Four advocates have approached the Supreme Court seeking a uniform regulatory framework to prevent political demonstrations and processions within court premises and to regulate protests in the vicinity of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The petition also seeks consideration of criminal contempt proceedings against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other political leaders in connection with the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court over issues concerning the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The petition, filed by Digant Mishra and three other advocates, seeks preservation of CCTV footage, visitor registers, access-control records and security reports relating to the events of October 12. It urges the Court to examine the conduct of Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and initiate criminal contempt proceedings if their conduct is found to interfere with the administration of justice.
The matter is listed for hearing on October 15 before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The petition acknowledges that citizens and political parties have a constitutional right to express dissent against public authorities but argues that such freedom cannot extend to unauthorised entry into restricted judicial areas, obstruction of access to court buildings, disruption of judicial functioning or attempts to influence adjudication through collective political pressure.
The plea arises from the march organised under the banners “March for Democracy” and “Chalo Dilli” after the Chief Justice of India declined a request by the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to meet him and submit a memorandum concerning the Election Commission.
According to the petition, the Delhi Police stopped the procession at a barricade on Bhagwan Dass Road, before it could reach the Supreme Court premises. A delegation of political leaders was subsequently allowed to enter the premises to submit a writ petition at the filing counter.
The advocates have sought a judicial examination of whether the events involved any unauthorised demonstration within the operational precincts of the Supreme Court, obstruction of advocates and litigants, interference with judicial or administrative work, or an attempt to exert pressure on the institution in matters pending adjudication.
The petition further seeks directions to the Delhi Police and the Supreme Court administration to preserve all relevant electronic and documentary evidence and submit a report detailing the circumstances surrounding the gathering.
It also draws attention to social media posts allegedly targeting the Chief Justice of India over his remarks concerning the protests. The plea refers to a post by the Congress party’s Kerala unit calling upon the CJI to resign if he could not handle the law-and-order situation, as well as a post by Mahua Moitra stating, “Surya clearly Can’t. So we will.”
The petition notes that the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association have passed resolutions condemning calls for the CJI’s resignation. It argues that public campaigns directed against judges in connection with pending matters raise serious concerns regarding judicial independence and the institutional authority of the courts.
Seeking broader safeguards, the advocates have asked the Court to direct the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice, along with the Delhi Police, to formulate a neutral and enforceable policy governing demonstrations around constitutional courts. The proposed framework would provide for regulated zones surrounding court complexes, protected access routes for lawyers, litigants and court employees, and designated alternative locations for lawful protests.
The plea also seeks a prohibition on political processions, dharnas, sloganeering, display of party flags and banners, and political press conferences within the judicial complexes of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It further seeks guidelines restraining political parties and pressure groups from conducting campaigns intended to influence courts or individual judges in matters awaiting adjudication.
Among the other reliefs sought are guidelines governing the conduct of political leaders entering court premises, including compliance with security and entry protocols, use of designated filing facilities, and restrictions on entourages, sloganeering and political messaging within judicial complexes.
The petition also seeks a declaration that political leaders and holders of constitutional offices should not seek administrative meetings with the CJI, High Court Chief Justices or other judges, or submit memoranda concerning matters that are sub judice. According to the petitioners, grievances relating to pending proceedings must be pursued through legally recognised judicial processes.
On contempt, the advocates have requested the Supreme Court to consider initiating proceedings suo motu against the concerned political leaders if the available material establishes that their conduct scandalised the Court, lowered its authority or interfered with the administration of justice. They have sought that any such action be considered after the relevant evidence is examined and the persons concerned are afforded an opportunity of hearing.
Invoking Articles 32, 129, 142 and 144 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought interim guidelines to remain in force until a comprehensive regulatory framework is put in place.
The petition, filed on October 13, 2026, places before the Supreme Court the question of balancing the constitutional right to political dissent with the need to preserve judicial independence, protect access to courts and ensure that judicial proceedings remain free from external pressure.
The post Supreme Court plea seeks ban on political protests inside Court premises, criminal contempt action against Rahul Gandhi appeared first on India Legal.