'Nobody can browbeat us': SC issues notice on plea seeking action over Oppn march

New Delhi, October 15 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea seeking safeguards against political demonstrations in and around court premises in the backdrop of the Opposition INDIA bloc leaders’ protest march towards the apex court on October 12, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant observing that “nobody can browbeat” the top court and directing the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital evidence relating to the incident.A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the petition after senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that it was unacceptable that the Supreme Court had to deal with a political procession.“Nobody can browbeat us,” the CJI Kant-led Bench responded, observing that such attempts were “fragile” and that nobody took notice of them.“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in court. We know everything,” the apex court remarked.The proceedings follow petitions moved by four advocates seeking a uniform framework to regulate political processions and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts, including a prohibition on political protests inside court premises.The petitioners have contended that political mobilisation must not be allowed to interfere with the administration of justice or create pressure on courts in matters pending adjudication.They have also sought preservation of CCTV footage, visitor and access-control records, and security reports relating to the October 12 incident.The pleas further seek an examination of the conduct of political leaders and consideration of criminal contempt proceedings if their actions are found to warrant such action.The controversy stems from the protest march undertaken by the INDIA bloc leaders, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, towards the Supreme Court to raise concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.The march came after the CJI declined a request by Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to meet him and submit a memorandum on the issue, observing that the matters raised by them were already pending before the top court.In his response to the Opposition leaders, the CJI said that convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers, an intrinsic facet of the basic structure doctrine.He also clarified that the Supreme Court did not exercise administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted in their letter but remained duty-bound to examine matters affecting citizens’ rights through its judicial jurisdiction.The CJI advised the Opposition leaders to approach the apex court through the established legal process and assured them that any petition filed in accordance with the law would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity. Following the development, Gandhi announced that the INDIA bloc leaders would approach the Supreme Court through a formal petition, while appealing to citizens to join their campaign in support of the Constitution and democracy.Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea filed by Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the SIR exercise, while indicating that it would examine the conduct of one of the petitioners at the next hearing.The CJI Kant-led Bench directed that the plea be tagged with other petitions already pending before the apex court challenging the validity of the SIR exercise in various states.“We are issuing notice and tagging it with the matters already pending,” the apex court said.The Supreme Court also observed that it would seek an explanation from one of the petitioners regarding his conduct, without identifying the person at this stage. “We would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing,” the top court said, adding that the notice concerning the petitioner would be entertained provisionally, subject to his explaining his conduct.