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

The Delhi High Court’s bench that heard the plea filed by the city police on 10 October will now have to decide whether the police’s decision to suspend cellular internet in a sensitive part of the capital was lawful and proportionate. The petition, presented by the police chief, claims that the emergency measures were taken to preserve peace and tranquility in an area that the authorities described as “vital and sensitive.” The complaint also highlights that the detainees in the area were provided with “hot, fresh, good meals” and that only the cellular internet was halted, a point that the police say underscores the targeted nature of the restrictions.Delhi Police’s argument rests on the principle that security and public safety are paramount, especially in places that serve as hubs for government activity and where any disturbance could have cascading effects on national administration. The chief emphasised that the area in question had witnessed a spate of protests and civil unrest in the months leading up to the incident, prompting a review of preventive measures..

The police stated that the internet ban was a calculated move to prevent the rapid spread of disinformation, curb the spread of organised agitation, and protect the integrity of ongoing security operations.The police presented evidence that, during the 10‑day period when the internet was blocked, there were no recorded incidents of violence, property damage or major disturbances. Instead, they claimed the ban helped maintain calm, allowing security personnel to manage the situation more effectively. The authorities also pointed to the logistical challenges involved in monitoring large crowds without real‑time digital communication, and argued that the ban was a necessary trade‑off to prevent a potential escalation.Opposing the police’s position is a coalition of civil‑rights organisations, which argue that a blanket internet shutdown, even if limited to a small geographic area, infringes on fundamental rights..

They reference Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(2), which allows for reasonable restrictions. The groups contend that the measures exceeded what is considered “reasonable,” especially given that the internet ban was imposed without a prior court order or a comprehensive risk assessment that demonstrated a direct link between the shutdown and the prevention of violence.In a statement, the police chief acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue but stressed that the decision was taken in consultation with senior security officials and in line with established protocols for managing high‑risk zones. He said that the authorities had carried out a thorough threat assessment before enacting the internet ban, and that they had monitored the situation closely to ensure that no unjustified harm came to the public or to the detainees themselves..

The chief also pointed out that the police had maintained a continuous supply of fresh, hot meals for the detainees, arguing that the ban did not amount to an undue hardship or deprivation of basic needs.The case also brings to light the broader debate about the use of internet shutdowns as a tool for maintaining public order. While some officials view such measures as a necessary instrument in the modern age of digital mobilisation, civil‑rights advocates see them as a blunt instrument that stifles dissent and erodes trust in the democratic process. The Delhi High Court has previously ruled that internet shutdowns must be justified by a compelling public interest and that they should be as narrowly tailored as possible, allowing for the least restrictive means.The court is now faced with the task of reconciling the police’s security concerns with the constitutional protections afforded to citizens..

The bench will have to examine the evidence presented by both sides, including the extent to which the internet ban actually prevented violence or unrest, and whether the restrictions were proportionate to the risks identified. The decision could set a precedent for how authorities approach internet censorship in sensitive zones, especially in a country where digital communication plays a pivotal role in civic engagement.The Delhi Police’s assertion that the detainees received “hot, fresh, good meals” is a detail that humanises the situation and underscores the police’s claim that the ban was not punitive but protective. Yet the civil‑rights groups argue that even with adequate food provision, the right to communicate freely is fundamental, particularly when the people detained are under state control and may need to access information or support.The court will also need to consider the legal framework governing emergency measures..

Under the Public Safety Act and the Information Technology Act, authorities are granted certain powers, but these are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse. The police have argued that the emergency nature of the situation justified a rapid response, while the opposition maintains that the rule of law requires a procedural check even in urgent scenarios.As the debate unfolds, observers note that the outcome of this case will likely influence policing strategies in other parts of the country where sensitive installations or high‑risk events are planned. A ruling in favour of the police could embolden authorities to adopt similar blanket restrictions in the future, whereas a decision that limits such powers would reinforce the need for stricter oversight..

The judiciary’s stance will be closely watched by both security agencies and civil‑society organisations alike, as it will signal how the balance between public safety and individual freedoms is being navigated in contemporary India..