The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his participation in a protest march towards the top court on October 12, asking him to explain his conduct at the next hearing.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant strongly objected to the disruption that followed the opposition leaders’ march, asserting that “nobody can browbeat” the judiciary. The court issued notices to the Congress, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders on a petition filed by four lawyers raising concerns over the demonstration.
The development came during a hearing on petitions concerning alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court also issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by INDIA bloc leaders and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi.
“Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything. But one objection, before that. We would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing,” the CJI told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Rahul Gandhi.
The observation followed submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia regarding the October 12 march. Bhatia argued that the Supreme Court should not become the venue for a political procession.
Responding to the submissions, the CJI said, “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary,” adding that the court was aware of developments outside its premises and was not isolated from public affairs.
Rahul Gandhi’s Petition Against the SIR Exercise
Rahul Gandhi and several senior INDIA bloc leaders marched towards the Supreme Court on Monday as the opposition intensified its campaign demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the scrapping of the SIR exercise.
Rahul subsequently entered the Supreme Court premises to file a joint petition challenging the Election Commission’s decisions relating to the voter-roll revision. The exercise has reportedly excluded around 13 crore voters across the country.
However, as the Supreme Court registry was nearing its closing time, the petition was ultimately submitted through lawyers. The incident reportedly resulted in a large gathering and commotion within the court premises.
The opposition’s petition also sought the disclosure of files, agendas, minutes and objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning the SIR exercise.
The matter has drawn further attention following reports of differences within the Election Commission over the revision of electoral rolls.
The march took place after CJI Surya Kant declined the opposition’s request for a meeting the previous week, advising its leaders to pursue the legal route instead.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Jantar Mantar
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on petitions challenging the decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as an authorised protest site.
The CJI said the court would examine whether the Delhi Police had properly considered the relevant issues before taking the decision.
“We are issuing notice to the Centre, Delhi Police, seeking their reply. Let them reply. If it doesn’t satisfy, then the law will run its course,” the court observed.
The decision to remove Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest venue came days after a demonstration called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against the Chief Election Commissioner led to widespread disruption and the detention of thousands of people.
Following the move, Delhi Police proposed three alternative locations for demonstrations: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. However, the proposed sites have raised concerns among protesters because of their distance from Parliament and other logistical challenges.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, argued that a protest venue should allow demonstrators to make their grievances heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of Jantar Mantar’s notification as an authorised protest site.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government’s decision, stating that it was based on a committee report and was not arbitrary. He told the court that the committee had been constituted well before the decision and had submitted a detailed report.
Delhi Police Commissioner Apologises in Contempt Case
Separately, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar tendered an apology before the Supreme Court in a contempt case concerning restrictions imposed in central Delhi during the October 10 CJP protest.
Ahead of the demonstration, around 23,000 security personnel were reportedly deployed across central Delhi. The extensive security arrangements, along with the closure of gates at 45 metro stations, triggered criticism and public concern.
The measures also drew scrutiny because the Supreme Court had directed Delhi Police not to impose blanket restrictions on movement.
A contempt petition was subsequently filed, alleging that the court’s directions had been violated.
In his affidavit, the Delhi Police Commissioner stated that internet services had continued without interruption and that detained protesters were accommodated at temporary centres, provided with hot meals and released within two to six hours.
The Supreme Court proceedings have brought renewed focus on the balance between the right to peaceful protest, public order and the functioning of constitutional institutions. The notices issued in the cases seek responses from the parties concerned and do not, by themselves, establish any wrongdoing.