The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking safeguards against political protests near court premises after the INDIA bloc’s October 12 march. CJI Surya Kant said nobody could browbeat the judiciary and ordered preservation of CCTV footage and digital evidence.
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition seeking safeguards against political demonstrations in and around court premises following the INDIA bloc’s protest march towards the apex court on October 12. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant asserted that “nobody can browbeat” the judiciary and directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital evidence related to the incident.
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice after senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioners, argued that it was unacceptable for the Supreme Court to have to deal with a political procession directed towards its premises.
Responding to the submissions, the Bench said that attempts to intimidate the judiciary would not influence its functioning. The CJI observed that such attempts were “fragile” and attracted little attention from the Court.
“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in court. We know everything,” the Bench remarked during the proceedings.
The petition has been filed by four advocates seeking a uniform framework to regulate political processions and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts. The petitioners have called for restrictions on political protests within court premises to protect the independence of the judiciary and ensure that the administration of justice remains free from external pressure.
They have argued that political mobilisation around courts must not interfere with judicial proceedings or create an impression that judges could be influenced by public demonstrations. The pleas also seek the preservation of CCTV recordings, visitor registers, access-control records and security reports concerning the October 12 incident.
In addition, the petitioners have requested an examination of the conduct of the political leaders involved in the march and consideration of criminal contempt proceedings if their actions are found to justify such action under the law.
The controversy arose after several INDIA bloc leaders, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, attempted to march towards the Supreme Court to raise concerns over the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The demonstration followed a request by Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to meet the CJI and submit a memorandum concerning the electoral roll revision exercise. The CJI declined the request, explaining that the issues raised by the Opposition leaders were already pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
In his response, the CJI emphasised that arranging a meeting to discuss matters currently before the Court would be inconsistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
He also clarified that the Supreme Court did not exercise administrative authority to resolve the issues raised in the Opposition leaders’ letter. However, he stressed that the judiciary remained duty-bound to examine matters affecting citizens’ rights through its established judicial process.
The CJI advised the leaders to approach the Court through the prescribed legal channels and assured them that any petition filed in accordance with the law would be taken up at the earliest possible opportunity.
Following the exchange, Rahul Gandhi announced that INDIA bloc leaders would approach the Supreme Court through a formal petition. He also appealed to citizens to support their campaign concerning the Constitution and democracy.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court separately issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a petition filed by Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the SIR exercise. The Bench directed that the petition be tagged with other cases already pending before the apex court concerning the validity of the electoral roll revision process in various states.
“We are issuing notice and tagging it with the matters already pending,” the Bench said.
| Also Read: Prashant Bhushan Calls CEC Gyanesh Kumar Protests a Fight for Regime… |
The Court also indicated that it would examine the conduct of one of the petitioners at the next hearing. Without identifying the individual at this stage, the Bench said it wanted to seek an explanation regarding the person’s conduct.
The Court further clarified that the notice concerning that petitioner would be entertained provisionally, subject to the individual explaining his conduct on the next date of hearing.
The two developments place the Opposition’s concerns over electoral roll revision and the controversy surrounding the protest march before the Supreme Court through separate legal proceedings.
| Also Read: NDMC Closes Connaught Place Central Park Ahead of Proposed CJP Protest |
The petition seeking safeguards against demonstrations will require the Court to consider questions concerning the regulation of political activity around judicial institutions, the protection of court premises and the preservation of evidence relating to the October 12 incident.
The proceedings also underline the distinction between political expression and the need to preserve the independence and orderly functioning of the judiciary. Any further action, including possible contempt proceedings, will depend on the Court’s consideration of the pleadings, evidence and applicable legal principles.
