Journalist’s Plea Seeking FIR Against Rahul Gandhi: the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an application by a woman journalist who alleges she was pushed at the Court gate during the Opposition leaders’ march on October 12. The allegations are untested.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) issued notice on an application filed by a woman journalist seeking registration of an FIR against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, over her allegation that she was pushed at the gate of the Court during the Opposition leaders’ march on October 12 [Application in the petition on political demonstrations within Supreme Court premises].
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia orally mentioned the application before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, following which the bench ordered notice to the respondents. The application has been filed in a pending petition instituted by four advocates seeking directions against political demonstrations within court premises, in which Rahul Gandhi is arrayed as respondent no. 4.
The allegations
The applicant says Rahul Gandhi pushed her towards the gate with such force that she lost her balance and fell, breaking the fall with her hands. She states that she was in the early weeks of pregnancy at the time. According to the application, the push was delivered openly, in a crowded place and in the presence of security personnel, journalists and others, and was not a mere jostle of the crowd.
The applicant further says her phone was shattered and the receiver of the microphone clipped to her collar was dislodged, and that the incident was recorded by her cameraperson. She states that she developed pain in the lower abdomen, was taken to the casualty ward of a hospital that night and was discharged with medication and advice for further scans. She adds that no one stopped to help her and that she sat on a side pavement for almost 40 minutes.
The application also alleges that, after the incident, Congress and its leaders sought to discredit her and publicly dismissed her account as political propaganda, which she describes as secondary victimisation. She says she complained to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, seeking an FIR under Sections 74, 115(2), 125 and 131 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that no FIR has been registered so far.
How the matter reached the Court
The incident is alleged to have taken place on October 12, when Opposition leaders marched to the Supreme Court to file the INDIA bloc’s writ petition on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The march has already been before the Court in separate proceedings: the Court has issued notice on a plea by advocates against the march while declining a contempt notice for the time being, and has issued notice on the Delhi protest pleas while asking both sides to name nodal counsel.
When the grievance was first raised orally before the CJI-led bench, the Court indicated that it would not take suo motu cognisance on the basis of an oral submission and asked that a formal application be filed. On October 16, the bench agreed to hear the application and indicated that it would be taken up after the Court reopened following the Dussehra break. Today, after Mr Bhatia mentioned the matter, notice was ordered.
The reliefs sought
The applicant asks the Court to take cognisance of the incident and to direct immediate registration of an FIR on her complaint of October 17 against Rahul Gandhi and others involved, with a status report to be filed before the Court. She also seeks preservation of CCTV footage, access-control logs, entry passes and visitor records of the Court for October 12, along with the video recordings of the incident.
Other prayers include interim and final compensation from the Union, Rahul Gandhi and Congress, an unconditional apology, a direction to the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure the safety of the applicant and her family and to restrain publication of her medical records and personal details, and initiation of contempt proceedings against those found responsible for the alleged assault within court premises.
The other side
No response from Rahul Gandhi or the Congress has been placed before the Court at this stage, and notice has been issued so that the respondents can be heard. The account above is the applicant’s own and has not been tested. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies to every person named.
Why the order matters
Ordinarily, a complainant whose FIR is not registered by the police can approach the Superintendent of Police and then the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Here, the applicant has instead asked the Supreme Court to direct registration within a pending petition on demonstrations in court premises, which links the individual grievance to the larger question of how conduct at the Court’s gates is to be regulated.
Issuing notice is only a procedural step. Whether the Court entertains the prayer for an FIR, orders preservation of footage or confines itself to the question of demonstrations will become clear after the respondents file their responses.
Case Title: Application seeking FIR against Rahul Gandhi, filed in a pending petition by four advocates on political demonstrations within Supreme Court premises (title and number not reported)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (other members not reported)
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia for the applicant