Supreme Court seeks responses from Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra over October 12 march

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on petitions seeking a regulatory framework for demonstrations and processions near judicial complexes, including a plea seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra over the October 12 march towards the court.

A bench of 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 events at the Supreme Court premises.

The petitions arose from the march by Opposition leaders and supporters over alleged irregularities in special intensive revision of electoral rolls and demands for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.


Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioner in one of the pleas, submitted that it was unacceptable that SC was having to deal with a political procession. Referring to a memorandum signed by around 200 lawyers, he said the incident had caused anguish among the legal fraternity and that attempts to browbeat the judiciary were deeply concerning. "Nobody can browbeat the judiciary. Don't worry about it," CJI responded.

Also Read | Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission over Rahul Gandhi's plea alleging SIR irregularities, voter deletions

Bhatia also sought preservation of CCTV footage, referring to a report that a pregnant woman journalist had been allegedly pushed by Gandhi during the march.

The pleas seek guidelines governing demonstrations around judicial complexes, restrictions on political protests within such zones and safeguards against campaigns intended to influence pending proceedings. One petition also seeks consideration of criminal contempt proceedings against the named political leaders.

In a separate, but related development, the bench issued notice on a petition challenging the Delhi Police's October 11 standing order denotifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and identifying three alternative venues. Justice Bagchi said the court would examine whether the authority had applied its mind to the use and efficacy of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue. Senior advocates appearing for the petitioner sought restoration of its status, arguing that a protest site must be one where demonstrators can make themselves heard effectively.

Also Read | 'You cannot beat us, threaten us, frighten us': Rahul Gandhi after INDIA bloc's march to Supreme Court over poll 'irregularities'

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the court that the denotification was not based on an earlier Supreme Court order. He said a committee had been constituted "much before" which had submitted a report and that reasons for the decision had been recorded. Justice Bagchi said the question also had to be considered in the context of technology, while referring to the argument that Jantar Mantar's proximity to government establishments was a reason not to relocate demonstrations. The court said it would call upon the authorities to respond.

The hearing also covered petitions concerning restrictions imposed ahead of the protests, alleged illegal detentions, police action and the suspension of cellular internet services. The Union home secretary, offering an unconditional apology in response to a show-cause contempt notice issued by the bench, defended the one-day cellular internet suspension around Raisina Hill on October 9-10 as a proportionate measure to prevent disturbance, while seeking discharge of a contempt notice and modification of an earlier order to permit such restrictions in future where legally necessary.

Delhi Police, meanwhile, has maintained that its actions were necessitated by public order concerns and past violations of protest conditions.