The Supreme Court has directed the segregation of 25 court-listed matters concerning protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar into broad categories, paving the way for separate and comprehensive counter-affidavits to be filed in response to each group.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the directions on October 15 while hearing a batch of writ petitions and contempt proceedings raising various issues connected with the protests.
The Court appointed Advocate Aarthi Rajan as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Bhuvan Kapoor as nodal counsel for the respondents. They have been directed to complete the categorisation by October 28, enabling the respondents to file separate responses before the next date of hearing.
The matters, listed as Items 22 to 46, include petitions filed by political leaders, journalists’ organisations, lawyers’ associations and other individuals and groups. Following are the 15 matters listed before the bench led by the Chief Justice:
● P. (C) No. 1333/2026 — M.A. Baby v. Union of India and Ors. & connected matters
● P. (C) No. 1354/2026 — Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1353/2026 — Digvijaya Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1351/2026 — Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1364/2026 — Free Speech Collective v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1361/2026 — Network of Women in Media, India v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1363/2026 — Krishan Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1348/2026 — Lawyers’ Association for Constitution and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
● P. (C) No. 1360/2026 — Digant Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1357/2026 — Swaty Singh v. Union of India and Anr.
● P. (C) No. 1366/2026 — Delhi Union of Journalists and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (Crl.) No. 434/2026 — A.A. Rahim v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (Crl.) No. 437/2026 — Samyak Shekhar Alone v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (Crl.) No. 417/2026 — Priya Mishra v. Union of India and Ors.
● Diary No. 63921/2026 — Priya Mishra v. Govind Mohan and Ors.
● Diary No. 63943/2026 — Aman Prasad v. Anurag Kumar
● Diary No. 63948/2026 — Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. Govind Mohan and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1336/2026 — Bhanu Sanoriya v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1335/2026 — Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (Crl.) No. 427/2026 — Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha v. Union of India and Anr.
● P. (C) No. 1338/2026 — Youth Bar Association of India (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1365/2026 — Bharat Collective Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1359/2026 — Lawyers Voice v. Union of India and Ors.
● P. (C) No. 1356/2026 — Asaduddin Owaisi v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
● P. (Crl.) No. 436/2026 — Menaka Guruswamy v. Union of India and Anr.
Matters arising out of October 12th Delhi Protest
In the lead matter, filed by M.A. Baby and connected cases & other matters listed at Items 22, 23, 26, 28 to 39, 42 to 44 and 46, the Court directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and any other digital evidence or material collected by them in connection with the protests.
The direction was issued with the agreement of the parties. Private parties who have collected relevant material were also given liberty to place it before the Court.
The Union of India was further directed to place on record the orders promulgated under Section 163 BNSS in New Delhi, apart from the order dated August 23, 2026.
These matters have been listed for further hearing on November 3, 2026.
Petitions by political leaders
The batch includes petitions filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and others in Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1351/2026; Rajya Sabha MP Digvijaya Singh in W.P. (C) No. 1353/2026; AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi in W.P. (C) No. 1356/2026; and A.A. Rahim in W.P. (Crl.) No. 434/2026.
In the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other leaders, the Supreme Court provisionally entertained the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, subject to him explaining his conduct. The direction follows Raut’s public criticism of CJI Surya Kant for declining to meet Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders over concerns regarding the Election Commission, as well as his remarks alleging that judges attended political events and socialised with BJP leaders.
SCBA has also filed a criminal contempt case against Sanjay Raut and a journalist, Nikhil Wagle, for bringing disrepute to the court and the CJI. The court today issued a show-cause notice in the SCBA contempt petition.
These matters are posted for October 27, 2026.
Other petitioners include Narendra Kumar Goswami, Free Speech Collective, Krishan Murari and others, Lawyers’ Association for Constitution, Lawyers Voice, Youth Bar Association of India, and Bharat Collective Foundation.
The petitions have been listed alongside cases brought by individuals and organisations raising concerns connected with the protests and the restrictions imposed in New Delhi.
The Court has directed the nodal counsel to organise the matters into broad categories, rather than requiring a single consolidated response to every petition.
Case of Alleged Sexual Harassment Against Journalist by Police Officer
In Network of Women in Media, India v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1361/2026, the Court issued notice and directed that no coercive action be taken against a woman journalist whose complaint alleging molestation was pending consideration. An FIR was filed against her under the provisions of SC/ST Act.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising agreed to hand over material collected by the petitioner association in a sealed envelope, along with names of former judges, former police officers and social activists, for the Court’s consideration at an appropriate stage.
The matter has been listed for November 5, 2026, with the respondents directed to file their reply within two weeks.
A matter against ‘Political Procession’ in Court & CCTV & Digital Record Preservation
The Court has also issued notice in a writ petition challenging a ‘political procession’ in court, listed as Item 30 in Digant Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1360/2026. The court, however, had not said anything on the contempt plea against INDIA Bloc leaders for entering into the Supreme Court to file a case against SIR process.
A Bench directed that the matter be listed on November 3, 2026.
Read at: ‘Nobody Can Browbeat Us’: Supreme Court Rejects Concerns Over Opposition March Inside Supreme Court
Challenge To Constitutional Validity of Sections 163 and 172 of BNSS
The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which empowers Executive Magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger to prevent obstruction, danger to human life or safety, disturbance of public tranquillity, riots and affrays. The provision is the successor to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The matter arose in Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1335/2026, listed as Item 40, concerning challenges arising from the restrictions imposed in connection with the protests in Delhi.
The Court noted that the pari materia provision, Section 144 CrPC, had been upheld in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 423. On that basis, it declined to entertain the challenge to Section 163 BNSS.
However, the Court issued notice on the limited question of the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS, which requires people to comply with lawful directions issued by police officers in the discharge of their duties under the relevant chapter. It also authorises police to detain or remove a person who resists, refuses or disregards such directions, with the person potentially being taken before a Magistrate.
The matter is listed for November 19, 2026.
Challenge To Detention Notices Issued u/s 163 of BNSS
The Supreme Court has adjourned two petitions challenging the validity of orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to November 19, 2026. The petitions are Apoorvanand Jha v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 429/2026 (Item 22.2), and Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha v. Union of India and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 427/2026 (Item 41). Manoj Kumar Jha is a Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Apoorvanand Jha is a Professor in the Hindi Department at the University of Delhi, as well as a columnist and public commentator.
Their petitions challenge the vires of orders passed under Section 163 BNSS, which empowers Executive Magistrates to issue directions in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
The petitions will now be taken up on November 19, 2026.
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advocate-on-Record, who had accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India in all these matters, had unfortunately passed away following a cardiac arrest. The court recorded this and expressed its deepest condolences and granted liberty to the Union of India to nominate another Advocate-on-Record in his place.
