The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities and voter deletions during the electoral roll revision, while also questioning the opposition's recent protest march and examining the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities and voter deletions during the electoral roll revision, while also questioning the opposition's recent protest march and examining the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities and voter deletions during the electoral roll revision, while also questioning the opposition's recent protest march and examining the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on petitions filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities and large-scale voter deletions during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court, however, also questioned the conduct of one of the petitioners over the Opposition’s march to the Supreme Court on October 12, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asserting that nobody can browbeat the judiciary.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the poll body and the CEC, and tagged the petitions with matters already pending before the court challenging the validity of the SIR exercise in various states.

“Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything,” the CJI said, adding that the court wanted one of the petitioners to explain his conduct at the next hearing. Although the bench did not initially identify the petitioner, it subsequently questioned Rahul Gandhi’s march to the court premises, during which a large crowd gathered.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Gandhi. The court said notice on behalf of one petitioner would be accepted provisionally, subject to an explanation of his conduct.

The petitions have been filed by several Opposition leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress leader Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader M.A. Baby, CPI leader D. Raja, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Mahua Majhi, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar faction) leader Supriya Sule and Indian Union Muslim League leader Mohammed Basheer. AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi has also approached the court over the SIR exercise.

The legal challenge comes amid escalating Opposition protests against the revision of electoral rolls and demands for the removal of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC.

On October 12, Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders marched towards the Supreme Court to press their demand for the scrapping of the SIR exercise and the CEC’s removal. Gandhi subsequently sought to file a joint petition challenging the ECI’s decisions. However, with the registry nearing closure, the petition was eventually filed through lawyers. The gathering led to commotion within the court premises.

The Opposition’s plea also seeks disclosure of files, agendas, minutes and objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning the SIR exercise. The demand follows a newspaper report alleging differences within the ECI over decisions relating to the revision of electoral rolls.

The controversy has also spilt onto Delhi’s streets. Demonstrations against the SIR exercise and Gyanesh Kumar’s continuation in office led to the detention of several protesters by Delhi Police over the weekend. The police had imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Subsequent petitions before the Supreme Court alleged that lawyers and journalists were among those detained and prevented from performing their professional duties.

In a separate but related development concerning the right to protest, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on petitions challenging the decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.

The bench said it would examine whether the Delhi Police had applied its mind before taking the decision.

“We are issuing notice to the Centre and Delhi Police, seeking their reply. Let them reply. If it doesn't satisfy, then the law will run its course,” the court said.

Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, argued that a protest site must be located where demonstrators can effectively make themselves heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest venue.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, defended the decision, submitting that it was based on a committee report and was not arbitrary.

The move to denotify Jantar Mantar followed protests against the CEC that resulted in widespread disruption and the detention of more than 3,000 people, according to the reports. Delhi Police, which functions under the Union Home Ministry, has proposed Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as alternative venues.

The petitioners have questioned whether the proposed locations offer protesters the same opportunity to draw the attention of the government and the public, particularly given their distance from Parliament and the practical difficulties associated with holding demonstrations there.

The two sets of proceedings raise distinct questions: whether the ECI’s ongoing revision of electoral rolls has complied with the law, and whether restrictions on demonstrations leave citizens with meaningful opportunities to exercise their right to protest.

While the Supreme Court has sought responses from the authorities on both issues, it has not yet ruled on the merits of the challenges. The next hearings will determine how the court proceeds with the SIR petitions, the questions raised over the Opposition’s march and the challenge to Jantar Mantar’s denotification.

TAGS