Cong sceptical of Jagan’s stance on CJP, SIR controversy

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a plea seeking a regulatory framework for protests and processions near judicial complexes, following a mass demonstration by Opposition leaders, including Congress president Rahul Gandhi, on October 12. The court emphasized that "nobody can browbeat the judiciary" and issued notices to the petitioners, which include Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, among others. While the court clarified that it was not initiating contempt proceedings at this stage, it directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital evidence related to the October 12 incident. The petitioners argued that the proximity of political processions to the Supreme Court was unacceptable and that the judiciary needed protection from external pressures. The demonstration occurred after the CJI declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge, who had sought to present a memorandum concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The petition filed by advocates includes requests for guidelines to regulate protests around the Supreme Court and high courts, an absolute ban on political protests within judicial complexes, and safeguards against political campaigns aimed at influencing ongoing judicial proceedings. It also seeks the preservation of CCTV footage and security records related to the October 12 events. Separately, the Supreme Court refused to list a petition challenging the SIR in Maharashtra alongside the plea filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. The court explained that challenges to the SIR process must be addressed on a state-by-state basis. Senior advocate Arvind Datar highlighted the alarming scale of voter deletions in Maharashtra, noting that approximately 20 million voters had been removed from the draft rolls. The court, however, did not agree to an urgent listing of the petition and instructed the petitioner to provide further data for consideration. The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its chief, Gyanesh Kumar, on petitions filed by Opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities in the functioning of the ECI and the SIR process. The petitions allege that Kumar made several decisions unilaterally, raising questions about compliance with constitutional provisions and statutory requirements. They seek the formation of an independent committee to investigate the disputed decisions and conduct an audit of the SIR process. Additionally, the court asked Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) MP Sanjay Raut to explain his remarks criticizing the judiciary and the CJI for refusing to meet Opposition leaders. Raut had previously criticized the CJI for declining a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge. The court issued a provisional notice to Raut, requiring him to explain his conduct at the next hearing. Attorney General R Venkataramani granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle for their remarks about the judiciary and the CJI. The court also addressed concerns raised by a group of lawyers who signed a memorandum expressing anguish over the October 12 demonstration. The CJI reiterated that the judiciary was not unaware of public discourse and that it was not isolated from societal dynamics. The court acknowledged the need to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings while ensuring that the voices of dissent were heard in an orderly manner. The petitions arising from the October 12 demonstration also seek an independent, time-bound inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the ECI. They call for the suspension of the ongoing SIR until the inquiry is completed. The court has directed the ECI and its commissioners to respond to these petitions, indicating that it will address the issues on a state-by-state basis rather than dealing with them collectively. The Supreme Court's stance reflects a balance between maintaining the sanctity of the judiciary and addressing legitimate concerns raised by political leaders and civil society. As the court continues to deliberate on these matters, it will play a crucial role in shaping the future of electoral reforms and the relationship between the judiciary and the political landscape in India.