Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Issues Notices Over Rahul Gandhi’s October 12 Protest and SIR Petition
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On October 12 2026, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi led the INDIA bloc in a march that entered the Supreme Court complex to file a petition challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the petitioners and to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and ordered preservation of CCTV footage. The Court also listed an interlocutory application to hear an allegation that Gandhi pushed a three-month-pregnant journalist on October 26.
Background & Context
The SIR exercise, launched in 2025, aims to delete ineligible voters from the rolls. A newspaper investigation alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took unilateral decisions that resulted in the deletion of roughly 13 crore voters, prompting protests and calls for his resignation. Opposition leaders filed a joint petition (W.P.(C) No. 001351/2026) seeking an independent audit, disclosure of deletion data, and a suspension of the SIR pending judicial review. The Supreme Court had previously directed the opposition to pursue relief through formal petitions.
Data & Statistics
- 13 crore voters reportedly affected by the SIR.
- Approximately 200 lawyers signed a memorandum expressing concern over the protest inside the Court.
- The petition lists 13 opposition leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.
- The alleged journalist push involved a three-month-pregnant woman who required hospitalization, according to senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia.
Official Statements & Responses
- The Court emphasized that issuing notice does not constitute condoning any petitioner’s conduct.
- Chief Justice Kant warned that “nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
- The bench ordered the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to respond.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that an apology in a separate contempt matter does not preclude the Court from examining the present issues.
Criticism & Opposition
- Pradeep Bhandari, BJP spokesperson, alleged that the protest aimed to create “Bangladesh-like anarchy” and that Congress leader Neha Bora encouraged a “regime-change” agenda.
On-the-Ground Reports
Lawyers and journalists inside the Supreme Court registry reported that crowds broke through barricades near Barakhamba Road, with some demonstrators climbing onto police vehicles. Security halted the procession, but a sizable gathering remained within the precincts, prompting the petitioners to file the plea directly at the registry.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The allegation that Gandhi pushed the pregnant journalist appears only in filings by senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia and is scheduled for hearing on October 26; no other source confirms the incident.
- The opposition cites a 14-point objection record from two election commissioners, but the exact content is not detailed in public filings.
Verbatim Quotes
- “We are not sitting in ivory towers,” — Chief Justice Surya Kant
- “There is a separate prayer for criminal contempt itself. I would urge strongly that notice be issued because such an incident cannot be repeated ever in the Supreme Court,” — Gaurav Bhatia, senior advocate
- “Protest can be held only at the designated site, that too after obtaining prior permission from the authority concerned. Protests have to be peaceful. This is the law of the country. The Supreme Court precincts cannot be used as a political arena,” — Gaurav Bhatia
These quotations capture the Court’s stance, the petitioners’ concerns, and the political criticism surrounding the event.