New Delhi, India – 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.
On October 10, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the 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. 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 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 roads created an “atmosphere of siege in the city of Delhi.”
Gandhi followed up with a second, detailed representation to CJI Surya 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, 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 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 of an arbitrary and unilateral exercise of power during the SIR, and asked the CJI to treat the representation as a letter petition in public interest.
On October 12, the CJI responded to the October 10 request for a meeting, while omitting any direct reference to Gandhi’s subsequent October 11 representation. Addressing both Kharge and Gandhi and declining their request for an appointment, the CJI noted that the issues regarding the CEC, the arbitrary arrests, Metro closure, and train cancellations 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. Chief Justice Surya Kant advised the two leaders 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.” A writ petition was subsequently filed by Gandhi alongside 12 other Opposition leaders, which was successfully registered, numbered, and is primed for a judicial hearing.
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 the CJI’s response said, the separation of powers was an unalterable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A parallel out-of-court meeting between the Chief Justice of India, who also happens to lead the Bench hearing the CEC-related cases, and Opposition leaders, belies fair play and bypasses procedural fairness. 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.
