Anti-CEC protest LIVE | SC directs the preservation of CCTV footage, including in the apex court premises

CCTV preservation protects potentially important evidence. The Supreme Court was hearing allegations involving assaults, harassment, protesters, journalists, police officers, and disruption of courtroom proceedings. Keeping the recordings prevents footage from being overwritten or lost before the allegations are examined. It also supports a more reliable inquiry than competing claims alone.

The order covered CCTV footage from the Supreme Court premises. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia asked for an interim order preserving footage from October 12. Senior advocates Arundhati Katju and Kapil Sibal also referred to alleged assaults and asked that recordings be available to the Court.

The order does not itself decide who was responsible. It ensures that investigators and the Court can later review events. The footage may become relevant to petitions about harassment, protest conduct, police accountability, and courtroom disruption. Further proceedings will determine how it is used and what action, if any, follows.

A special intensive revision of electoral rolls is a comprehensive verification exercise. Election authorities check voter details, identify duplicate, deceased, shifted, or otherwise ineligible entries, and correct records. Eligible citizens can generally seek inclusion or correction through the prescribed process. The purpose is to make the voter list accurate, though large deletions can raise serious questions about notice and access.

The article does not explain the SIR procedure in detail. It reports that the exercise has so far deleted about 13 crore voters across India. Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi have asked the Supreme Court for complete disclosure of files, agendas, minutes, notings, and objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

That disclosure request makes the revision a matter of public accountability. The records could show how decisions were discussed and challenged. The Court’s hearing may clarify what process was followed and whether affected voters have meaningful ways to verify or contest deletions. These procedural details matter before future electoral rolls are relied upon.

The article reports that the SIR has deleted about 13 crore voters across India. One crore equals ten million, so the figure represents approximately 130 million deleted entries. Because the article uses the word about, it should be treated as an estimate rather than an exact final count.

For scale, India had about 96.9 crore registered electors for the 2024 Lok Sabha election, according to Election Commission figures. Comparing those figures, 13 crore is about 13.4 percent, or roughly one out of every eight registered electors. This comparison uses the 2024 electorate because the article does not provide a 2026 total.

The size of the reported deletion explains the political and legal concern. Opposition leaders are seeking full records of the SIR, including agendas, minutes, notings, and objections. The Supreme Court’s scheduled hearing could focus attention on the process, the reasons for deletions, and how affected voters can check or challenge their status.

When the Supreme Court issues notice, it formally brings a petition to the attention of the people or authorities who may be affected. They are usually asked to file a response before the Court decides whether to grant relief. A notice therefore opens or advances judicial consideration; it does not mean the Court has accepted the allegations.

The article gives several examples. The Court issued notice on Swaty Singh’s petition challenging the de-notification of Jantar Mantar. It also issued notice on Bhanu Sanoriya’s petition seeking personal responsibility from people who hold protests for harms affecting others. Lawyers argued about protest restrictions, police accountability, and orders under Section 163 of the BNSS.

The next stage is for respondents to answer the petitions and for the Court to hear both sides. The Court may later issue interim directions, seek records, narrow the issues, or decide the requested relief. Until then, the notice signals scrutiny, not a finding that any political leader, protester, police officer, or authority is liable.

Demonstrations that allegedly involve assault, harassment, or disruption can trigger police complaints, arrests, judicial custody, or court proceedings. The article also shows that responsibility may be disputed. A petition seeks to hold protesters responsible for harms affecting others, while lawyers argued that police must also be accountable. Allegations alone do not establish guilt.

Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were sent to five days of judicial custody for allegedly waving the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar. Indira Jaising said women journalists were arrested and vulnerable to abuse by male police officers. The Solicitor-General referred to alleged harassment of women, including police officers, and said some videos might be AI-generated.

The Court has preserved CCTV footage and agreed in principle to a committee made entirely of women. It also heard a request for time to respond and a complaint that a journalist’s FIR was not registered. These steps could produce evidence, investigations, accountability measures, or further legal action, while leaving final responsibility for later determination.

The Vishaka guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court in 1997 after its Vishaka judgment. They created a framework for preventing sexual harassment at workplaces and handling complaints when legislation was absent. Their central ideas included employer responsibility, preventive steps, a complaint mechanism, confidentiality, and an impartial inquiry. Parliament later enacted the workplace sexual-harassment law, but the guidelines remain historically important.

Indira Jaising asked for a committee headed by a woman, possibly a woman Supreme Court judge, and referred to the Vishaka guidelines. She said women journalists were especially vulnerable to abuse by male police officers while working at protest sites. She also offered to file, in sealed cover, the names of women willing to share grievances.

The Chief Justice of India said the Court prima facie agreed with a committee consisting exclusively of women members and a woman chairperson. The proposal could give complainants a safer reporting channel and bring structure to fact-finding. The committee’s eventual membership, powers, and findings were not settled in the reported proceedings.

Representative democracy depends on people being able to vote, express disagreement, and seek legal review. Electoral-roll revisions can improve accuracy, but mass deletions may exclude eligible citizens if the process is unclear or unchallengeable. The right to protest lets people communicate demands publicly. Judicial oversight tests whether officials and protesters have acted within lawful limits.

The article connects all three issues. Opposition leaders seek records behind an SIR that reportedly deleted about 13 crore voters. Petitioners challenge Jantar Mantar’s de-notification and seek clarity about prohibitory orders. The Supreme Court is also examining alleged harassment, assaults, police accountability, and courtroom disruption, while ordering CCTV preservation.

These mechanisms do not guarantee that every claim will succeed. They create routes for verification, response, evidence, and correction. The Court’s notices, proposed women-led committee, and preservation order show oversight in progress. Future hearings may clarify the electoral process, protest restrictions, and responsibility for alleged misconduct, but the article gives no final conclusions.