Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Plea Seeking Ban on Political Demonstrations Within Court Premises

Supreme Court to Hear Plea Banning Political Demonstrations Within Court Premises

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, to hear a petition seeking a complete ban on political demonstrations within court premises and contempt proceedings against opposition leaders. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana scheduled the hearing for October 15, 2026, after senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned the plea in court.

The petition was filed in response to events on October 12, when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders marched to the Supreme Court to file a joint petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The march drew a large crowd to the apex court's premises, prompting the filing of a Public Interest Litigation seeking a party-neutral framework to prevent political processions, protests, and sloganeering within constitutional court premises.

Four advocates filed the PIL, which requests that the Court initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against several opposition leaders for events on October 12. The petitioners named Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, the Indian National Congress, and the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, among others, as respondents.

The petitioners argued that the conduct of opposition leaders, directed at matters listed for hearing on October 13, 2026, could prejudice pending proceedings. They cited Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which provides the exclusive mechanism for removing a Supreme Court judge, and referenced the judgment in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, which established that Bar association pressure to coerce a judge's resignation is impermissible.

Social media posts made by opposition leaders demanding the Chief Justice of India's resignation were also highlighted in the PIL. The petitioners contended that such posts, combined with the physical march to court premises, amounted to conduct that could obstruct the judicial system and warrant contempt action.

Electoral Roll Petition Faces Registry Defects

The underlying petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders on October 12 has encountered procedural hurdles. The Supreme Court Registry flagged 14 defects in the joint petition against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The deficiencies include missing authorisations from nine petitioners, an illegible copy of Mallikarjun Kharge's identification card, small fonts in the document, missing coloured copies, and a shortfall of ₹220 in court fees.

These defects must be corrected before the petition can be listed for substantive hearing. The petition seeks an interim suspension of the SIR across states and an independent audit of deletions made from electoral rolls. Despite the high-profile march to court, the underlying challenge to the electoral revision process remains at an early stage and cannot proceed until the Registry's requirements are satisfied.

Judicial Disruption and Related Incidents

The plea seeking a ban on political demonstrations within court premises arrives amid a series of incidents drawing judicial attention to conduct affecting court functioning. On October 10, 2026, the Union government informed a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that its response to petitions concerning alleged illegal detentions and the shutdown of public and rail transport, including Metro services, in Delhi was prepared but required further refinement. The court extended the deadline for the government to submit its reply affidavit until October 15, 2026.

Multiple petitions, including those seeking contempt proceedings related to those events, were adjourned to the same date. The court also requested a senior police officer to be present at the next hearing to address allegations of assault on women during the October 10 incidents.

These developments reflect judicial concern about conduct that may interfere with court operations or influence judicial proceedings. The bench hearing the political demonstrations plea will need to balance the constitutional right to protest and freedom of expression against the need to maintain the sanctity and functioning of court premises.

Precedent on Pressure Against Judges

The reference in the PIL to C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee provides legal foundation for the petition. That judgment held that efforts by Bar associations or other groups to pressure a judge into resignation constitute impermissible conduct. The case established that the Constitution provides an exclusive mechanism under Article 124(4) for the removal of a Supreme Court judge, and that extra-constitutional pressure undermines judicial independence.

The petitioners argue that social media posts demanding the Chief Justice's resignation, combined with a march to court premises, fall within the scope of conduct prohibited by that precedent. Whether the bench agrees with this characterisation will significantly influence the outcome of the October 15 hearing.