Advocate Seeks Attorney General's Consent For Criminal Contempt Against Delhi Police Commissioner Over Alleged Breach Of SC's Sunday Order

The letter is dated October 12 and addressed to Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, seeks consent "to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court of India against Anurag Kumar, Commissioner of Delhi Police, for blatant, deliberate, and willful defiance of the unequivocal directives passed by the Supreme Court."

No contempt proceedings have been initiated against the Commissioner. According to a press note issued by Advocate Singh, the request is awaiting consideration by the office of the Attorney General.

It is to be noted that under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court may take action for criminal contempt on its own motion, on a motion by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, or on a motion by any other person with the written consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 reflects the same procedure.

Singh's letter invokes Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Act and Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules, and asks the Attorney General "to grant your written consent within time bound manner … so that the proposed necessitated criminal contempt petition may be formally filed and adjudicated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

The directions said to have been defied were issued on October 11, 2026 by a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The Bench had assembled for an urgent hearing on applications "alleging violation of our earlier order dated 09.10.2026 and also alleging illegal detention of large number of individuals at Delhi on 10.10.2026".

According to the Record of Proceedings annexed to the letter, the Court recorded the Solicitor General's assurance "that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be impeded in discharge of their professional duties", and then directed, among other things: "(d) There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation. … (f) Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever."

The Court also directed that metro and railway facilities "shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2)", that the imposition of barricades on roads "shall be reviewed forthwith", and that "Internet facilities should function unhindered."

Letter alleges detention of Journalists and protesters within hours

The letter states that large-scale demonstrations have been taking place in the national capital "concerning grievances against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar".

It alleges that the Delhi Police, "acting under the direct command and control of the Alleged Contemnor", disregarded the Court's mandate in Central Delhi "on the very same day, hours after the issuance of the said order". Two instances are set out. First, that the police "intercepted, harassed, and detained around a dozen journalists who were merely performing their professional duties of covering the protests". Second, that the police "executed sweeping, unlawful detentions of numerous peaceful and unarmed protesters in areas well outside the localized territory under Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders."

In support, the letter cites reports published by The Hindu and the Hindustan Times. These allegations have not been tested before any court.

Wilful disobedience of a court's order is defined as civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act. The letter instead frames the alleged conduct as criminal contempt under Section 2(c), which covers acts that lower the authority of a court or interfere with the administration of justice.

It contends that the actions of the Delhi Police "do not represent a mere administrative lapse; they constitute a calculated, high-handed defiance of a specific, fresh judicial order passed during an extraordinary emergency sitting." It further states, "Such brazen defiance by the primary law enforcement officer of the capital city directly lowers the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and interferes with the administration of justice, satisfying the prerequisites of Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

In a statement accompanying the letter, Advocate Singh stated, "The Supreme Court took an unprecedented step to protect the fundamental rights of movement and professional discharge on a Sunday … For authorities to treat the highest court's explicit directives with utter disregard is an assault on the constitutional framework. I have requested the Attorney General's immediate sanction to prosecute the erring official namely Anurag Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to ensure that no one stands above the law."

The letter's prayer states that "The Apex Court has already noted that a prima facie case for contempt exists regarding the systematic violations of its directives during these protests."

Solicitor General Denied earlier illegal detentions

The October 11 Record of Proceedings shows that this finding was made in a separate contempt petition, filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleging violation of the Court's order dated October 9, 2026. Having considered the submissions and the averments in that petition, the Bench held that "the petitioners have made out a prima facie case" and issued notice to the alleged contemnors, directing them to file a counter affidavit, including a compliance report, by October 13, 2026. The Record of Proceedings does not name the Commissioner of Police, he stated in the letter.

At the October 11 hearing, which concerned events before that day's directions were issued, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta "orally denies and disputes the allegations of violation of order dated 09.10.2026", the Court recorded. In response to the Habeas Corpus petition, he "denied any one had been illegally detained and otherwise the petition is infructuous as the detenues referred to have since been released." The Court issued notice in the Habeas Corpus petition and listed the matters for further consideration on October 13, 2026.