Taking a serious view of Rahul Gandhi’s protest march to the Supreme Court on Monday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant warned on Thursday that “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
Making this observation while listening to petitions by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders regarding SIR, the bench, headed by the CJI and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) but added that serving notice does not mean condoning the conduct of the political leaders. The bench was hearing various pleas related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Delhi protests, march to the Supreme Court and alleged assault on journalists and lawyers on Thursday.
The court’s observations came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Gaurav Bhatia raised the issue of the protest at the Supreme Court. “It is unacceptable that this court is seized with political procession. What happened in SC should not have happened,” Bhatia pointed out. At this point, the CJI stated: “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
On Bhatia’s assertion that the protest and protest march were an attempt to pressurise the court, the CJI called the attempts “feeble”. “These are feeble attempts that nobody takes note of. Outside they make statements... We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in court. We know everything,” the CJI observed. The bench, however, did not name the petitioner.
The observation assumes significance as one of the state units of the Congress recently sought the CJI’s resignation while commenting on his observations that the law and order fall under the executive domain.
The court directed that the court’s CCTV recordings from the INDIA bloc’s protest be preserved.
The bench issued notice to the poll panel, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, seeking their responses to the plea filed by Gandhi and others.
During the hearing in a packed courtroom, the moment Rahul Gandhi’s plea was called out, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi commenced the submissions, saying the case pertains to the issue of collective decision-making by the poll panel and the alterations made in Form 6. Form 6 is an application through which an eligible person seeks inclusion in the electoral roll. Simultaneously, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that he was appearing in the case for Rahul Gandhi. This led Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ask who was representing Gandhi in the case.
Besides the plea filed by Rahul Gandhi and others, the apex court also dealt with petitions concerning protests, including alleged assault on journalists and lawyers, and SIR. The top court also issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, TMC MP Mahua Moitra and the Congress party on a plea against the October 12 march to the top court. The bench also issued notices to the poll panel and others on a plea filed by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking to set aside the SIR.
The bench also told the Centre that it was not taking cognisance of media reports suggesting that government authorities tendered unconditional apologies in contempt proceedings over alleged violations of its directions concerning Metro and train services in Delhi during a protest against SIR on October 10.
This comes after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that media headlines and social media posts portrayed the affidavits as admissions of wrongdoing, without considering the explanations and justifications the authorities provided. According to drafting norms, the affidavits filed by the Union Home Secretary, DMRC and Delhi Police start with the averments that unconditional apologies are tendered, the top law officer said. The CJI responded that media coverage was not relevant to the court’s proceedings. “What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media,” the CJI said. Justice Bagchi then said the court was not taking cognisance of the unqualified apology referred to by the Solicitor General, adding that, in view of Mehta’s submissions, the apology appeared to be qualified.
The top court also sought responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on a separate plea challenging the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site in the national capital.
Among other issues, the bench dealt with the matter relating to a woman journalist, whose complaint alleging molestation by a senior police officer is pending consideration. The bench directed the police not to take any coercive action against the journalist.
When this plea was entertained, Bhatia urged the bench also to consider the case of a pregnant woman journalist, who, he said, was allegedly pushed by Gandhi in the apex court premises during the October 12 march. The bench asked him to file a petition on the matter and said it would consider the issue. “Before this court, every voice is valuable, and everyone will be heard irrespective of numbers,” the bench said. On the plea filed by Rahul Gandhi and others, the bench issued notice to the poll panel, Chief Election Commissioner Kumar and the two election commissioners.
The top court sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea seeking guidelines governing how police and law-enforcement authorities interact with journalists during protests and crowd-control operations. The bench directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist, against whom a case has been filed by a Delhi Police officer alleging casteist remarks and public humiliation against him during a protest near Jantar Mantar here.
The bench also sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea seeking a direction that those who organise or call for protests be held responsible for loss of life, injury, and damage to public or private property.