Plea In Supreme Court To Frame Protest Guidelines For Court Complexes, Consider Contempt Against Rahul Gandhi
Four advocates have asked the Supreme Court to frame uniform rules on protests near courts and to consider contempt action over the October 12 opposition march.
Supreme Court asked to frame protest guidelines for court complexes, consider contempt against opposition leaders
Four advocates have approached the Supreme Court seeking a uniform set of rules to govern political marches and demonstrations near the Supreme Court and the High Courts, along with a complete ban on political protests inside court complexes.
The plea has been filed in the wake of the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court over concerns relating to the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. It is listed for hearing today before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The petitioners have also asked the Court to examine the conduct of Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and to consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings against them if their conduct is found to warrant it.
The march was held under the banners “March for Democracy” and “Chalo Dilli”. According to the plea, it followed the CJI’s decision to decline a request from the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to meet him and hand over a memorandum on the Election Commission.
The plea states that Delhi Police halted the procession at a barricade on Bhagwan Dass Road, short of the Supreme Court premises. A delegation of political leaders was later allowed inside the premises to file a writ petition at the filing counter.
Even so, the petitioners argue that the events of that day need a closer look. They want the Court to determine whether any demonstration entered the operational areas of the Supreme Court, blocked the movement of advocates and litigants, disturbed judicial or administrative work, or tried to pressure the Court in pending matters.
Acknowledging the importance of dissent, the plea says: “The right of citizens and political parties to express disagreement with public authorities is an important feature of democracy.” It adds, however, that this right cannot be read as an unrestricted entitlement to enter restricted court areas, obstruct access, disrupt judicial work or intimidate those involved in adjudication.
The petition seeks directions to the Delhi Police and the Supreme Court administration to preserve CCTV footage, visitor records, access-control records and security reports relating to the court premises and its approaches on October 12, and to submit a report so that the Court can ascertain the facts.
The plea also refers to social media posts reacting to the CJI’s remarks on the protests. One, from the Kerala unit of the Congress on X, read: “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” Another, by Mahua Moitra, said: “Surya clearly Can’t. So we will.”
The petition notes that the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association have passed resolutions condemning the calls for the CJI’s resignation. It argues that public campaigns targeting judges in connection with pending matters raise serious concerns about judicial independence and the administration of justice.
On the framework, the plea asks the Court to direct the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice, along with Delhi Police, to frame a neutral and enforceable mechanism for demonstrations near constitutional courts. This would include regulated zones around court complexes, protected access corridors for advocates, litigants and court staff, and designated alternative sites for protests.
It further seeks a declaration barring political processions, dharnas, sloganeering, display of party flags and banners, and political press conferences within the judicial complexes of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The petitioners also want guidelines stopping political parties and pressure groups from running campaigns aimed at influencing pending cases, and a declaration that no one, including a holder of constitutional office, may seek an administrative meeting with a judge or submit a memorandum on a sub judice matter.
The plea invokes Articles 32, 129, 142 and 144 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Digant Mishra v. Union of India