Supreme Court Issues Notice on Petition Seeking Ban on Political Protests Inside Court Premises

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government, the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, Mahua Moitra, and Akhilesh Yadav on a petition filed by four advocates seeking to establish a uniform framework regulating political processions and demonstrations around the Supreme Court and High Courts. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. The bench declined to issue a contempt notice at this stage, saying it will decide after reviewing responses from the parties.

The petition requests an absolute prohibition on political protests inside court premises and calls for preservation of CCTV footage, visitor and access-control records, and security reports related to a march towards the Supreme Court on October 12, 2026. The plea seeks to regulate political activity within the precincts of the nation's highest court and its subordinate benches, raising questions about the balance between democratic expression and the sanctity of judicial spaces.

What the advocates are asking for

The four advocates have sought comprehensive guidelines that would apply uniformly across the Supreme Court and all High Courts in India. Their submission focuses on preventing political processions and demonstrations within court premises, arguing that such activities may compromise the dignity and independence of the judiciary. The petition explicitly requests the court to direct preservation of security-related documentation from the October 12 march.

The march took place during a period of heightened political activity in Delhi, with multiple demonstrations occurring on October 10, 11, and 12, 2026. The request to preserve CCTV footage and security records suggests the petitioners wish to maintain a record of the events that prompted their legal challenge.

Bench takes measured approach

The bench declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents at this stage. This reflects established judicial practice: the court will hear the other side before making any determination on such a serious matter. Contempt proceedings carry significant consequences, and the bench appears to have determined that the proper course is to gather all relevant information and submissions before proceeding.

Political leaders named as respondents

The inclusion of specific political leaders and parties as respondents indicates the petitioners view the October 12 march as a political action requiring responses from those who organized or participated in it. The Congress party has been made a party. Individual leaders including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge have been named, along with Mahua Moitra and Akhilesh Yadav, suggesting their involvement or leadership role in the demonstration.

The Union government has also been made a respondent, likely because questions about security arrangements, police conduct, and the regulation of demonstrations on court premises fall within its purview.

Backdrop of October protests

The October 12 march towards the Supreme Court occurred within a larger context of political mobilization in Delhi. Multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court by individuals detained during protests on October 10, 11, and 12, alleging police excesses including illegal detention, physical assault, and manhandling of protesters and journalists. These petitions raise concerns about police conduct during demonstrations against the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The Lawyers Association for Constitution and the Network of Women in Media also filed petitions addressing police action against protesters. At least 15 separate petitions have been filed by detainees seeking an independent inquiry into police conduct, preservation of CCTV and bodycam footage, and the return of seized belongings. This backdrop of allegations regarding police action adds complexity to the current petition, as the court must consider not only the conduct of protesters but also the conduct of state authorities.

Judicial dignity versus democratic rights

The petition raises a fundamental tension in constitutional law: the court's need to maintain its dignity and independence versus citizens' right to petition and protest. The petition seeks an absolute prohibition on political protests inside court premises, a position that courts have previously addressed through various mechanisms including security protocols, restricted access zones, and time-specific restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice rather than immediately accede to the petition suggests the bench recognizes this tension. The court will need to consider whether an absolute ban is necessary or whether more calibrated measures might address legitimate security and dignity concerns while preserving constitutional rights.