Summary
On 15 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a batch of petitions arising from the 10 October demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
It asked the Union government to explain the prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which led to mass detentions of journalists, lawyers and protesters. Petitioners argued the orders had never been made public and could not lawfully cover contiguous areas.
The Court directed preservation of all CCTV footage of the protests, including from detention centres and issued notice to the Election Commission and all three Commissioners on a separate INDIA bloc petition. The orders will face constitutional scrutiny once the government files its affidavit.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Supreme Court on 15 October 2026 directed the Centre and Delhi Police to place on record and justify the Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders behind the 10 October mass detentions in Delhi and ordered preservation of all protest and detention-centre CCTV footage. It is one of the first major judicial tests of how the new criminal procedure code's preventive powers interact with the fundamental right to assemble peaceably.
Standard News
An Order That Cannot Be Read Cannot Be Challenged Article
19(1)(b) gives every citizen the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(3) lets the State restrict that right through reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of sovereignty, integrity or public order. On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Court found it could not yet apply that test to the restrictions used in Delhi on 10 October, because nobody had seen them.
The rule as written Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the CrPC, lets a Magistrate issue a prohibitory order in urgent cases of apprehended danger.
The design it inherits is specific: a written order stating the material facts, made known to the people it binds. The criminal consequence works the same way. Disobedience under Section 223 of the BNS, like Section 188 IPC before it, turns on knowing disobedience of a promulgated order. Two judgments supply the constitutional frame:
- Madhu Limaye (1970): upheld the old Section 144 but confined it to genuine emergencies and tied it to procedural safeguards.
- Anuradha Bhasin (2020): held that orders restricting fundamental rights must be published, because a citizen cannot challenge what the State has not disclosed.
The rule as practised Petitioners told the Court that the Delhi orders were never made public and were imposed over contiguous areas rather than specific trouble spots.
Justice Bagchi was reported as saying the orders were, for now, effectively a phantom and would face constitutional scrutiny once the government filed its affidavit. TMC MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy asked that they be placed on record. The Court's two directions follow from this:
- Produce the orders. Until they are on record, no court can check their reasoning, scope or duration against the proportionality standard the Supreme Court laid down in Ramlila Maidan (2012).
- Preserve the CCTV footage, including from detention centres. This fixes the factual record before it can be lost and keeps open any later inquiry into how the detentions were carried out.
Why this is the real question Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan has also challenged Sections 163 and 172 themselves.
The Bench was initially reluctant to reopen Section 163, as reported, because Madhu Limaye had already upheld its predecessor. That is the significant part. The Court is not starting by asking whether the power is constitutional. It is asking whether the power was exercised in a form the Constitution can review.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 144 of the CrPC and empowers a Magistrate to issue prohibitory orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
-
Section 172 BNSS requires persons to comply with lawful directions of a police officer.
-
Disobeying a prohibitory order is an offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
-
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
-
Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) upheld Section 144 CrPC but confined it to genuine emergencies.
-
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) held that orders restricting fundamental rights must be published so they can be challenged.
-
The Bench was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant with Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
-
The lead INDIA bloc petition is Rahul Gandhi v Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1351 of 2026.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The three-step chain from written order to publication to knowing disobedience and how an unpublished order breaks it.
Why the Bench hesitated to reopen Section 163 itself and what Madhu Limaye does and does not settle about the new BNSS.
How the CCTV preservation order turns a protest-policing dispute into a question of evidence and accountability.
A short-term and long-term reform path, including a statutory publication duty for prohibitory orders.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free