The story so far:
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request made by Opposition leaders for an audience to discuss allegations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s conduct during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, alongside detentions of peaceful protestors and lockdown of arterial Delhi.
The refusal was anchored in the ethos of maintaining a neutral distance from the political thicket. The CJI’s letter emphasised that the judiciary cannot blur constitutional lines.
The representations to Chief Justice of Surya Kant
On October 10, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, respectively, wrote to the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant. It marked a rare and historic instance of the Opposition directly engaging the highest judicial office of the country to complain against another constitutional authority, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
The brief request, submitted on a joint letterhead, stated that the two leaders wished to submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice concerning the CEC and the Election Commission of India. Sent hours after the brutal police crackdown on citizens demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the representation said the arbitrary arrest of students, closure of Metro stations, cancellation of trains, and barricading of arterial roads created an “atmosphere of siege in the city of Delhi”.
Mr. Gandhi followed up with a second, detailed representation to Chief Justice Kant on October 11. He underscored the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and the fundamental right of every citizen to vote. Writing in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha on behalf of crores of voters anxious about the integrity of the electoral rolls, Mr. Gandhi pointed out that he was also a member of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. He underscored that he had recorded a formal note of dissent on the procedure followed for selecting CEC Kumar during a committee meeting on February 17, 2025.
The representation accused the CEC was an arbitrary and unilateral exercise of power during the SIR. He asked the CJI to treat the representation as a letter petition in public interest.
He urged the CJI to direct a complete disclosure of SIR records with the Election Commission of India and the setting up of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to review decisions and audit voter deletions made during SIR to safeguard free and fair elections. He sought an interim suspension of the SIR process itself.
Chief Justice Kant’s response
On October 12, the Chief Justice responded to the October 10 request for a meeting, while omitting any direct reference to Mr. Gandhi’s subsequent October 11 representation.
Addressing both Mr. Kharge and Mr. Gandhi and declining their request for an appointment on October 12 between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. to submit a memorandum, the CJI noted that the issues regarding the CEC, the arbitrary arrests, Metro closure and train cancellations, etc, were already sub judice before the court.
The CJI said that, “therefore, convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would wholly contravene the principle of Separation of Powers, an intrinsic facet of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India, and would be incompatible with the established ethics and judicial propriety”.
The two-page response also reminded the leaders that the constitutional framework did not vest the Supreme Court with administrative powers to “deal with the issues highlighted in your letter”. But the CJI said the Supreme Court was duty-bound, on the judicial side to consider the gravamen of issues affecting the citizens of India.
The top judge reiterated in his reply to the Opposition leaders the court’s commitment to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of every citizen of India. Chief Justice Kant said citizens were “entitled to seek enforcement of such rights at all hours through the procedure known in law”.
Chief Justice Kant advised the two leaders in his response that it would be “more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum on the administrative side”.
The CJI informed that petitions raising parallel issues were listed for hearing on October 13. He said the leader, acting on legal advice, could file their petition on October 12. The CJI observed that the leaders could file their petition on October 12 based on legal advice, assuring that “any such petition shall be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with law”. A writ petition was subsequently filed by Mr. Gandhi alongside 12 other Opposition leaders, which was successfully registered, numbered, and is primed for a judicial hearing.
The law behind the CJI’s refusal
At the heart of the CJI’s response lie three factors — the doctrine of separation of powers, sub judice rules and judicial propriety, and the Bangalore Principles.
As Chief Justice Kant’s response said, the separation of powers, which divides governance among the three distinct organs of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, was an unalterable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The court functions as an impartial arbiter with a clear mandate to adjudicate disputes impartially, apply laws, and review executive or legislative actions only through established judicial proceedings. The judiciary did not hold executive or administrative oversight to unilaterally intervene in government policy or governance demands.
A parallel out-of-court meeting between the Chief Justice, who also happens to lead the Bench hearing the CEC-related cases and Opposition leaders, belies fair play and bypasses procedural fairness. Entertaining political factions on a one-to-one basis outside the court room compromises judicial impartiality and creates an impression of bias. Disputes must be settled in the open court, transparently, in proceedings in which opposing parties get an equal say in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct puts in place ethical benchmarks for judges, which include that they must avoid any act of impropriety which would compromise the public’s perception of judicial neutrality.
Some instances which drew public ire
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 visit to the residence of then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud, to perform pooja during Ganesh Chaturthi drew public criticism over perceptions of the executive and judiciary cosying up. Historical precedents of serving judges expressing admiration for political figures include Justice P.N. Bhagwati sending a congratulatory letter to Indira Gandhi upon her return to power, and Justice M.R. Shah reportedly describing Prime Minister Modi as a “model and a hero”. Similarly, former Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra had sparked controversy by publicly describing Prime Minister Modi as a “versatile genius” and an “internationally acclaimed visionary who can think global and act locally”.
On a separate occasion, Prime Minister Modi visited the Supreme Court premises at the invitation of then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi on the sidelines of a BIMSTEC conference. Justice Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha following his retirement. Incidentally, Justice Gogoi was one of the four senior Supreme Court judges who held the unprecedented January 2018 press conference, spotlighting concerns over executive influence in case allocations under then Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
History shows that political friction with the judiciary carries ‘unsettling’ consequences. Following the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which established the basic structure doctrine limiting Parliament’s amending powers, Indira Gandhi’s government superseded Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover to appoint Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice of India. The move triggered the immediate resignation of the three superseded judges.
Decades later, the imperative to insulate judicial appointments from executive overreach had culminated in the Collegium system and the adoption of the Bangalore Principles.