Court Notice / Supreme Court Issues Notice to Rahul Gandhi, INDIA Bloc Leaders Over October 12 Protest March
·1 hour ago·4 min read
Key Points
The Supreme Court questioned Rahul Gandhi over the INDIA bloc's march to the court on October 12, with CJI Surya Kant stating "nobody can browbeat the judiciary" and issuing notices to Gandhi and other Opposition leaders.
New Delhi, Oct 15: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his march to the court on October 12 and said nobody could browbeat the judiciary, following a petition by four lawyers raising concerns over the opposition leaders' protest.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant made the remarks after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia raised the issue of the march and the commotion that followed within the Supreme Court premises.
“It is unacceptable that this court is seized with a political procession. It should not have happened,” Bhatia said.
Responding to the submissions, the CJI said, “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant made the remarks after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia raised the issue of the march and the commotion that followed within the Supreme Court premises.
“It is unacceptable that this court is seized with a political procession. It should not have happened,” Bhatia said.
Responding to the submissions, the CJI said, “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
📱 Get Argus News App
✨📰 60 Word News🎬 Argus Podcast📺 Live TV and Breaking News🔔 Free Notification Alerts
Download Free:
“These are feeble attempts that nobody takes note of. We are not sitting in an ivory tower. We are aware of things,” he added.
The bench issued notices to the Congress, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders on the petition filed by the four lawyers. The CJI clarified that issuing notice did not amount to condemning anyone but said the court wanted an explanation from one of the petitioners regarding his conduct at the next hearing.
“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, appearing for Rahul Gandhi.
Separately, the court issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by the INDIA bloc and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi concerning alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Rahul Gandhi's Petition On SIR Exercise
Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders marched towards the Supreme Court on October 12 as the Opposition intensified its campaign seeking the removal of Gyanesh Kumar and the scrapping of the SIR exercise.
Rahul later entered the Supreme Court premises to personally file a joint petition challenging the ECI's decisions on the voter roll revision. The exercise has reportedly excluded around 13 crore voters across India.
The bench issued notices to the Congress, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders on the petition filed by the four lawyers. The CJI clarified that issuing notice did not amount to condemning anyone but said the court wanted an explanation from one of the petitioners regarding his conduct at the next hearing.
“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, appearing for Rahul Gandhi.
Separately, the court issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by the INDIA bloc and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi concerning alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Rahul Gandhi's Petition On SIR Exercise
Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders marched towards the Supreme Court on October 12 as the Opposition intensified its campaign seeking the removal of Gyanesh Kumar and the scrapping of the SIR exercise.
Rahul later entered the Supreme Court premises to personally file a joint petition challenging the ECI's decisions on the voter roll revision. The exercise has reportedly excluded around 13 crore voters across India.
However, as the Supreme Court registry was about to close, the petition was eventually filed through lawyers. The incident drew a large crowd and led to commotion within the court premises.
The Opposition's petition sought disclosure of files, agendas, minutes and objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning the SIR exercise.
The demand followed an Indian Express report highlighting alleged differences within the ECI over the revision of electoral rolls.
Also Read: No Automatic Backward Quota Benefits for Converts, Rules Supreme Court
The march came after CJI Surya Kant declined the Opposition's request for a meeting the previous week and advised its leaders to pursue the legal route.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Jantar Mantar
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on petitions challenging the decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.
The CJI said the court would examine whether Delhi Police had applied its mind 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 said.
The move to de-notify Jantar Mantar followed a protest call by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against the Chief Election Commissioner. The demonstrations were followed by the detention of more than 3,000 people, according to the supplied account.
Delhi Police subsequently designated Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative venues for protests.
During Thursday's hearing, senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, argued that a designated protest site should be a place where demonstrators could make their voices heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of Jantar Mantar's notification.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the decision, arguing that it was based on a committee report and was not arbitrary.
The Supreme Court sought responses from the authorities before proceeding further with the challenge to the de-notification.
The Opposition's petition sought disclosure of files, agendas, minutes and objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning the SIR exercise.
The demand followed an Indian Express report highlighting alleged differences within the ECI over the revision of electoral rolls.
Also Read: No Automatic Backward Quota Benefits for Converts, Rules Supreme Court
The march came after CJI Surya Kant declined the Opposition's request for a meeting the previous week and advised its leaders to pursue the legal route.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Jantar Mantar
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on petitions challenging the decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.
The CJI said the court would examine whether Delhi Police had applied its mind 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 said.
The move to de-notify Jantar Mantar followed a protest call by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against the Chief Election Commissioner. The demonstrations were followed by the detention of more than 3,000 people, according to the supplied account.
Delhi Police subsequently designated Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative venues for protests.
During Thursday's hearing, senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, argued that a designated protest site should be a place where demonstrators could make their voices heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of Jantar Mantar's notification.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the decision, arguing that it was based on a committee report and was not arbitrary.
The Supreme Court sought responses from the authorities before proceeding further with the challenge to the de-notification.
Related Topics
Explore more stories