Supreme Court Issues Notice to CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Opposition's SIR Plea, Says Nobody Can Browbeat Judiciary

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission of India to answer the opposition's challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, issuing notice to the poll body, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. In the same hearing, the bench turned its attention to the petitioners themselves, issuing notice on a separate plea against their march to the court and making clear it would not be pressured.

The petition was filed on Monday by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders after police stopped their march near the court (see our earlier coverage).

What the bench did

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the opposition's petition with related cases already pending before the court, rather than hearing it as a standalone matter. The petitioners want records of SIR decisions placed before the court, an audit of voter deletions by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, booth-wise publication of deleted names with reasons, a bar on deleting any voter without notice and a hearing, and an interim suspension of the revision in the states where it is under way.

The court also issued notices to the Centre and others on related pleas concerning the Election Commission filed by leaders including AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, and agreed to examine a challenge to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.

A pointed message on the march

The sharper moments came when lawyers raised the October 12 march. Senior advocate and BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia described the protests near the court's premises as an attempt to pressure the judiciary and said around 200 advocates had signed a memorandum expressing concern.

The bench responded that nobody can browbeat the judiciary, adding that the judges were not sitting in ivory towers and were aware of what was being said both outside and inside the courtroom. While issuing notice on the opposition's petition, the bench said it would ask one of the petitioners about his conduct at the next hearing. It did not name the petitioner.

Separately, the court issued notice to Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and others on a petition objecting to their march to the court.

The contempt thread

The hearing also touched on the government's handling of protests in the capital. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the unconditional apology tendered by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in a contempt matter was a procedural step and did not mean the government's actions could not be defended. That case concerns alleged violation of the court's October 9 direction that Metro and train services in Delhi should not be completely shut during the October 10 protest. The bench said it was not taking cognisance of media reports about the apologies.

Why it matters

The order keeps the opposition's central demand alive without granting any interim relief, so the revision continues for now. It also signals that the court intends to separate the legal questions about the voter rolls from the political campaign around them, with the conduct of the petitioners now itself under scrutiny. The next hearing date will determine how quickly the Election Commission must put its defence on record.

This is an original summary based on public reporting. See our editorial policy for how we source, write, and correct our stories.