“NO ONE CAN INTIMIDATE THE BENCH”: SUPREME COURT SERVES NOTICES ON RAHUL GANDHI, AKHILESH YADAV AND OTHERS OVER MARCH TO APEX COURT
October 15, 2026
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march towards the apex court to demonstrate against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The court’s intervention has brought the confrontation between opposition parties and the authorities into a new phase, with the judiciary emphasising that it cannot be pressured or intimidated through demonstrations directed at the institution.
The march, organised by opposition leaders under the banner of the INDIA bloc, was intended to highlight allegations concerning the Election Commission’s electoral-roll revision exercise and demand accountability from Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protesters also sought judicial intervention over alleged irregularities in the process.
The procession encountered police barricades in central Delhi as participants attempted to move towards the Supreme Court. Opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Yadav, joined the demonstration, which was presented by its organisers as a campaign to defend democracy and protect voters’ rights.
The legal challenge that prompted the notices questions the propriety of the march towards the apex court. By issuing notices to the political leaders and other protesters, the Supreme Court has initiated proceedings to examine the issues raised in the petition. The notices seek responses from those named in the case; they do not, by themselves, amount to a finding of guilt or a final determination of the allegations.
During the proceedings, the court made its position on pressure against the judiciary clear, declaring that nobody could browbeat the institution. The observation underlines the distinction between approaching the courts through established legal procedures and attempting to exert pressure through public demonstrations.
The dispute has developed against the backdrop of growing political opposition to the SIR exercise. Congress and other opposition parties have alleged that the electoral-roll revision process has led to irregularities and raised concerns about the possible exclusion of eligible voters. They have demanded greater transparency from the Election Commission and sought scrutiny of its decisions.
The INDIA bloc’s October 12 march was one of the most prominent demonstrations in that campaign. Its leaders sought to bring their concerns directly to the attention of the judiciary, while the legal challenge has now placed the conduct of the protest itself under judicial examination.
The case also raises a broader question about the limits of political demonstrations when they are directed towards judicial institutions. While political parties can raise grievances and seek remedies through constitutional channels, the Supreme Court’s remarks reinforce its insistence on maintaining the independence and authority of the judicial process.
For Gandhi, Yadav and the other leaders named in the proceedings, the immediate task is to respond to the court’s notices. The substantive allegations concerning the SIR process remain separate from the legal questions surrounding the march.
The development marks a significant escalation in the dispute over electoral-roll revision, shifting attention from the opposition’s campaign against the Election Commission to the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the demonstration directed towards it. The next stage will depend on the responses filed by the leaders and the court’s subsequent consideration of the matter
