New Delhi: The Supreme Court had a busy day Thursday, hearing several petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, protests in Delhi, a march to the apex court and the alleged assault on journalists and lawyers. The court issued notices and made several crucial observations in these matters.
SIR ROW: CEC RESPONSE SOUGHT
The SC issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on a petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the SIR of electoral rolls. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the petition be tagged with other matters 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 Bench said, adding that someone should accept notice on behalf of the ECI or the petitioners should serve the respondents. The respondents include Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
NOBODY CAN BROWBEAT JUDICIARY
CJI Nobody can browbeat the judiciary, the CJI said while hearing a petition concerning the October 12 march to the SC by Gandhi and several other Opposition leaders over alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR exercise.
A Bench issued notices to Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra, the Congress party, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee and others on a petition challenging the march to the apex court.
Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioners, told the Bench that the events of October 12 on the apex court premises were completely unacceptable. “It was completely unacceptable that the Supreme Court was seized with a political procession,” Bhatia said.
When Bhatia said that such attempts to browbeat the judiciary could not be allowed, the CJI responded, “Nobody can browbeat us.”
UNION HOME SECRETARY TENDERS APOLOGY
Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the SC in a contempt case concerning the alleged violation of the court’s direction to ensure that Metro and train services in Delhi were not “completely prohibited” in the wake of the October 10 protest called by the CJP.
In an affidavit filed before the SC, Mohan said Delhi Police had requested the sus pension of cellular internet services for one day, until 10 pm October 10. “The request was duly processed and considered in accordance with law and was found to be a proportionate measure, having regard to the magnitude of the situation and the need to prevent any disturbance of public order in the national capital,” Mohan said. He said cellular internet services were suspended from 10 pm October 9 until 10 pm October 10 within a 4-km radius of Raisina Hill.
He clarified that the suspension was confi ned to cellular internet services and did not extend to non-cellular internet services or telecommunication services such as Wi-Fi or broadband. “I therefore respectfully pray that this court may be pleased to modify its order dated October 11 to the extent necessary to permit the suspension of internet services in situations of necessity, strictly in accordance with law and subject to the applicable statutory requirements and safeguards,” he said.
Later, the SC told the Centre that it was not taking cognisance of media reports suggesting that government authorities tendered unconditional apologies in contempt proceedings over alleged violations of its directions.
CENTRE’S REPLY SOUGHT OVER GUIDELINES
The SC sought responses from the Centre and others on a petition seeking guidelines governing interactions between the police and law-enforcement authorities and journalists during protests and crowd-control operations.
The court was hearing a petition alleging that several journalists, including women media professionals, had been assaulted and mistreated by the police while covering protests in Delhi against the CEC and the SIR. “We would like to lay down guidelines,” the SC observed af ter advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, said a national protocol was needed.
