Newdelhi: The Supreme Court sought responses from the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and two election commissioners on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 other Opposition leaders concerning alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The bench was hearing a batch of petitions addressing the revision exercise, protests in Delhi, a march to the Supreme Court, and reported assaults on journalists and lawyers, emphasizing that all parties would be given a hearing.
When legal counsel brought up a recent march to the court by Opposition leaders including Gandhi, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that no entity could attempt to browbeat the judiciary.
While issuing notice on the petition filed by Gandhi and fellow leaders, the bench noted it was aware of statements made outside the courtroom by certain petitioners. The bench also issued notices to prominent political figures including Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in connection with a petition challenging the October march.
In a separate legal matter, the court issued notices to the Election Commission on a petition by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking the cancellation of the revision exercise based on reported disagreements among election commissioners.
The bench further requested responses from the central government and the Delhi Police regarding a petition that challenges the removal of Jantar Mantar from the list of approved protest locations in the capital.
Addressing other related incidents, the court directed the police to avoid taking coercive steps against a female journalist with a pending molestation complaint against a senior officer, while also instructing a petitioner to formally file an application regarding an incident involving a pregnant journalist on the court premises.
Concluding the proceedings, the bench reiterated that every voice remains valuable before the court and that all perspectives will receive consideration regardless of representation size.