Supreme Court hears Rahul Gandhi petition against SIR and Delhi protest cases: LIVE UPDATES

CJI Surya Kant: These proceedings are being recorded. Everyone can see how you are conducting yourselves. Bench rises.

Plea argued by Sr Adv Nitya Ramakrishnan | Allegations of continuing police violence

Nitya Ramakrishnan: Preserve the CCTV footage and other records. Within hours of the Court's interim order on October 11, they picked up people, beat them black and blue, and they are continuing to do it. Police violence cannot be tolerated. They cannot take the devices of protesters and keep them. We have material on record. A strong message from this Court is needed. They are continuing to arrest people. They are continuing to violate the Court's orders of October 11.

Please pass an interim order. Mobile jail vans have been used to detain protesters. In the interim, we request that the records and CCTV footage be retained. We are seeking a court-monitored SIT so that the devices may be protected and people may be protected from custodial violence.

Justice Bagchi: We have issued notice in all petitions.

Diary No. 64769/2026 | Alleged detention of minor and seizure of devices

Counsel: I have only two requests. One requires special attention. Diary No. 64769 of 2026 is already on record. We are curing the defects. The minor who had protection under an earlier order was detained and manhandled, in violation of the October 9 order. Her device was detained. She was manhandled. She wanted to reach the Supreme Court. She was unable to reach.

SG Tushar Mehta: Why should a 10-year-old reach the Supreme Court?

Counsel: It is access to justice.

SG Tushar Mehta: Why should a 10-year-old reach the Supreme Court?

Counsel: I was trying to rescue her. The junior counsel whom I sent was obstructed. They risked being detained. They were manhandled. The second request I have is that devices belonging to women, including journalists, lawyers and female victims who were already vulnerable, were detained and retained for many days..I presented this matter before Justice Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on October 11. The matter was also heard..I pray that the authorities be directed to state on affidavit that they have not harvested any data or illegally detained or retained any information from those devices. Let them put it on affidavit. The application is on record.

Item 37 | Alleged assault on lawyer at police station

Sr Adv Hariharan: Before the Court rises, Item 37 needs special mention because two lawyers are involved. I had filed an application on the previous date, when Justice Bagchi had taken it on record. I had placed photographs also. The Court may ask for a reply in relation to that. The particular counsel concerned was beaten up at the police station. He was beaten up in connection with the protest. I want a reply to that. His head was split open. He was bleeding.

Petitions by SCBA and SCoRA concerning alleged police action against lawyers

CJI Surya Kant: We have already gone through the petitions. SCBA and SCoRA may take whatever stand they wish to take. We firmly believe your stand will uphold the dignity of this institution. Whatever you feel is necessary, please bring it on record.

President SCAORA, Devvrat: On behalf of SCoRA, the Court has issued notice in our petition. The only interim relief we want against the brutality meted out to lawyers is that the Commissioner of Police must come and apologise to the lawyers. That is something we want immediately. Lawyers have been picked up from their chambers.

CJI Surya Kant: There are four petitions dealing exclusively with the misbehaviour, brutality or attacks, whatever it may be, against members of the Bar. There is one by the SCBA, one by another lawyers' association, and other connected petitions. We are cognisant of that. We are issuing notice.

Sr Adv Ramakrishnan: I also want an interim direction. Contemporaneously with the events, at 12:30 or 2:30 in the night, with the assistance of young, idealistic lawyers at various far-flung police stations, complaints were lodged by email with DCPs, SHOs and ACPs. Those complaints are on record. Let the ACP or the Commissioner of Police come and tell us what has been done with regard to those complaints. We have five such complaints.

CJI Surya Kant: We make an earnest appeal to the members of the Bar not to file more petitions. Forty-six matters are already there.

CJI Surya Kant: In matters of custodial violence, the petitions can be broadly categorised into one group, two groups, three groups or four groups, whatever is appropriate. One comprehensive counter-affidavit for each particular group can be taken, instead of separate counter-affidavits in all the matters. Otherwise, it will unnecessarily delay the proceedings. Please appreciate that.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: This is bringing politics into the courtroom.

CJI Surya Kant: We would like to examine the prayers made in that petition.

Bhatia: I am giving the number of the petition. It also deals with another important issue. Please hear me for two minutes. It raises two important issues. One is what I have just raised. The second concerns women police officers who were allegedly manhandled and touched inappropriately. I am giving the petition number.

Opposing counsel: This may also be a counterblast.

Sr Adv Gaurav Bhatia raises allegation concerning pregnant journalist

Gaurav Bhatia: May I be allowed one minute to address the Court? There is another important point I want to bring to the Court's notice. Within the precincts of the Supreme Court, a woman journalist was allegedly pushed by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi himself. She was two months pregnant.

SG: Three months.

Gaurav Bhatia: Three months pregnant, as they are saying. I have a report. What am I urging? I am urging that cognisance of this news report also be taken. She has been hospitalised. A woman journalist, merely because she is reporting against a particular person, or reporting fairly and doing her duty, cannot be denied protection.

SG: That is why this is selective outrage and nothing else.

Bhatia: It is an ANI report, from a credible agency.

CJI Surya Kant: notice in all

CJI Surya Kant: All other matters pertaining to the protest issue, we are issuing notice. There are petitions that overlap. We can request the Solicitor General's side to appoint a nodal counsel. We would ask the petitioners also to appoint a nodal counsel who can deal with all these petitions and compile the issues which ultimately arise, including identifying those issues which are overlapping.

In all these cases, we are issuing notice and asking the respondents to file their replies.

SG Tushar Mehta: No devices have been seized.

C.U. Singh: Please, Mr. Solicitor. I have not said a word. I am addressing the Court in a particular matter, which is Item 32.

CJI Surya Kant: You have alleged that certain seizures have been made of devices.

C.U. Singh: That's right.

CJI Surya Kant: The Solicitor General, on instructions, says no seizures have been made.

C.U. Singh: Then the Court may say that if any seizures have been made then shall be returned.

SG: cannot be on assumptions

CJI: Issue notice.

Item 32 | Delhi Union of Journalists seeks return of seized electronic devices

Senior Advocate C.U. Singh: Some urgent interim relief is required in Item 32. It is filed by the Delhi Union of Journalists. After the Court's October 11 order, various incidents took place. The petition enumerates all those incidents. But the interim relief urgently needed is that the devices of journalists have been seized. We have set that out in the petition. Why are electronic devices being seized? Their livelihood depends on them. Their work depends on them. Their material is in those devices. Those devices must be released to them. The police have no authority whatsoever to seize the devices of journalists. The Delhi Union of Journalists has filed this petition...

CJI Surya Kant (dictating order): Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel, agrees that during the course of the day she will hand over the material collected by the petitioner in a sealed envelope for the consideration of this Court. In addition, names of former judges, former police officers, or other social activists may also be submitted in a sealed envelope. The journalist whose complaint with respect to the alleged molestation is pending consideration be protected from coercive action.

CJI Surya Kant: As noted, journalists exercise two rights together: not only the right to expression, but also the right to carry on a trade or profession. That makes protecting journalists all the more important.

Justice Bagchi: Whether they are accredited journalists, individual freelance journalists, influencers, etc., there will be layers of protection for media journalists. That is a larger question.

CJI Surya Kant: Out of that, there will be certain categories to whom an extra level of protection will be required.

Justice Bagchi: Even working journalist act says there are classes amongst journalists.

CJI Surya Kant: We are protecting that woman from any persecution.

SG Tushar Mehta: I am making a statement. My officers are here. We will complete whatever we are doing and place it before the Court. In the meantime, this particular woman journalist may cooperate. We will not arrest her.

Indira Jaising: No! We will not cooperate with you.

SG Tushar Mehta: There are certain allegations against specific police officers. We are examining whether this should be dealt with at the administrative level or by an independent agency. The Court may take a call after I file my reply.

Indira Jaising: The police cannot investigate themselves. The Court has already said that.

SG Tushar Mehta: Take a call after my reply comes. That is all I am asking.

CJI Surya Kant: No, no, certainly. You take care of it, but no coercive action against her.

CJI Surya Kant: That individual woman journalist about whom the allegations are there, and against whom the police official is stated to have gone to the High Court...please see that there is No coercive action.

Indira Jaising: No coercive action against any woman journalist.

Justice Bagchi: We cannot make it that wide. It will be restricted to the specific instance you have given in the petition, and also the names of the persons you are giving in the enclosed material.

Indira Jaising: Yes. We will give that.

CJI Surya Kant: We have to strike a balance between access to justice for persons who have made allegations and the rights of others. They also have a right to file complaints.

Indira Jaising: But the Court has already done that.

SG Tushar Mehta: The difficulty is that they want their right to freedom of expression protected, but no one else, including the Court, has a right to freedom of expression.

Jaising: This is all drama.

Indira Jaising: No. I don't want a police investigation. They cannot investigate themselves. They cannot be judges in their own cause.

CJI Surya Kant: With regard to your allegations, your proposal is that an independent committee under the supervision of this Court should look into them. That is one of your submissions. With regard to some complaints which you say are intimidating complaints, registered or likely to be registered in order to pre-empt you or prevent your access to justice...

SG Tushar Mehta: The lady has gone before the High Court, as per my instructions. The police officer against whom she seeks an order is not a party. He is not before the Court.

Indira Jaising: The Court has passed that order earlier. It is already an order of the Court. No coercive action against any protester.

SG Tushar Mehta: No, that was a consent order.

SG Tushar Mehta: Within a week, we will file our response on an affidavit. The allegation is very serious. If it is answerable, we will answer. We must face whatever consequences follow. But please don't put the cart before the horse. Please hear us.

Indira Jaising: How do I protect my client from a counter-affidavit being filed against her?

SG Tushar Mehta: You have to accept the counter-affidavit. How can you prevent the filing of a counter-affidavit?

Indira Jaising: It is not about permission. The police are misusing the SC/ST Act. The police officer has gone to the High Court under the SC/ST Act, while the police have not registered my client's FIR. Look at this.

SG Tushar Mehta: If she shouts, I cannot do it unless the Court decides to hear one side and not the other. I have no difficulty with the Court hearing everyone, but the Court will have to control the interruptions. In our experience, several people say they are freelance journalists. They have a microphone; they record things and upload them. What is going on is reel-making, and that happens even at protest sites. So we do not know who is a reel-maker and who is an independent journalist. But nobody should be treated inappropriately. Including female police personnel, if you don't mind. Police personnel also.

But as to the blanket directions my learned friend seeks regarding a committee, the Court may examine what the police have done. If, after that, the Court comes to the conclusion that they have not done enough, then the Court has the power to constitute such a committee, though I am objecting to it at this stage. Second, so far as no FIR against any woman journalist is concerned, that would be too wide a direction.

Indira Jaising: Because her FIR has not been registered!

SG Tushar Mehta: Allow me to assist the Court peacefully, without raising my voice or shouting, as a lawyer should. The submission is this. We received a copy late at night, the day before yesterday. We are in the process of taking instructions. Whatever the Court ultimately directs will be binding upon us. But please hear us. There is another version. The difficulty we are facing is, and I am not speaking about this particular lady, we will place that on record also.

There was a video. The video was analysed technologically and was found to be AI-generated. Nonetheless, we will not minimise the allegation, and we will address the Court on that. But the difficulty is this. In the present era of digital technology, any person having a mobile phone is a journalist in their own right.

Jaising: There is a right to be an independent journalist.

SG Tushar Mehta: Can I respond?

CJI Surya Kant: We want to hear you also before passing an order, because Ms. Indira Jaising has prayed for some interim directions. Allow us to hear you before we pass any order.

Indira Jaising: In Israel and Palestine, women journalists are going and reporting. No one is stopping them, and we are stopping them here. No more FIRs against women journalists. We get a pass from our employers stating that the journalist is employed with us. They have to recognise that journalist as a journalist who has the right to report. All this will be part of the protocol which we will suggest to the Court, because there is none. There is no national protocol on how to deal with journalists.

SG Tushar Mehta: Can I respond to Ms. Jaising? They are creating a ruckus. They are creating disorder.

Justice Bagchi: Every voice is valuable. Everyone will be heard, irrespective of the numbers.

John Brittas: With your permission, can I represent myself? I am a layman. I am not a lawyer. I am a Member of Parliament. I am glad that the Chief Justice of India converted my letter into an intervention application. It is a related matter because I was speaking to the press, far away from the police and the barricades. The police told me...

CJI Surya Kant: We have already taken notice of your letter. It is registered. .

Jaising: I want these two orders. I will give two sealed covers. One with the women's names and the allegations they have made, and another with my recommendations for the committee. I leave it to the Court to decide what names to pick from that list. But I certainly have the right to suggest names. I do not want to come back later and say remove this person or that person.

CJI Surya Kant: If you can give them during the course of the day, we will be very happy because we would like to pass...

Indira Jaising: I have all the material with me.And one more thing, no coercive action.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: I will do that. One more thing. This is as far as the committee is concerned. I want to draw attention to a very important issue, and that is in the nature of SLAPP suits.

I am representing a woman who was very badly molested. I will give the name of the police officer to the Court. She went to the police station to lodge an FIR. No FIR was lodged. Now what does this man do? He has gone to the Delhi High Court and filed a petition under the Atrocities Act, saying that she used casteist remarks against him. That matter has been entertained. I am asking for an order that no coercive action be taken against any woman journalist who has made a complaint.

The Court has passed similar orders in relation to previous protests. Those matters are coming up in the Delhi High Court. I just saw the report as I am sitting here.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: One more thing. I am happy to give a list of names. Insofar as a retired IPS officer is concerned, I suggest... I want to be upfront with the Court. It is up to the Court to take it.

CJI Surya Kant: Any other material which you are giving us in a sealed cover, give us another sealed envelope suggesting the names.

CJI Surya Kant: Yes. In sealed cover only. The Court will have to handle the vulnerability very sensitively and cautiously. We are also prima facie agreeing that the committee in your matter must be predominantly or exclusively composed of women. It may comprise a former woman judge, a former woman IPS officer, a former woman social worker or a social activist with a known track record.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: Mine is a case where you need a differently constituted committee to look at compensation, which enables it to look at each and every complaint by each and every woman journalist who has complained of violence, including sexual violence.. Therefore, we need to discuss who will be the members of this special committee....

I have my suggestions. I am happy to share them with the Court....As I said, it will include a retired woman judge. It will include a retired woman IPS officer. We do not want serving IPS officers. It will include civil society representatives, and it has to be headed by a woman....Now, that apart, the Court has already passed an order to preserve the footage. I want to bring to the Court's notice the list of cases with names suppressed..Allow me to file it in a sealed cover, giving the names of the women who are willing to come forward and file affidavits explaining the manner in which they were treated. We would like to maintain their confidentiality.

Gaurav Bhatia: It pertains to the same issue: women journalists. Here, a journalist who was pregnant was..

Gopal Sankaranarayan: Mr. Bhatia, I think you should wait.

Bhatia: Now they expect us to wait, but when we address the Court, they have to intervene at that very point.

Item 27 | Sexual violence and harassment of women journalists

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising: This petition specifically addresses the needs of women journalists during their duty and employment. When they go to a protest site, they constitute a class by themselves because they not only have the right to speech, not only have the right to protest, but also the right to work. They go there to perform their duties in exercise of their right to work. Being women, they are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, being pushed and pulled around, especially by male police officers. Which is not to say that women police officers did not push them. They did. That would constitute harassment, but when it happens by a male officer, it constitutes sexual harassment. We stand apart as a class, and I am seeking interim orders.

The Court has already set up a Special Inquiry Committee. We do not wish to be linked with that inquiry committee because the constitution of our committee has to be different. It has to be in accordance with the Vishakha guidelines as well. Therefore, our committee has to be headed by a woman chairperson. We have names which we would like to suggest, maybe retired women judges and civil society members, retired police personnel and civil society activists, because Vishakha even includes NGOs. That is the kind of special committee we want.

Counsel: Item 45 is Asaduddin Owaisi versus Election Commission of India.

Another counsel: Item 41 is Manoj Kumar Jha.

CJI Surya Kant: We are keeping those matters separate.

Counsel: Fair enough.

CJI Surya Kant: We are only segregating the matters which are not directly related to the protests. They may have some bearing, but they are substantially different matters. We are taking up those matters separately.

Adv Nizam Pasha for Owaisi: Meaningful adjudication will require the notes and internal communications of the Election Commission to be produced, because we will need to rely on them.

Section 163 BNSS | Demand for notification and detention figures

SG: May they just place the Section 163 notification that they rely on? They should place it on record. The reply filed by the Delhi Police does not contain the Section 163 notification.

Menaka Guruswamy: May a direction be given that the notification be placed on record?

Counsel: The Court has held that contiguous areas cannot be notified under Section 163. They have done that.

Sr Adv Sankaranarayan: I will explain why both provisions must be considered. The constitutional law system has undergone a major upheaval in the last 15 years. Please don't be dismissive about it.

Justice Bagchi: we are not

SG: can we use such words ?

Sankaranarayanan: All I am saying is that notice can go to consider it, because of the manner in which this is being utilised as a licence against Article 21, in the way it has been read.

Item 40 | Constitutional challenge to Section 172 BNSS.

Counsel for Item 40: I am appearing in Item 40. Notice may be issued.

CJI Surya Kant: What is in that?

Counsel: one is Section 163 BNSS.

Another counsel: I am talking about Section 172.

CJI Surya Kant: Section 172?

Counsel for Item 40: Yes, Section 172. I am distinguishing it. Madhu Limaye and all those cases relate to the earlier provision. This is Section 172. There is a difference.

CJI Surya Kant: Our notice is restricted to the new provision.

Counsel for Item 40: That's what I am saying. I am also restricting myself to that, and I will give the reason why.

CJI Surya Kant: The new provision, Section 172.

Counsel: Section 173 is a different prayer. Both are in the new...

Item 39 | Difficulties faced by a lawyer during protests

Senio Adv Nadkarni: I am appearing for the petitioner. This is a petition by a lawyer who has faced difficulties. He has given a neutral view, neither for this side nor for that side. Please see the whole petition.

CJI Surya Kant: As I understand, a 75-year-old person could not get medical treatment?

Sr Adv Nadkarni: Absolutely. Not only that, there are other things also. The next day, my brief was inaccessible.

SG: The petition includes an interesting prayer, and it is one of the laws we will cite. Whoever organises or calls for a protest takes responsibility for the consequences that fall on others.

CJI Surya Kant: The State should respond to that prayer. The Union should respond to that prayer. People hold agitations. You hold everybody to account.

CJI Surya Kant: On the last occasion, we passed an order directing anyone with footage to file it in Court. That is already an order of the Court.

CJI Surya Kant (dictating order): In this regard, as agreed to among the parties, all law enforcement agencies are directed to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital material collected by them. Similarly, such material collected by private parties shall also be at liberty to preserve.

Counsel: The difficulty is not malice or lack of faith in the Supreme Court administration. The system is that after 30 days or 60 days, the footage gets overwritten.

[Plea seeking preservation of CCTV footage and digital evidence: Again item 30]

Bhatia: in item 30: May I make a request? In Item 30, I request an interim order to protect and preserve the CCTV footage. That is on page 88 of my petition. The Court may direct that the CCTV footage be preserved.

SG Tushar Mehta: There are two things. So far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned, he has issued a written intimation to every police station to not only preserve the footage but also send it to headquarters, so that there is separate preservation at headquarters.

Sr Adv Mukta Gupta: The fundamental right of a citizen to protest cannot be scuttled because this Court has already ruled in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan that the place must be near where protesters can be heard. New Delhi is not meant for a select few.

Justice Bagchi: We are issuing notice. We are getting a response from them. If we are not satisfied with the response, the law will follow its course. You have laid out your case. First, you have relied on the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan judgment. Second, you have indicated that Jantar Mantar is near the administrative establishment which runs the country, and therefore should not be shifted. We call on the State to respond.

CJI Surya Kant: We ask you to argue because we have done our homework. We know the points. It requires consideration. That is why we are issuing notice.

SC: Based on some oral observations of the Court, or was there an application of mind regarding the site and its suitability as a common protest site?

SG Mehta: The Court's judgment is not the basis of the decision. The committee was constituted much before. The committee has given a detailed report.

Item 31 | Denotification of Jantar Mantar as protest site

Sankaranarayanan: Item 31 is also slightly different. That will be linked to this. It deals with denotifying Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

CJI Surya Kant: We are issuing notice in Item 31 also.

Sankaranarayan: Because our petitions have overlapping prayers, we are asking today itself that Jantar Mantar be notified again. The denotification was purportedly done on the Court's directive. Apparently, on October 9, the Court directed that Jantar Mantar be denotified.

CJI Surya Kant: You have challenged the denotification. We are issuing notice. Let them come and file their reply. We will see what the reasons are.

Bhatia: We have confidence in the judiciary that nobody can browbeat it. But an attempt by any person to browbeat the judiciary itself is... My petition also includes a prayer for contempt, concerning the statements they make outside.

CJI Surya Kant: We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they make outside and what they say in Court. We know everything.

Bhatia: The vicinity and precincts of the Supreme Court have to be protected.

Sankaranarayanan: That can be done on the administrative side.

Bhatia: There is a separate prayer for criminal contempt itself. I strongly urge that notice be issued because such an incident cannot be repeated in the Supreme Court.

CJI Surya Kant: No contempt today. We are only issuing notice. Let us see what the response is, and then we will take it forward.

Item 30 | Protests and processions near Supreme Court, criminal contempt

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia: Regulating processions and protests in the vicinity of the Supreme Court and High Court. That is the prayer.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan: There is a second prayer to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. So when the Court says notice, it may be treated as a criminal contempt notice.

Bhatia: It is completely unacceptable that this Supreme Court is seized with processions and what has happened within the precincts of the Supreme Court. This cannot happen. I must share the anguish of lawyers practising in the Supreme Court. Two hundred of them have signed a memorandum. They stated clearly that this kind of browbeating of the judiciary, first, and second, shouting...

CJI Surya Kant: Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.

Mathews Nedumpara: Matters of governance are to be discussed in Parliament, not in the Court. They have been doing a great disservice to the institution. They do this because they are powerful. They are a gang of people. I am a sole voice.

CJI Surya Kant: You may have some attractive or arguable points. We will consider them, but only when...

Now Item 25 (Rahul Gandhi)

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: Item 25 is a fresh matter where the Court may have to issue notice formally. It relates to two or three issues. Issue one is collective decision-making under Section 18. The second issue is Form 6 and Form 7. This is a separate matter..

CJI Surya Kant: Notice. Issue notice. That's what we are saying. But...One objection, before that. We would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing. Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything. We are issuing notice. But regarding one of the petitioners, we will definitely entertain the issue. Issue notice. We will entertain the notice on behalf of one of the petitioners on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct.

CJI Surya Kant: Item 24 too?.

Counsel: According to me, Items 24, 25 (Rahul Gandhi case) and 45 are related to SIR.

Sr Adv AM Singhvi: Item 25 is Rahul Gandhi's matter. The issue of collective decision-making under Section 18 and under the judgment...

Counsel: I am just pointing out...

CJI Surya Kant: Who is representing Item 24?

CJI Surya Kant: We are issuing notice and tagging it with the matters already pending. Somebody will accept notice on behalf of the Election Commission of India. Otherwise, serve them.

CJI: Section 172 is also being challenged in its entirety. It is a preventive detention provision, and the Court needs to read it in light of the Constitution as well.

CJI Surya Kant: I have a suggestion. We can go one by one. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, just tell us what the matters are.

Gopal Sankaranarayanan: Item 24.

CJI Surya Kant: Does that have to do with the protests or with Form 6 and the Election Commission of India?

Gopal Sankaranarayanan: Yes, that's correct.

CJI Surya Kant: That matter will be taken up with the other matters.

Counsel: Yes, the Court can do that.

CJI Surya Kant: Issue notice, returnable on the common date.

Gopal Sankaranarayanan: There are some petitions pertaining to SIR that are not in that list. Those are separate. There are a couple in between, so we haven't put them in this list because these are the ones dealing with the protest issues.

CJI Surya Kant: I don't want to hear arguments. We are just identifying the matters.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy: If the Court starts with the contempt matters, I would request the Court to see the affidavit.

Sankaranarayanan: There are some affidavits. We have received something this morning. The Police Commissioner's affidavit is an elaborate affidavit setting out the facts. It responds to the...

SG: If the other side can only permit others to complete their sentences, let us not compete with each other for arguments. I will not use any other word.

Justice Bagchi: Yes, yes. Neither are we taking cognisance of the unqualified apology. By your submission, it is a qualified apology.

SG Tushar Mehta: It is an unconditional apology. Thereafter, I have given the reasons. Thereafter, I have given the facts. That's all. The first sentence is picked up, and that becomes the headline.

CJI Surya Kant: What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media.

SG Tushar Mehta: I only want to clarify that the government has defended its actions.

SG Tushar Mehta: I am not on the merits of the matter. I want to say something other than that, if the other side permits. The Court has issued notice in contempt. We have filed responses in the contempt matters. The law is well settled that whenever we file a response to a contempt notice, the first sentence we write is that we hereby tender an unconditional apology, and thereafter we explain how contempt has not been committed. It is in compliance with that law that this is the first paragraph in every affidavit.But now, in the media and on social media, it is being said that the government has apologised, that they have nothing to say. I want to clarify that the government has defended its actions, and the first paragraph is in compliance with the law laid down by this Court.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan: A list of these cases with what the prayers are, because a large number of them... Some deal with the SIR issue, so they may not involve the protest issue. This chart which I have just handed up...

Matter starts now.

Today's hearing will also bring into focus contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's October 9 and 11 directions, petitions seeking accountability for alleged police excesses, and a challenge to Section 172 of the BNSS. The Court is expected to consider compliance reports and responses from authorities, including Delhi Police. In focus are questions concerning electoral integrity, the limits of police powers, the right to protest and the protection of lawyers and journalists performing their duties

The petitions raise several significant constitutional questions. Can electoral rolls be revised in a manner that allegedly results in mass voter deletions without adequate safeguards? Can authorities restrict Metro and railway services, suspend internet access and detain peaceful protesters? Can Jantar Mantar be removed as a designated protest site without undermining the right to peaceful assembly? And were lawyers and journalists subjected to unlawful police action despite the Supreme Court's earlier directions?

Among the key petitions listed before the Supreme Court today:

1. Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders challenge alleged voter deletions and irregularities in SIR.

2. Asaduddin Owaisi separately challenges the manner in which SIR is being conducted.

3. Swaty Singh challenges Delhi Police's decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

4. M A Baby and connected petitioners question restrictions on transport, public movement and alleged violations of earlier Supreme Court directions.