SC agrees to examine plea on curbs for stir near court complexes

The Supreme Court on Thursday asserted that “nobody can browbeat the judiciary” as it agreed to examine a plea seeking a regulatory framework for protests and processions in the vicinity of the top court and other judicial complexes, in the wake of an October 12 march by Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, and their supporters towards the Supreme Court over alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the petition, which also seeks criminal contempt proceedings against Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, among others. However, the court made it clear that it was not initiating contempt proceedings at this stage.

“No contempt today. We are only issuing notices. Let us see what the response is, and then we will take it forward,” the bench told senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who pressed for notice on the contempt plea, arguing that such an incident should not recur within the precincts of the Supreme Court.

Bhatia, appearing for the petitioners, said it was unacceptable that the court had to deal with political processions near its premises and that lawyers were anguished by what had transpired on October 12. He referred to a memorandum signed by around 200 lawyers expressing concern over what they described as an attempt to browbeat the judiciary through scandalising statements.

“These are fragile statements and nobody can browbeat the judiciary,” retorted the CJI.

Bhatia responded that he had complete faith in the judiciary but that any attempt to browbeat it was itself a matter of concern. He also sought action over statements allegedly made by political leaders outside the court, saying the vicinity and precincts of the Supreme Court had to be protected.

“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in Court. We know everything,” replied the CJI, adding that the court was cognisant of the developments.

“Do not worry, we are cognisant of everything,” he told Bhatia.

The bench also directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and any other digital material collected in connection with the October 12 incident. Private parties who had collected such material were also at liberty to preserve it, the court said in its order.

Bhatia sought an interim direction to preserve CCTV footage of the Supreme Court premises, pointing to a specific prayer in his petition. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Delhi police commissioner had already issued written instructions to every police station to preserve the footage and send copies to police headquarters for separate preservation.

At this, the bench pointed out that the court had already directed anyone possessing relevant footage to place it before the court.

The petitions arise from the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court by Opposition leaders and supporters protesting over the functioning of the ECI and chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The demonstration followed the CJI’s refusal to meet Gandhi and Kharge, who had sought an audience to submit a memorandum on their concerns regarding the poll panel. The CJI had indicated that their grievances could be raised through appropriate judicial proceedings.

The plea, filed by advocates including Digant Mishra, seeks guidelines regulating protests and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and high courts, an absolute prohibition on political protests within judicial complexes, and safeguards against political campaigns intended to influence pending judicial proceedings. It also seeks preservation of CCTV footage and security records relating to the October 12 events.

The petition names the Union government, Delhi Police commissioner, Gandhi, the Indian National Congress, Kharge, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, Yadav and Moitra as respondents.

The Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee was also named in the proceedings amid controversy over a post published by the Congress’s Kerala unit on X on October 12, which addressed the CJI as “Dear Surya Kant” and called on him to resign if law and order was not his domain. The post was subsequently deleted.

The petition also refers to the conduct of demonstrators near the court premises, including an allegation that a pregnant journalist was pushed during the march.