On Thursday, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up a batch of 46 petitions concerning the recent Delhi protests, police action against protestors, journalists' rights and the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Rather than issuing blanket orders, the top court methodically grouped the overlapping matters, issued notices to key statutory bodies and directed the preservation of digital evidence, while making notable observations on press freedom and judicial dignity.

Here is a comprehensive breakdown of everything that transpired in Courtroom 1 today.

1. Delhi Police Commissioner's apology and defence of prohibitory curbs

The proceedings brought into focus contempt petitions against Delhi authorities alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's October 9 and October 11 interim directives regarding transport and public movement curbs in the capital.

In two affidavits filed before the Bench, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" for any perceived non-compliance, but maintained that there was "no non-compliance much less any wilful or deliberate non-compliance" with the Court's orders. He sought the discharge of the contempt notice.

Responding to media reports surrounding the filing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta clarified that the opening apology was included as standard practice governing responses to contempt notices, emphasising that the government was defending its actions on facts.

"What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media," CJI Surya Kant remarked, while Justice Bagchi observed that going by the SG's submission, the apology appeared qualified.

2. Response sought on Opposition's SIR petition; Court flagged one petitioner's conduct

The Bench formally issued notice to the ECI and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on a writ petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and ten other INDIA bloc leaders challenging large-scale voter deletions and alleged irregularities in the ongoing SIR. The Court tagged the petition alongside pending SIR challenges across states, as well as a separate challenge brought by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

However, the Bench made a notable caveat regarding one of the petitioners:

"Issue notice. 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...But about one of the petitioners, we will definitely entertain the issue...on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct," CJI Surya Kant stated.

The Court did not specify which petitioner it was referring to.

Gandhi and Congress leaders had marched to the Supreme Court on October 12 and entered the filing section triggering objection by various lawyers and individuals.

The Court today also issued notice to the ECI on a plea by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi challenging the manner in which the SIR of electoral rolls is being conducted.

The plea was filed in light of new information regarding the objections raised by two Election Commissioners to the decisions of the CEC.

Advocate Nizam Pasha appeared for Owaisi and sought directions to ECI to produce file notings and records of the ECI's decision-making in respect of SIR.

3. Notice on protests near Court premises

The Court issued notice on a petition filed by four advocates seeking regulations on processions and political demonstrations within the vicinity of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that over 200 practicing lawyers had signed a memorandum expressing anguish over the Opposition's October 12 march into the Supreme Court. Also flagged was a tweet by the X handle of the Kerala unit of Congress addressing the CJI directly by name and demanding his resignation.

Bhatia argued that such actions amounted to an attempt to "browbeat the judiciary."

"Nobody can browbeat the judiciary," CJI Surya Kant responded.

"We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they are making outside and what they are saying in Court. We know everything," he added.

While Bhatia strongly urged the Bench to issue notice on a prayer seeking criminal contempt, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage.

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

4. Press freedom, device seizures and women-led inquiry panel

A significant portion of the hearing centered on the rights and safety of women journalists covering the demonstrations. The issued was raised in petitions by the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI), the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) and the Free Speech Collective.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that women journalists face particular vulnerabilities and targeted harassment at protest sites while exercising their right to work. The Bench agreed in principle to consider a dedicated inquiry committee, with CJI Kant observing that the panel "must be predominantly or exclusively composed of women," comprising former female judges, IPS officers, or social activists. Jaising was directed to submit details of affected journalists and suggested committee names in sealed covers.

The Court directed that a woman journalist who alleged molestation by a police officer be protected from coercive action, following submissions that the officer concerned initiated retaliatory action by lodging an FIR against the journalist under the SC/ST Act.

At this juncture, Bhatia brought to the Court's notice an ANI report alleging that a pregnant woman journalist was pushed by Rahul Gandhi within the Supreme Court precincts on October 12, resulting in her hospitalisation. Jaising objected, arguing that politics was being brought into the courtroom. CJI Surya Kant stated that the Court would examine the prayers made in the petition mentioned by Bhatia and issued notice on it.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the DUJ, sought urgent directions for the return of electronic devices seized from journalists. SG Mehta informed the Court that no devices had been seized by the police. The Court issued notice on the plea.

The Bench also made key observations on press freedom, with CJI Kant noting that journalists exercise two rights simultaneously - freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on a profession under Article 19(1)(g). Justice Bagchi added that the Court would examine the varying levels of protection applicable across accredited reporters, freelancers, independent journalists and content creators.

5. Challenge to de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site

The Bench issued notice on a petition challenging the Delhi Police Commissioner's October 11 standing order de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.

The Court asked whether the Centre had claimed that the decision was taken pursuant to an order of the Court. However, SG Tushar Mehta clarified that the decision was based on the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs well before the oral observations.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, contended that shifting protest sites far from administrative centers undermines the core purpose of peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), arguing that, 

"New Delhi is not meant for a select few," she argued.

While declining to pass an immediate stay order, the Bench sought responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on the efficacy and reasons behind the relocation.

6. Preservation of evidence, BNSS challenge and consolidation of pleas

To address allegations of custodial violence, illegal detentions and police action against lawyers, the Court issued key directions to preserve evidence and manage the heavy litigation docket:

Digital evidence to be preserved: The Court directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve all CCTV footage and digital material collected in connection with the Delhi protests. Private parties were also permitted to preserve relevant digital evidence.

Challenge to Section 172 BNSS: The Court issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 172 of the BNSS (preventive police powers), restricting its review strictly to the new statutory provision.

Lawyer brutality and SCBA Pleas: Taking note of petitions filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) and individual advocates alleging police assault and manhandling inside police stations, the Bench noted that it was cognizant of the issue and issued notice.

Organisers' accountability: On a petition filed by a lawyer detailing public hardship and medical disruption caused by protest blockades, the Bench sought responses from the Centre on whether protest organisers should bear financial and legal responsibility for consequences faced by the general public.

Making an "earnest appeal" to lawyers not to file further repetitive petitions, CJI Kant directed the appointment of nodal counsel for both sides to group the 46 pending matters into logical categories (SIR pleas, protest curbs, media protection, custodial violence) and file streamlined master responses.

The multi-faceted proceedings stand adjourned as the Supreme Court awaits counter-affidavits from the Union government, Delhi Police and the Election Commission.