Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission on opposition plea; orders preservation of CCTV footage linked to Rahul Gandhi-led march

New Delhi: “Nobody can browbeat us; such attempts are futile,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed during a Supreme Court hearing on petitions arising from the Opposition’s march towards the apex court on October 12 over issues concerning the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Chief Justice made it clear that attempts to intimidate or threaten the judiciary would not succeed, adding that one of the petitioners wanted questions to be raised about the conduct of those involved and that an explanation would have to be provided.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The proceedings also addressed separate pleas seeking regulation of demonstrations near judicial premises and accountability for those who call for protests.

CCTV footage to be preserved

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing in the matter, alleged that a pregnant woman journalist had been pushed during the October 12 march and sought an interim direction to preserve CCTV footage from the Supreme Court premises. Responding to the request, Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve relevant CCTV recordings and other digital material connected with the incident. Private parties were also permitted to submit any relevant material in their possession.

The Court also issued notice on a petition seeking accountability from those who call for demonstrations, arguing that organisers should take responsibility for the consequences of protests on others. The issue has brought renewed attention to the balance between the right to protest and the need to maintain order around judicial institutions.

Jantar Mantar protest site under scrutiny

In a separate matter, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Union government and Delhi Police on a petition challenging the withdrawal of Jantar Mantar’s recognition as an authorised protest site. Appearing in the matter, former judge and senior advocate Mukta Gupta argued that a designated protest venue should be one where demonstrators can make their voices heard by those in power.

Justice Bagchi made an oral observation that the concept of being “heard” should also be understood in the context of technology. The proceedings raise broader questions about access to public authorities, the regulation of demonstrations and the availability of designated spaces for peaceful protest.

Opposition march follows denial of meeting

The October 12 march followed a letter sent by opposition MPs to Chief Justice Surya Kant on October 11, seeking an appointment to submit a memorandum on issues concerning the Election Commission. The Chief Justice declined the request in view of the matters already pending before the Court. The following day, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other opposition MPs marched from Barakhamba Road towards the Supreme Court, bringing the dispute over the Election Commission and the SIR exercise into sharper focus.

Questions over SIR and Election Commission decisions

The controversy has also drawn attention to reported differences over decisions relating to the electoral roll revision exercise. According to a report in The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions over SIR-related decisions and orders during the preceding 10 months.

The reported concerns included the inclusion, deletion and restoration of names on electoral rolls, access to election data and software, and the proposed inclusion of SIR-related questions in Form 6. The report also stated that the two commissioners had written to the Cabinet Secretary regarding the availability of election data and software.

The Supreme Court proceedings have brought the independence of the judiciary, the right to peaceful protest and the accountability of public institutions into focus. However, the issuance of notice to the Election Commission and the directions to preserve digital evidence do not amount to a judicial finding that the allegations are established. The issues raised in the petitions remain subject to further proceedings and adjudication.