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 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 . 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. 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.
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.
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”. 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. 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. 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”.
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. A writ petition was subsequently filed by Mr. 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. Gandhi alongside 12 other Opposition leaders, which was successfully registered, numbered, and is primed for a judicial hearing.
Chief Justice Kant said citizens were “entitled to seek enforcement of such rights at all hours through the procedure known in law”. 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”.
