Supreme Court Issues Notice Over Opposition March, Questions Petitioner Conduct

The Supreme Court issued notices on Thursday to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in response to a petition filed by opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and 13 other opposition figures challenging the validity of the Special Intensive Review (SIR) process used for voter list management.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surbakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the ECI to respond to the petition and consolidated it with previously pending cases challenging the SIR process. The bench also issued notices to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. However, during the hearing, the court raised concerns about the conduct of one unnamed petitioner, stating that an explanation would be required at the next hearing. Chief Justice Surbakant emphasized that "no one can intimidate the judiciary" and said the court is aware of statements made outside and inside the courtroom.

The petition, filed on 12 October following a march by opposition leaders to the Supreme Court, alleges large-scale removal of voter names during the SIR process and irregularities in the Election Commission's procedures. The opposition demands an independent audit of the voter list by a retired Supreme Court judge and has requested that the Commission produce internal records, meeting minutes, and objections related to SIR. The petition also seeks restoration of improperly removed voters and procedural safeguards to prevent removal without notice and opportunity to be heard.

The case has emerged amid broader controversy over CEC Gyanesh Kumar's decision-making. According to a report by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi filed formal objections at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders issued in the Commission's name, relating to voter registration, removal, reinstatement, and data security. The ECI clarified that some disputed decisions involved a deputized officer and did not pertain to Commission policy or IT matters.

The court also addressed a separate petition filed by four lawyers concerning the 12 October march itself, which included allegations that opposition supporters engaged in political demonstrations at the court premises. Justice Bagchi ordered preservation of CCTV footage and related digital records. The bench issued a notice to the central government regarding police action taken on 10 October and noted allegations that one petitioner pushed a pregnant female journalist. The court declined to treat the march as contempt but issued notices on preventing political use of court premises.