A group of advocates from across India has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna — addressed to CJI Surya Kant — urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the 21 July sit-in protest led by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders near Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official residence at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, New Delhi. The representation, coordinated by advocate Sanket Gupta and signed by lawyers from multiple High Courts, seeks a fact-finding inquiry and binding guidelines on demonstrations near high-security installations.

What the Representation Alleges

According to the representation, Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, several Members of Parliament, and the Chief Ministers of Kerala and Karnataka participated in a sit-in protest in the immediate vicinity of the Prime Minister's residence without prior information or permission from authorities.

The advocates described the site as 'among the most security-sensitive locations in the National Capital,' arguing that any unregulated gathering there carries security implications well beyond those ordinarily associated with public protests. They further alleged that senior police officers repeatedly requested the protesters to disperse, citing the high-security nature of the zone, but the assembly continued despite those appeals.

Minister's Intervention and Police Action

The representation claimed that Union Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh personally met Rahul Gandhi during the standoff and urged him to end the protest, assuring him that the government was willing to discuss the matter in Parliament. The demonstration nonetheless continued for several hours. Delhi Police eventually removed Rahul Gandhi and other MPs from the site after nearly three hours.

'It is a matter of grave concern that a Constitutional functionary such as the Leader of Opposition himself placed the police in a position where such physical removal became necessary,' the representation stated, adding that any untoward incident during the standoff could have had 'severe' consequences given the sensitivity of the location.

Constitutional Arguments Raised

The advocates stressed that while the right to protest is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute. They cited Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, alongside Article 19(3), which expressly permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The representation also flagged Rahul Gandhi's social media post calling on citizens to join the dharna, arguing that inviting members of the public to gather near the Prime Minister's residence carried 'serious and foreseeable security implications' given the unpredictable size and composition of any responding crowd.

What the Advocates Are Seeking

The advocates urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the incident, direct an appropriate fact-finding inquiry, and frame uniform, prospective guidelines regulating protests in the immediate vicinity of high-security installations. They emphasised that such guidelines should apply equally to all political parties and formations, balancing the constitutional right to protest with legitimate security imperatives.

'The Constitution makes no distinction between the ordinary citizen and the highest office-holder — all are equally bound by law,' the representation said. With the matter now formally before the apex court's notice, the question of where the constitutional right to protest ends and security necessity begins is set to attract fresh judicial scrutiny.