Rush Hour: EC i Gyanesh Kumar dobili SC obavijest o SIR, glumac Imran Khan zatražio napustiti Indiju i više

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a petition seeking a regulatory framework for protests and processions near judicial complexes, following a mass demonstration by Opposition leaders and their supporters on October 12. The demonstration targeted allegations of electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI). A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the petition, which also seeks criminal contempt proceedings against several prominent figures, including Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. However, the court emphasized that it was not initiating contempt proceedings at this stage. During the hearing, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia argued that the court needed to address the issue of political processions near its premises, noting that lawyers were concerned about what occurred during the October 12 demonstration. He referenced a memorandum signed by approximately 200 lawyers expressing unease over attempts to browbeat the judiciary through scandalising statements. The CJI responded that the court was aware of the developments and assured that it was not operating in isolation. The bench also directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital materials related to the October 12 incident. Private parties holding such footage were instructed to retain them as well. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Delhi police commissioner had already issued instructions to preserve the footage and send copies to police headquarters. The petition arises from the October 12 march by Opposition leaders and supporters protesting the functioning of the ECI and chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This demonstration followed the CJI's refusal to meet Gandhi and Kharge, who had requested an audience to submit a memorandum on their concerns regarding the poll panel. The CJI indicated that their grievances could be addressed through appropriate judicial proceedings. The petition, filed by advocates including Digant Mishra, seeks guidelines regulating protests and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and high courts, an absolute prohibition on political protests within judicial complexes, and safeguards against political campaigns aimed at influencing pending judicial proceedings. It also requests the preservation of CCTV footage and security records related to the October 12 events. In a separate development, the Supreme Court refused to list a petition challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra alongside the plea filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. The court stated that it needed to address the issue state-wise, emphasizing that a generalized challenge to SIR was not feasible. Senior advocate Arvind Datar highlighted the alarming number of voters deleted from the draft rolls in Maharashtra, urging the court to consider the matter urgently. The court issued notice to the ECI and the three election commissioners on the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders, seeking an independent, timebound inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the poll panel. The petition also requests the production of complete files, agendas, minutes, notings, and objections recorded by the two election commissioners on disputed decisions. The Supreme Court also issued a provisional notice to Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, a co-petitioner in the case, asking him to explain his statements against the CJI after the latter declined to meet Opposition leaders. The court clarified that the notice did not amount to a condemnation of Raut’s conduct and would examine the issue after hearing his explanation. The petition was filed after the CJI indicated that the Opposition leaders' concerns could be raised through appropriate judicial proceedings rather than through a meeting with the court’s head. The petition questions the alleged unilateral decisions by CEC Gyanesh Kumar, raising concerns about compliance with constitutional provisions and statutory requirements. The Opposition leaders seek an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, along with technical experts and civil society members, to examine the poll panel’s decisions, policies, procedures, and technical architecture relating to electronic voting machines. The Supreme Court also sought responses from Rahul Gandhi, INDIA bloc leaders, and others on a petition filed in connection with the Opposition’s march to the apex court. The petition, filed by four lawyers, sought regulations for processions and protests in the vicinity of the Supreme Court. The lawyers appearing for the petitioners informed the court that advocates practicing in the Supreme Court had expressed anguish over the procession, citing a memorandum stating that such conduct amounted to "browbeating of the judiciary." The court emphasized that it was not sitting in ivory towers and was aware of the statements made outside and inside the court. On Monday, Gandhi, Kharge, and several Opposition leaders led a march toward the Supreme Court to file a petition challenging the ECI’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls. The petition also sought an independent audit of voter deletions, disclosure of the poll panel’s internal records, and an interim suspension of the exercise. The march followed the leaders' request for a meeting with the chief justice to submit a memorandum on the voter roll revision, which was declined. The march was part of broader protests across the country demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These protests were joined by other INDIA bloc leaders, including former chief ministers Mamata Banerjee and Akhilesh Yadav, as well as student leaders like All India Students’ Association chief Neha Bora. Protests against Kumar have been taking place in several parts of the country, with concerns about the functioning of the ECI and its handling of the special intensive revision exercise. Since the exercise began in June 2025, the SIR has faced scrutiny over the manner and pace of its implementation, amid fears that it could deny genuine electors their right to vote and influence election outcomes.