Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines Against Political Protests Inside Court Premises, Contempt Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi

Four advocates have moved the Supreme Court seeking a uniform framework to regulate political processions and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts, including an absolute prohibition on political protests inside court premises, following the October 12 march towards the Supreme Court over issues concerning the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea also seeks preservation of CCTV footage, visitor and access-control records, and security reports relating to the events of October 12. The petition asks the Court to examine the conduct of political leaders, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings if their conduct is found to warrant such action.

“The right of citizens and political parties to express disagreement with public authorities is an important feature of democracy. However, the right to protest cannot be understood as conferring an unrestricted entitlement to enter restricted or operational court areas, obstruct access to court buildings, assemble in a manner that disrupts judicial work, intimidate persons involved in adjudication, or seek a favourable judicial outcome through collective pressure”, the plea contends.

The petition is listed for hearing today before a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The petition contends that political mobilisation must not be allowed to interfere with the administration of justice or create pressure on courts in matters pending adjudication. They state that the proposed safeguards should apply equally to all political parties, irrespective of their ideology.

The march was organised under the banners “March for Democracy” and “Chalo Dilli” after the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, 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.

The Delhi Police stopped the procession at a barricade on Bhagwan Dass Road, short of the Supreme Court premises, the plea states, adding that a delegation of political leaders was subsequently permitted to enter the Court premises to file a writ petition at the filing counter.

The petition contends that the events of October 12 must be examined to establish whether any demonstration entered the operational precincts of the Supreme Court, obstructed the movement of advocates and litigants, interfered with judicial or administrative work, or sought to exert pressure on the Court in pending matters.

The petition seeks directions to the Delhi Police and the Supreme Court administration to preserve CCTV footage, visitor records, access-control records and security reports concerning the Court premises and approaches on that date, and to submit a report enabling the Court to ascertain the facts.

The petition also refers to social media posts concerning the CJI's remarks on the protests. It refers to the Congress's Kerala unit post on X, “Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” It further refers to a post by Mahua Moitra stating, “Surya clearly Can't. So we will.”

The Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association passed resolutions condemning the calls for the CJI's resignation.

The petition argues that public campaigns targeting judges in connection with pending matters raise concerns about judicial independence and the administration of justice. It contends that public agitation and attacks on the judiciary cannot be allowed to undermine the rule of law. "The post addressed the Chief Justice of India by name, without the courtesy of his title. It demanded his resignation, and it asserted that the political party would "find" his "replacement". The Petitioners respectfully submit that the post struck at the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice of India and implied that the highest judicial office in the land is a matter of political choice. It also sought to coerce a sitting Chief Justice who had declined to discuss sub judice matters outside the courtroom", the plea states.

The plea seeks a direction to the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Law and Justice, along with the Delhi Police, to frame a neutral and enforceable regulatory framework governing demonstrations in the vicinity of constitutional courts. The proposed framework would include regulated zones around court complexes, protected access corridors for advocates, litigants and court staff, and designated alternative sites for protests.

The petition also seeks a declaration prohibiting political processions, protests, dharnas, sloganeering, display of party flags and banners, and political press conferences within the judicial complexes of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Further, it seeks guidelines prohibiting political parties and pressure groups from organising campaigns directed at courts or judges to influence the outcome of pending proceedings. It has requested the Court to prescribe standards of judicial decorum for political leaders entering court premises, including compliance with entry regulations, use of filing counters or electronic filing facilities, and the absence of entourages, sloganeering and political messaging.

The petition also seeks a declaration that no person, including a political leader or holder of constitutional office, may seek an administrative meeting with the CJI, a High Court Chief Justice or any judge, or submit a memorandum concerning a matter that is sub judice. It contends that grievances in such matters must be pursued through judicial proceedings.

Additionally, the petition seeks initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the private respondents if, after examining the relevant material and affording them an opportunity of hearing, the Court finds that their conduct interfered with the administration of justice or scandalised or lowered the authority of the Court.

The petitioners have invoked Articles 32, 129, 142 and 144 of the Constitution, seeking guidelines that would operate until an appropriate regulatory framework is notified. The petition was filed on October 13, 2026.