Critically assess whether blanket preventive measures such as mass detentions and transport shutdowns meet the proportionality standard laid down by the Supreme Court.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on fundamental rights must pursue a legitimate aim, be necessary, use the least restrictive measure and rest on a published order [2]. In October 2026, Delhi saw mass detentions and a Metro and rail shutdown aimed at protesters demanding the CEC's resignation [1]. These events test whether blanket measures can meet this standard.

Legality → Legitimate aim → Necessity (least restrictive) → Balancing → Published, reviewable order

Fig: Limbs of the proportionality test [2]

Where blanket measures find justification

• Legitimate aim: Art. 19(2)–(3) permit curbs on speech and assembly for public order. Delhi houses Parliament, embassies and courts.
• Legal basis: Sec. 170 BNSS allows preventive arrest to stop a likely cognisable offence, capped at 24 hours [3].
• Judicial backing: in Amit Sahni (2020), the Court held that public roads cannot be occupied indefinitely [5].

Where they fail the test

• No individual assessment: former CMs, journalists, lawyers and students were detained as one group [1]. Necessity requires a specific threat from specific persons [2].
• Milder options ignored: MKSS v. UoI (2018) favoured regulated protest at designated sites over a total ban [5]. Closing a few stations or fixing routes would have been enough.
• Collective punishment: the Metro was shut across almost all of Delhi and trains to Delhi were cancelled [1]. Patients and workers who had nothing to do with the protest lost transport.
• Transparency gap: unpublished orders cannot be reviewed by courts, which goes against Bhasin [2]. A contempt petition has been filed against the shutdown [1].
• Remedy gap: a 24-hour detention usually ends before a habeas corpus petition is heard, so the remedy comes too late.
• Global benchmark: UN HRC General Comment 37 says pre-emptive detention may be arbitrary and treats blanket restrictions as presumptively disproportionate [4].

Blanket measures may serve a real public-order aim, but they usually fail the necessity and balancing limbs. The way forward is a set of SC guidelines on the lines of D.K. Basu: an arrest memo for every detainee, published orders with reasons, and graded responses that regulate time, place and route before any ban. Compensation for unlawful detention, as in Rudul Sah, would deter overuse. The Court's special Sunday sitting [1] shows that dissent, protected by Art. 19 and Art. 21, should be regulated rather than stopped in advance.