LIVE: NDMC shuts CJP’s protest venue, Connaught Place Central Park, on Oct 16-17

SC seeks Centre’s reply on police assault claims, prohibitory orders, hearing concludes for the day

Justice J Bagchi summarised the Supreme Court’s proceedings, confirming that notices had been issued in all the petitions and that the Union government would be required to file counter-affidavits.

“We have issued notices on all the petitions. Union government would file its counter affidavit,” he said as quoted by The Hindu.

The bench has also asked the Centre to explain the circumstances that led to the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

“We have sought from the Union government the reasons and circumstances behind the prohibitory orders under S. 163 BNSS,” Justice Bagchi said.

The court has sought the government’s response to allegations of police assaults on people, particularly protesters, lawyers and journalists.

“We have sought the Union government’s response to petitions alleging police assault on people, particularly protesters, lawyers and journalists,” he said.

On the Delhi Union of Journalists’ plea over the alleged seizure of journalists’ devices, Justice Bagchi said the Solicitor-General had denied that any such seizures took place. The bench has asked him to substantiate that position in the Centre’s counter-affidavit.

“As far as the Delhi Union of Journalists’ petition on seizure of journalists’ devices, the SG has said there were no such seizures. We have asked him to make good this statement in the counter affidavit,” he said.

The bench then rose.

CJI urges lawyers to avoid more petitions in custodial violence cases

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urged lawyers not to file additional petitions in cases concerning custodial violence, pointing out that 46 matters were already before the court.

“We make an earnest appeal to the members of the Bar not to file more petitions. Forty-six matters are already there,” the CJI said as quoted by the Bar and Bench.

He proposed grouping the petitions into suitable categories and allowing a common response for each group, rather than requiring separate counter-affidavits in every case.

“In matters of custodial violence, the petitions can be broadly categorised into one group, two groups, three groups or four groups, whatever is appropriate,” Justice Surya Kant said.

“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,” he added.

SC issues notice in protest-related petitions, seeks nodal counsel

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Supreme Court would issue notice in other petitions concerning the protest issue, noting that several pleas dealt with overlapping matters.

“There are petitions that overlap,” the CJI said, proposing that the Solicitor-General’s side appoint a nodal counsel to coordinate the cases, reported the Bar and Bench.

“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,” he said.

The CJI said the court would issue notice in all the cases and direct the respondents to submit their replies.

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

Bhatia alleges Rahul Gandhi pushed pregnant woman jkournalist

Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia alleged that Rahul Gandhi himself had pushed a pregnant woman journalist, accusing the petitioners of selective outrage over incidents involving women, reported The Hindu. He questioned why senior advocate Indira Jaising had not taken cognisance of the alleged incident.

Jaising objected, accusing Bhatia of bringing politics into the courtroom.

Bhatia also alleged that women police officers had been “manhandled”. Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, meanwhile, characterised the petition as a “counter-blast”.

SC issues notice on plea over seizure of journalists’ devices

The Delhi Union of Journalists, represented by senior advocate C.U. Singh, told the Supreme Court that journalists’ devices had been seized and asked for their return, arguing that the equipment was essential to their livelihood.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta disputed the claim, telling the court that no devices had been seized, reported The Hindu.

Justice J Bagchi said devices should not be seized without authorisation. The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition.

“Everybody acting as journalists will create problems”: CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said allegations of harassment raised by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) warranted an investigation. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, however, argued that the police could not be entrusted with investigating themselves.

The Supreme Court also directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist booked by the Delhi Police over allegations that she had publicly humiliated police officers and used casteist slurs against them, reported The Hindu.

Justice J Bagchi said the court would consider whether the right to freedom of expression allowed anyone to claim the status of a journalist. He pointed to the distinction between accredited journalists and those working for recognised media organisations, noting that the law offered different levels of protection.

The bench said it would examine the issue. “Everybody acting as journalists will create problems,” the Chief Justice observed.

Solicitor-General urges SC against blanket order in journalists’ harassment case

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, backed by senior advocates Gaurav Bhatia and Mahesh Jethmalani, accused the petitioners of disturbing proceedings in the courtroom. He alleged that they were creating a commotion “as if they are on the streets” and sought time to file a response to senior advocate Indira Jaising’s petition.

Mehta said some individuals were identifying themselves as freelance journalists while recording videos and making reels. “We do not know who is a reel-maker or a freelance journalist, but no woman must be harassed,” he said as quoted by The Hindu. He also alleged that women police officers had faced harassment.

The Solicitor-General asked the court to refrain from issuing any blanket order until he had an opportunity to respond. He further suggested that videos purportedly depicting harassment might have been created using artificial intelligence (AI).

Jaising, meanwhile, told the court that a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by a woman journalist had not been registered. She pointed out that a police officer had, however, filed an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

INDIA alliance to meet on SIR campaign, voting rights in Karnataka

The INDIA alliance will convene a state-level meeting here on Friday to plan its campaign against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, address concerns over voting rights and improve coordination among its partner parties, the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) said on Thursday.

The meeting will be chaired by Karnataka Congress president B K Hariprasad. Representatives of the CPI(M), CPI, CPI(ML) Liberation, All India Forward Bloc and Samajwadi Party, among other parties, are expected to take part, according to a KPCC press release.

The discussions will focus on allegations that eligible voters have been removed from electoral rolls, along with concerns about the functioning of the Election Commission, the release said.

The alliance will also consider coordinated political and legal action, public awareness campaigns and ways to improve cooperation among its constituent parties at the state, district and grassroots levels. The stated aim is to protect voting rights and ensure transparency in the electoral process.

SC backs proposal for wwomen-only panel on journalists’ complaints

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the Network of Women in Media (NWMI), told the Supreme Court that women journalists had been arrested during protests and sought relief on their behalf.

Arguing that women journalists must be able to perform their professional duties without fear, Jaising said, “They go to protest sites to work. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse, particularly by male policemen. Form a committee headed by a woman chairperson, may be a woman SC judge, in accordance with the Vishakha guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace,” she said as quoted by The Hindu.

Jaising also offered to submit, in a sealed cover, the names of women journalists willing to come forward with their grievances.

The Chief Justice of India said the Supreme Court was prima facie agreeable to setting up a committee comprising exclusively women members, with a woman as its chairperson.

The CJI asked Jaising to submit her suggested names in a sealed document.

SC questions unpublished Section 163 orders, issues notice on plea

The Supreme Court also issued notice on a petition filed by Bhanu Sanoriya, represented by senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, seeking directions to make those organising protests personally accountable for the inconvenience or harm caused to others.

Senior advocate Sankaranarayanan argued that accountability should apply equally to the police, saying the responsibility must work both ways, reported The Hindu.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court wanted to be “enlightened” about the prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He observed that such orders could not be imposed across contiguous areas, questioning their scope and application.

Referring to the orders as a “ghost”, Justice Bagchi noted the concerns surrounding their existence and implementation. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal responded that the prohibitory orders had never been made public.