SC says notice issued on pregnant journalist’s plea against Rahul Gandhi, hearing on Nov 3
Advertisement
New Delhi, Oct 27 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear, on November 3, a plea concerning a pregnant woman journalist's allegation that Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi pushed and pulled her during the Opposition INDIA bloc leaders’ march to the apex court premises over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant by senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who submitted that the application concerning the woman journalist had not yet been listed for hearing.
Responding to Bhatia, the CJI-led Bench clarified that notice had already been issued in the matter and said it would be taken up on November 3.
The journalist, Richa Parashar, who works with a news website, had alleged that Gandhi grabbed her hand and pulled her aggressively while she was covering the Opposition leaders’ march, following which she was pushed by his security personnel and fell to the ground.
She was subsequently hospitalised. Parashar, who is three months pregnant, alleged that the incident took place amid the commotion during the Opposition leaders’ protest on the Supreme Court premises on October 12.
Congress has denied the allegations, describing them as politically motivated, while party leaders and supporters have circulated videos of the incident, questioning whether the visuals establish that Gandhi pushed the journalist.
The development comes against the backdrop of a separate plea seeking safeguards against political demonstrations in and around the top court premises following the Opposition march.
On October 15, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea and directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital evidence relating to the incident.
The march was undertaken by the INDIA bloc leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, after the CJI declined a request from him and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to meet him and submit a memorandum on the SIR exercise.
The CJI had advised the Opposition leaders to approach the Supreme Court through the established legal process, observing that convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant by senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who submitted that the application concerning the woman journalist had not yet been listed for hearing.
Responding to Bhatia, the CJI-led Bench clarified that notice had already been issued in the matter and said it would be taken up on November 3.
The journalist, Richa Parashar, who works with a news website, had alleged that Gandhi grabbed her hand and pulled her aggressively while she was covering the Opposition leaders’ march, following which she was pushed by his security personnel and fell to the ground.
She was subsequently hospitalised. Parashar, who is three months pregnant, alleged that the incident took place amid the commotion during the Opposition leaders’ protest on the Supreme Court premises on October 12.
Congress has denied the allegations, describing them as politically motivated, while party leaders and supporters have circulated videos of the incident, questioning whether the visuals establish that Gandhi pushed the journalist.
The development comes against the backdrop of a separate plea seeking safeguards against political demonstrations in and around the top court premises following the Opposition march.
On October 15, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea and directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital evidence relating to the incident.
The march was undertaken by the INDIA bloc leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, after the CJI declined a request from him and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to meet him and submit a memorandum on the SIR exercise.
The CJI had advised the Opposition leaders to approach the Supreme Court through the established legal process, observing that convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Advertisement