Last Updated:
The Supreme Court issued notices on pleas over the October 12 Opposition march as CJI Surya Kant said, “Nobody can browbeat us,” and ordered CCTV footage preserved.
LoP in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices on pleas seeking a regulatory framework for protests and processions near judicial complexes, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing that “nobody can browbeat” the court while hearing the matter concerning the October 12 march by Opposition leaders towards the top court.
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital material collected in connection with the incident.
The pleas sought guidelines regulating demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts, an absolute prohibition on political protests inside judicial complexes, and the preservation of CCTV footage and security records relating to the October 12 events.
They also sought consideration of criminal contempt proceedings against political leaders, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.
‘WE ARE NOT SITTING IN IVORY TOWERS’: CJI
According to Live Law, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that it was unacceptable that the Supreme Court had to deal with a political procession.
He said the incident should not have happened and referred to the anguish among lawyers over the gathering at the court premises.
At A Glance
CJI Surya Kant said “Nobody can browbeat us” while hearing pleas over the October 12 Opposition march towards the Supreme Court.
The bench directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital material relating to the incident.
The Supreme Court separately issued notice on Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders’ plea challenging the Election Commission’s SIR exercise.
Bhatia told the bench that around 200 lawyers had signed a memorandum expressing concern over the incident, arguing that such conduct amounted to “browbeating”.
Responding to the submission, CJI Surya Kant remarked, “Nobody can browbeat us.”
Bhatia maintained that the attempt itself was worrying and sought preservation of CCTV footage, alleging that a pregnant journalist had been pushed during the march.
Responding to the submissions, the CJI described such attempts as “fragile” and said nobody took notice of them. He also asserted that the court was aware of developments outside its premises.
“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in court. We know everything,” the CJI said, as reported by Live Law.
The bench subsequently directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and any other digital footage or material collected by them in connection with the events.
The petitioners sought guidelines against political campaigns intended to influence pending judicial proceedings.
They also asked the Supreme Court to consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the named political leaders.
WHAT LED TO THE OCTOBER 12 MARCH?
The pleas stem from the march towards the Supreme Court on October 12 by Gandhi and other Opposition leaders and their supporters over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The march followed the CJI’s decision to decline a request from Opposition leaders to meet him and submit a memorandum concerning the SIR exercise and the functioning of the Election Commission.
The CJI had conveyed that the issues they wanted to raise were already pending before the Supreme Court.
He also clarified that while the court could not interfere with the functioning of the government on its administrative side, the leaders were free to approach it on the judicial side for appropriate relief.
The subsequent gathering at the Supreme Court Registry led to a large crowd and commotion within the court premises.
The Opposition leaders had intended to submit a petition challenging the SIR exercise, but the petition was filed through lawyers as the Registry was nearing closing time.
SUPREME COURT ALSO ISSUES NOTICE ON RAHUL GANDHI’S SIR PLEA
Separately, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea filed by Gandhi and nine other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the ECI’s SIR exercise and alleging irregularities in electoral-roll revision.
As reported by Live Law, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
While issuing the notice, the CJI said, “We would also ask one of the petitioners about his conduct.”
The plea sought judicial scrutiny of the ECI’s decision-making process and the production of records relating to its June 24, 2025 decision to launch the SIR.
It also sought an independent audit of voter deletions and modifications by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, assisted by technical experts and other eminent citizens.
The petition further sought booth-wise publication of deleted voters’ names, reasons for deletion, a mechanism for restoring names and a direction that no voter’s name be deleted without notice and an opportunity of hearing.
It also sought suspension of the SIR exercise across all states pending adjudication.
Quick Answers
Ask News18Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stated that nobody can browbeat the judiciary and dismissed such attempts as fragile efforts that no one takes notice of, noting that the court is fully aware of developments outside its premises.
Ask News18About the Author
Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has more than 10 years of experience in national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.
October 15, 2026, 1:05 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
