Questions over non-public ban orders amid Delhi protest arrests

The detention of protesters in the capital this week while demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities has raised questions about Delhi Police’s failure to publicize the Section 163 bans it says are in place. The provision empowers the executive judge to issue written orders when “immediate prevention or expeditious remedy” is necessary to prevent danger to human life or safety, disturbance of public peace or other specified threats.

Watch for updates on Anti-CEC protests on October 14, 2026

A BNSS Section 163 order accessed by The Hindu and issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ajay Sharma on August 23 shows that the restrictions are limited to the Parliament Street police sub-division and specifically exclude the specifically demarcated area on Jantar Mantar Road. The order, which runs until October 21, bans gatherings of five or more people, public gatherings, processions, sloganeering and speeches, among other things.

Further, Post X dated 3 October by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), New Delhi states that bans under Section 163 of the BNSS, prohibiting unauthorized assemblies, processions and dharnas, are in force in the entire New Delhi district and that no permission has been granted for any protest. However, the post does not provide copies of the orders or specify how long the restrictions will remain in place.

Meanwhile, protesters were detained at locations outside the Parliament Street police sub-division, including Connaught Place (CP). At a protest in the CP on Sunday (October 11, 2026), opposition leaders and several protesters were detained, along with a dozen journalists who claimed to have been taken to detention centers despite showing their press cards.

Restrictions have also been imposed around Jantar Mantar, with adjacent roads heavily barricaded and police personnel deployed at access points, although the demarcated area on Jantar Mantar Road falls outside the scope of the August 23 order. On Wednesday (October 14), protesters attempting to march towards Jantar Mantar, which had been de-notified as a designated protest site, were stopped by barricades on Firoz Shah Road. The protests followed the arrest of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das earlier in the day for allegedly entering the area “without permission” the previous day.

Delhi Police sources refused to confirm to The Hindu whether separate BNSS Section 163 orders were publicly available for other subdivisions of the New Delhi district – Connaught Place, Chanakyapuri and Barakhamba Road – or for the Jantar Mantar area. They said hoardings had been placed in those areas and notices had been issued informing people that bans were in place.

A gathering seen by Hindus near the Delhi-Uttar Pradesh border, about 10 km from Jantar Mantar, said on October 10 that the ban under Section 163 of the BNSS “has been enforced in the Delhi area” to maintain peace, law and order. It listed prohibited activities, including gatherings of five or more people, processions and assemblies and provocative shouting of slogans, and warned of legal action against violators. However, he did not mention the date of the relevant order or the period for which the restrictions will be in place.

“Statutory Mandate”

Former Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oka said that making the ban public was necessary to give effect to the statutory right under Section 163(5) of the BNSS, which allows an aggrieved person to seek their cancellation or amendment.

“When sub-section (5) of section 163 expressly gives liberty to any person aggrieved by prohibitory orders to apply for variation or rescission, there is a statutory mandate for the orders to be published in the public domain. They cannot be confidential,” Mr Oka said. He added that public notices or hoardings merely stating that prohibition orders are in effect do not meet this requirement.

Mr. Oka also pointed out that the August 23 order did not state whether an investigation was conducted before concluding that immediate preventive action was required. “Such orders curtail fundamental rights and must be preceded by a detailed inquiry,” he said.

Delhi-based lawyer Abhinav Sekhri said the lack of public access to such orders is not new. A 2023 report titled “Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC”, co-authored by Mr Sekhri and lawyers Vrinda Bhandari, Natasha Maheshwari and Madhav Aggarwal, said Delhi Police does not routinely publish such orders. Section 144 of the former Criminal Code (CrPC) was replaced by Section 163 of the BNSS in 2024.

“For our research, we gained access to many of these orders through Right to Information responses,” Mr Sekhri said. He also pointed to the practice of reissuing “cyclostyle” orders once their two-month legal limit for restricting public gatherings had expired.

“Even though Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a protest site, any order under Section 163 applicable there must be made public. The freight yards located in parts of central Delhi only state that prohibitory orders are in force without specifying their territorial limits or the period for which they will remain in force,” he said.

Former IPS officer RK Vij said detaining protesters in areas where relevant orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were not publicly available would be illegal. “Police authorities are under a mandatory obligation to issue and upload such orders on their websites so that people are aware of the restrictions in place and their exact terms. The uploads are time-stamped to provide a clear record of when the order was first placed in the public domain,” he said.

Plea before SC

The absence of publicly available prohibitory orders was also raised before the Supreme Court by B.Tech student Samriddhi Das, who claimed that police restrictions prevented her from reaching the site of the October 10 protest. Her petition, filed through advocates Nipun Saxena and Ashima Mandla, alleged that the Delhi Police had “maliciously” failed to upload the alleged ban on its website.

The motion is scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15).

(With inputs from Vijaya Singh and Lavpreet Kaur)

Published – 14 October 2026 21:50 IST