Apex Court Firmly Warns Against Pressure Tactics Near Judicial Premises
The Supreme Court Issues Notice Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, and several opposition leaders following their October 12 protest march toward the apex court complex. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered a sharp observation, stating firmly that nobody can browbeat the judiciary.
The stern reprimand came while hearing petitions related to the ongoing political controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition parties escalated their campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, demanding his resignation over alleged large-scale voter deletions. However, bringing a political demonstration to the steps of the country’s highest court drew immediate criticism from the bench.
Court Seeks Election Commission Response on Voter Roll Revision
While addressing the conduct of the marchers, the Supreme Court simultaneously took up the joint petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition figures. The bench issued formal notices to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The opposition petition alleges severe procedural irregularities during the SIR exercise, claiming widespread exclusion of voters across multiple states. The top court agreed to examine these claims alongside related filings, including petitions submitted by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi.
| Serial No. | Respondent Entity / Leader | Action Taken by Supreme Court | Primary Focus of Judicial Review |
| 1 | Opposition Leaders (Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav) | Supreme Court Issues Notice Rahul Gandhi & Allies | Explanation of October 12 Court March |
| 2 | Election Commission of India (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) | Issued Formal Response Notice | Alleged Irregularities in SIR Exercise |
| 3 | Union Government & Delhi Police | Issued Response Notice | Challenge to Jantar Mantar Denotification |
| 4 | Law Enforcement Agencies | Directed to Preserve Digital Evidence | Review of Security Breach and Protests |
Also Read : https://indiathisweek.in/india/election-roll-revision-case-supreme-court-voter-restoration/
Challenge to Jantar Mantar Denotification Examined
In a related development, the apex court agreed to review pleas challenging the recent de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated public protest site. The decision to restrict demonstrations at Jantar Mantar followed violent disruptions during a rally organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which resulted in mass detentions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the venue restrictions, stating that decisions relied on formal committee assessments rather than arbitrary executive action. Nevertheless, the court directed the Centre and Delhi Police to submit detailed responses explaining whether administrative authorities properly applied their minds before closing the historic site.
| Serial No. | Judicial Stakeholder / Counsel | Official Position Presented in Court | Core Legal Argument |
| 1 | Bench (CJI Surya Kant & Justice Bagchi) | Reaffirms Judicial Independence | “Nobody Can Browbeat the Judiciary” |
| 2 | Solicitor General Tushar Mehta | Defends Administrative Procedures | Denotification Based on Committee Report |
| 3 | Petitioners’ Legal Representatives | Seek Site Restoration & SIR Inquiries | Protests Must Be Audible to Authorities |
| 4 | Delhi Police Administration | Submits Alternate Site Proposals | Cites Public Safety and Traffic Flow |
Summary of Key Court Metrics and Legal Status
The table below summarizes the core parameters established during the October 15 Supreme Court hearing.
| Serial No. | Key Operational Metric | Official Recorded Status | Strategic Significance |
| 1 | Focus Keyword | Supreme Court Issues Notice Rahul Gandhi | Addresses judicial dignity and protest limits |
| 2 | Presiding Bench | CJI Surya Kant & Justice Joymalya Bagchi | Sets clear boundaries for political marches |
| 3 | Key Respondent Bodies | Election Commission of India & MHA | Requires detailed filings on SIR and sites |
| 4 | Preservation Directive | CCTV and Digital Evidence Secured | Ensures objective audit of court march |