Supreme Court to Hear Plea Over Alleged Shoving Incident Involving Journalist During March

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to list an application alleging that Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi pushed a pregnant journalist during an October 12 march inside the court premises. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia orally mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, stating that the woman was manhandled on the court grounds. According to the Hindustan Times, the application was moved by advocate Digant Mishra and others, and it identifies the journalist as Richa Parashar from the news website OneIndia. The filing states that she was pushed by security personnel when she extended her microphone for a statement, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Mr. Bhatia submitted that the journalist is three months pregnant and had to be hospitalised.

Details of Plea

The application asks the Delhi Police to file an FIR against Mr. Gandhi and others involved under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, covering assault on a woman, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal force. It also seeks the preservation of CCTV footage from the gates, steps, driveways, and approaches within the Supreme Court premises for October 12, along with access-control logs and visitor records. On Thursday, a bench of Chief Justice Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had issued notice on a related petition from Mr. Mishra that accused Mr. Gandhi of leading a political procession into the court to browbeat the judiciary. The bench remarked then that no one can browbeat the judiciary. Chief Justice Kant stated on Friday that the application concerning the journalist may be heard on October 26 or the next day, alongside the earlier petition.

Context

The Supreme Court regularly handles administrative and security matters related to public gatherings and demonstrations held within its precincts. Court premises maintain strict access controls and security protocols, particularly during high-profile political visits and marches. Legal proceedings involving political figures and demonstrations often require balancing public access with the security and decorum of constitutional institutions.