Supreme Court Issues Notices to Rahul Gandhi and Election Commission Over October March

Court Hearing And Warnings

The Supreme Court heard petitions on Thursday concerning the October 12 opposition march to the court premises. Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that no one can put the court under pressure through intimidation, adding that such attempts are useless and no one pays attention to them. The bench noted it is aware of what is said inside and outside the court. Without naming him directly, the CJI said the conduct of one of the petitioners will be questioned and they must offer an explanation. The court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, and 14 other leaders in connection with the gathering of opposition leaders and supporters on October 12.

Petitions And Legal Directions

Four lawyers filed a petition against the Supreme Court march, seeking rules to stop political protests inside the court complex, security for CCTV footage, and an investigation into the intent of Rahul Gandhi and other leaders. Lawyer Gaurav Bhatia requested an interim order to secure CCTV footage showing Rahul Gandhi arriving at the court, where he was accused of pushing a pregnant woman journalist. Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed all legal agencies to secure CCTV and other digital footage. The bench also issued a notice on a plea demanding that the person who calls for a protest should take responsibility for the consequences. During the hearing, a social media post by Kerala Congress was flagged as contempt of court for allegedly targeting the CJI, though it has since been deleted.

Election Commission Notice And Opposition Petitions

The bench issued notices to the central government, the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders challenging the Special Intensive Revision of voter lists and poll panel decisions. The court ordered this plea to be tagged with pending petitions challenging the validity of the SIR process. The opposition march happened on October 12 after CJI Surya Kant refused to accept a memorandum from opposition MPs a day earlier. The petition alleges large-scale removal of voter names during SIR and procedural irregularities, demanding an independent audit of dropped names by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge, along with the preservation of internal records and digital files.

EC Internal Disputes And Protests

The petition also alleges that CEC Gyanesh Kumar used collective powers without the knowledge or approval of the other election commissioners. These claims follow a newspaper investigation reporting that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected at least 14 times in the past 10 months to SIR-related decisions and orders regarding voter data and software access. Separately, the court issued a notice to the centre over police action at Jantar Mantar on October 10 and a decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of approved protest sites, while also ordering legal agencies to secure CCTV footage of protests near metro stations.

Context

India's judicial and electoral systems operate under strict statutory frameworks where major policy revisions like voter list updates are subject to institutional scrutiny and legal challenges. Protests near sensitive high-security zones such as court premises and central government offices frequently draw intervention from the judiciary to balance public assembly rights with institutional security. Institutional disagreements within independent bodies like the Election Commission are governed by established administrative rules that define the decision-making powers of chief and fellow commissioners.