, petitioner-senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and others who have challenged the police action and detentions on October 10.

Mr. Kumar’s affidavit said the police could simply not take a risk on October 10 after the July 20 incident.

Mr. Kumar reminded that central Delhi was home to 195 vital and sensitive institutions, including the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhavan, various High Commissions and foreign embassies.

“The complexion of precautions required to be taken by the police are peculiar and different from other parts of the country,” he explained.

He said the months of August to October 2026 were filled with several High profile diplomatic visits, international summits and judicial conferences which cannot afford a disturbance in law and public order in the New Delhi area. Any public order situation would gain global attention which may hurt the reputation of a fast-developing nation.

Mr. Kumar said the October 10 protest had been immediately preceded by repeated protest calls from the Congress party on October 6, October 7 and October 8. Due to these protests and marches by the political party, central Delhi had been choked with huge traffic snarls, “resulting in students and innocent citizens getting stuck in traffic jams, people losing their trains, airlines, etc”.

The police chief said police officers were harassed and their damages, including tyres punctured and window panes broken, during the Congress party protests.

The police blamed the scars left by the July 20 protests and a sense of caution gained from the Congress party protests for the October 10 “preventive measures”.

Mr. Kumar said that besides prohibitive powers under Section 163 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the police had authority under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 to remove any person who “resists, ignores, or disregards” the directions given by a police officer. Such a person would be produced before a Magistrate or be released as soon as possible, subject to the statutory limit of 24 hours.

The police chief’s affidavit said Section 172 of the BNSS mandated that “all persons are bound to conform to the lawful directions of the police”.

“Yet, office-bearers of various organisations, bodies and political parties were mobilising people from different parts of the country to participate in an unlawful assembly to protest… a history of disregard for lawful directions on July 20 as well as on October 6, 7, and 8, the potential for significant disruption of public order and harm to innocent citizens led the Central government to issue a communication on October 9 [for preventive measures on October 10],” the affidavit said.

The police chief reiterated the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation’s separate affidavit that only 45 out of a total 303 stations were closed on October 10.

The police chief termed the closure of the Metro service as “regulation”, in compliance with a Supreme Court order of October 9, barring prohibition of the services the next day.

Published – October 15, 2026 10:05 am IST