The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Centre and election authorities on a petition moved by Rahul Gandhi and 10 other Opposition politicians challenging the ongoing SIR and seeking its suspension until a decision.
The bench, however, said it would “like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct” during the next hearing, whose date remained unclear. It did not identify the petitioner.
Besides Rahul, the other petitioners are Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress), Saugata Roy (Trinamool), Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Tejashwi Yadav (RJD), Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena-UBT), M.A. Baby (CPM), D. Raja (CPI), Mahua Majgi (JMM), Supriya Sule (NCP-Sharad Pawar) and E.T. Muhammed Basheer (IUML).
Apart from the Centre, notices have been issued to the Election Commission, chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — who faces countrywide protests seeking his removal over his allegedly unilateral and illegal SIR-related decisions — and the two other election commissioners.
“We are issuing notice…. One objection before that — we would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing,” Chief Justice Surya Kant told Kapil Sibal and other senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
“Issuing notice does not mean that we are condoning everything (done on behalf of the petitioners). But regarding one of the petitioners, we will definitely entertain the issue.”
Earlier during the hearing, senior advocate and BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia had sought criminal contempt proceedings against Rahul and some other INDIA bloc leaders for marching to the Supreme Court on October 12 and walking into the registry to file their petition.
During the hearing, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta disputed what he described as media claims about the Union home secretary, Delhi police commissioner and Delhi Metro chairperson apologising for the restrictions and detentions during the October 10 protests were incorrect.
These three officials had received notices from the apex court on a batch of contempt pleas filed against them for allegedly violating the top court’s strictures against curbing train and Metro services and people’s movements, and illegally detaining protesters.
“The law is well settled that whenever we file a response to a contempt notice, the first sentence we write is that we tender hereby an unconditional apology and thereafter, we explain how contempt has not been committed,” Mehta told the bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
“But now in the media and on social media it is being said that the government has apologised that they have nothing to say. I want to clarify that the government has defended its actions and the first paragraph is compliance with the law laid down by this court.”
Justice Kant said: “What the media does is not relevant.”
When Justice Bagchi asked whether it was a “qualified apology”, Mehta said: “It is an unconditional apology; thereafter I have given the reasons.”
Jantar Mantar pleas
The bench also issued a notice to the Centre on a lawyer’s petition that has challenged the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.
It issued another notice to the Centre on a different set of petitions challenging the authorities’ power to ban assemblies of more than five people, under Section 163 of the BNSS, at designated protest sites.
The apex court directed the authorities to preserve the CCTV footage of all events relating to the recent protests in Delhi against Gyanesh.
The petition by the 11 INDIA bloc leaders urges the court to, among other things, summon all SIR-related records, mainly on the grounds that Gyanesh took unilateral decisions without the consent of the two other election commissioners.
It particularly highlights the changes made to Form 6 that force applicants for fresh registration – mainly young people – to state whether their parents or grandparents had been mapped during the previous SIR two decades ago.