The Central government has filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court denying allegations of willful disobedience of the top court's orders and
defending its decision to suspend mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi during the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. In its affidavit, filed on Wednesday night, the Centre maintained that the temporary suspension of internet services was necessary to prevent a disturbance of public order and constituted a proportionate response to the prevailing circumstances. It also urged the Supreme Court to discharge the contempt notice issued to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in connection with the restrictions imposed during the protest. According to the Centre, the suspension of internet services was limited to a 4-kilometer radius. Mobile internet services remained suspended from 10:00 PM on October 9 to 10:00 PM on October 10. The government asserted that the measure taken was proportionate, given the gravity of the situation. The Centre has further sought a modification of the Supreme Court's order to permit the suspension of internet services in situations where such a measure becomes necessary, provided that the decision is taken in strict compliance with the law and the applicable statutory safeguards.
What happened on October 10?
The dispute arose amid extensive security restrictions imposed across the national capital ahead of the October 10 demonstration called by the CJP. The party had planned to protest against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed gathering, citing the short notice given by the organisers.
On October 9, the Supreme Court intervened in the matter of restrictions placed on public transport ahead of the protest. The court directed the authorities to ensure that there was no complete prohibition on the movement of Delhi Metro trains and other trains entering the national capital, while allowing the regulation of services wherever necessary to maintain public order.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that security arrangements should not cause undue hardship to members of the public. It directed the authorities to ensure that decisions relating to the operation of transport services were communicated widely so that commuters could make the necessary arrangements.
Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with the court's directions.
(With IANS inputs)
