Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Application Alleging Rahul Gandhi Pushed Pregnant Journalist in Court Premises

Supreme Court to Hear Application Over Alleged Incident Involving Rahul Gandhi and Pregnant Journalist

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday, October 16, to hear an application alleging that Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi pushed a woman journalist who was three months pregnant inside the Court premises on October 12. The alleged incident occurred during a march by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to file a petition against the Election Commission of India.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi accepted the application after Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned it before them. The application has been filed in a pre-existing petition by advocate Digant Mishra, which seeks directions against political demonstrations within Court premises.

The bench had previously indicated it would not take suo motu cognizance of oral submissions and required a formal application to be filed. The filing and acceptance now sets the stage for a full hearing on the merits of the allegation.

What Happened on October 12

On October 12, Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders proceeded to the Supreme Court to file a petition challenging certain actions by the Election Commission. During this march through the Court premises, the alleged incident involving the journalist took place. The application states that the journalist was three months pregnant at the time of the alleged push.

The specific circumstances—the exact location within the premises, the sequence of events, and the journalist's account—are matters the bench will now examine during the formal hearing. The bench's decision to accept the application means these details will receive judicial scrutiny.

The Broader Petition on Demonstrations

The application is being filed in the context of a larger petition filed by advocate Digant Mishra. That petition seeks directions from the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict political demonstrations and marches within the Court premises. The petition raises questions about the balance between the right to protest and petition on one hand, and the maintenance of order and safety within the Court complex on the other.

By accepting the application related to the alleged October 12 incident, the bench has indicated that the specific facts of what occurred during that march are relevant to the larger questions being raised in Mishra's petition.

How the Bench Got Here

When the matter was first raised orally before the bench, the judges made clear they would not take suo motu cognizance based on oral submissions alone. Instead, they required that a formal application be filed, setting out the allegations and relief sought in writing.

This approach reflects established judicial practice. Oral mentions in court can alert the bench to urgent matters, but do not typically result in full judicial proceedings unless the matter is properly formalized through written applications. By requiring a formal application, the bench ensured that the allegation would be properly documented and that all parties would have an opportunity to respond to the specific claims being made.

Once the formal application was filed, the bench agreed to hear it. The acceptance does not mean the court has made any finding about the truth of the allegation. Rather, it means the court will hear arguments from the parties involved and examine the evidence before reaching any conclusion.

The Bench and Its Recent Approach

Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi are the judges hearing this application. Their bench has been dealing with a range of matters related to political activity, demonstrations, and the functioning of the Court premises during a period of heightened political activity.

Justice Bagchi has been involved in recent orders reflecting the bench's approach to balancing competing interests. On the same day as Friday's decision, the bench declined an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the closure of Central Park at Connaught Place ahead of a political march. In that order, Justice Bagchi noted that the court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction if the situation resulted in business losses, while also acknowledging the interconnected issues of the right to protest, the livelihood of small shopkeepers, and law and order.

This suggests the bench is taking a nuanced view of the various interests at stake when political demonstrations occur in public spaces.