The Supreme Court has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march to the apex court. The march was organised to raise concerns about alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The court’s remarks that nobody can browbeat the judiciary have brought the focus back to the dispute over the opposition’s protest and the appropriate way to raise grievances before the court.

Why the opposition marched to the Supreme Court

The march was part of the opposition’s campaign against what it described as irregularities in the voter-list revision process. The opposition has raised concerns over alleged electoral malpractice and demanded action concerning the Election Commission and the revision of electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi had led the march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request to meet opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Chief Justice had advised the leaders to approach the court through the judicial process rather than seek an administrative meeting to discuss issues already pending before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice’s position on approaching the court

The Chief Justice had said that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to every citizen and that people could approach it through petitions. He also indicated that matters affecting citizens would be considered in accordance with the law.

The distinction between the administrative and judicial functions of the court was central to the disagreement over the opposition leaders’ request for a meeting. The Chief Justice’s position was that pending legal issues should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court issues notices over the march

The Supreme Court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters concerning the October 12 march. The proceedings relate to the protest over irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The opposition’s allegations about the voter-list revision remain allegations and should not be treated as established findings merely because the matter has reached the court.

The developments have placed the opposition’s protest, its concerns over electoral rolls and the judiciary’s role in addressing such disputes at the centre of the ongoing debate.

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has received fresh summons from a Delhi court in a criminal defamation case linked to his 2018 video titled “BJP IT Cell Part 2”. The complaint was filed by Vikas Pandey, who alleged that the video contained defamatory claims about him.

The latest court action follows renewed efforts to serve Rathee with the summons while he is in India. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on October 17.

Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket District Court passed the order on October 12. The fresh summons were issued after the complainant’s lawyer informed the court that Rathee, who usually resides abroad, was in India in connection with the ongoing Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in Delhi.

What is the case against Dhruv Rathee?

The criminal defamation complaint concerns Rathee’s video, “BJP IT Cell Part 2”, which was published in 2018.

Pandey, who founded the social media page “I Support Narendra Modi”, alleged that Rathee’s video accused him of being associated with the BJP IT Cell and offering Rs 50 lakh through an intermediary to Mahavir Prasad. According to the complaint, the money was allegedly offered to persuade Prasad to withdraw allegations that the BJP IT Cell spreads fake news.

These claims form part of the complainant’s allegations. The court’s issuance of summons does not establish that the allegations against Rathee are true or amount to a finding of guilt.

Why has the court issued fresh summons?

According to the court proceedings, the complainant’s side had been attempting to serve Rathee with summons for several years. The court had initially summoned him through an order dated July 23, 2019, but the process of serving the summons had faced delays.

The complainant’s lawyer sought an earlier hearing after learning that Rathee was in India. The application argued that his presence in the country offered an opportunity to complete the service of summons without further delay.

The court subsequently directed that fresh summons be issued. The latest report states that the summons were served at Rathee’s Gurugram residence during his visit to India.

How is Arvind Kejriwal linked to the case?

The case also involved Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal, who had re-shared Rathee’s video on X, then known as Twitter, in 2018.

Pandey filed a separate complaint against Kejriwal over the re-sharing of the video. The Delhi High Court later declined to quash the summons issued to Kejriwal.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against Kejriwal in the matter. During the proceedings, his lawyer told the court that Kejriwal acknowledged making a mistake by re-tweeting the video.

The proceedings against Rathee continued, leading to the fresh summons issued by the Saket court.

What happens next?

The case is scheduled for its next hearing on October 17. The proceedings concern the pending criminal defamation complaint and the steps taken to serve Rathee with the court’s summons.

The allegations in the complaint remain allegations unless established through the legal process.

A court in Meerut has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death for the murder of Saurabh Rajput, Muskaan’s husband and a former Merchant Navy officer. The sentencing was pronounced on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, after the court convicted the two in the case widely known as the Meerut blue drum murder.

The case involved the killing of Rajput in March 2025 and the concealment of his dismembered remains inside a blue plastic drum sealed with cement and sand.

The two were convicted on September 30. The prosecution had sought the death penalty, arguing for the maximum punishment in the case.

Court verdict follows 126 hearings

The trial involved 126 hearings and statements from 22 prosecution witnesses. District Judge Arvind Kumar Mishra delivered the sentence after the court considered the evidence presented during the proceedings.

The investigation and prosecution relied on a combination of circumstantial, technical and physical evidence. This included forensic findings, witness testimony and material recovered during the investigation.

The case drew attention after police discovered Rajput’s remains inside the cement-filled drum at the couple’s residence in Meerut.

How Saurabh Rajput was killed

According to the prosecution’s account of the case, Rajput was killed in March 2025 after he returned to Meerut from London. Investigators alleged that Muskaan and Sahil had planned the murder.

The prosecution said Rajput was given food laced with sleeping medication before he was attacked. His body was subsequently dismembered, and the remains were placed inside a blue plastic drum.

The drum was filled with a mixture containing cement and sand and sealed. Investigators later recovered the remains from inside it.

Evidence presented during the investigation

Investigators built the case using several strands of evidence. Shopkeepers provided testimony about the purchase of materials, including a blue drum, cement, sand and cutting implements, before the murder.

Call detail records and mobile tower information were also cited to establish Sahil’s presence at the residence around the time of the crime. The prosecution further relied on post-mortem findings that confirmed Rajput had died from stab injuries.

The investigation also traced the movements of Muskaan and Sahil during their trip to Himachal Pradesh following the killing. Investigators said photographs and activity linked to Rajput’s phone were used to create the impression that he was still alive.

The case came to light in March 2025

The murder came to light after questions arose over Rajput’s whereabouts. According to the investigation, the couple’s attempt to move the heavy drum eventually raised suspicion.

Rajput’s family approached the police, leading to an investigation that uncovered the remains. Muskaan and Sahil were arrested in March 2025.

The sentencing on October 14 marks a major development in the case, which had proceeded from the discovery of Rajput’s remains to a trial involving dozens of witness statements and more than a hundred hearings.