Separation of Powers and the CJI's Refusal

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant declined a request from Opposition leaders for an audience. They wanted to raise allegations about Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's conduct during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. They also wanted to raise the detention of peaceful protestors and the lockdown of key roads in Delhi. 

• The refusal rested on the judiciary's duty to stay neutral and away from political disputes. The CJI's letter stressed that the judiciary cannot blur constitutional boundaries. 
• Senior advocate C.U. Singh backed the decision. He noted that the Bar had earlier objected when the One-Nation-One-Election Joint Parliamentary Committee proposed meeting Supreme Court judges, because a law from that Bill could later be challenged in court. He said applying the same standard here was a matter of propriety.

Why did the Opposition Approach the CJI? 

On October 10, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, Mallikarjun Kharge (Rajya Sabha) and Rahul Gandhi (Lok Sabha), wrote jointly to CJI Kant. It was a rare instance of the Opposition directly approaching the highest judicial office against another constitutional authority. 

The letter sought to submit a memorandum on the CEC and the Election Commission. It was sent hours after a police crackdown on citizens demanding the CEC's resignation. It cited arbitrary arrests of students, closure of Metro stations, train cancellations and road barricading, which it said created an "atmosphere of siege" in Delhi. 

On October 11, Mr. Gandhi sent a second, detailed representation: 

• He called the Supreme Court the guardian of the Constitution and of every citizen's right to vote. 
• He noted that he sits on the Selection Committee under Section 7 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and had recorded a formal dissent on CEC Kumar's selection on February 17, 2025. 
• He accused the CEC of arbitrary and unilateral use of power during the SIR. 
• He asked the CJI to treat the representation as a letter petition in the public interest.

What Remedies did Rahul Gandhi Seek? 

• Full disclosure of SIR records by the Election Commission. 
• An independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to review decisions and audit voter deletions. 
• Interim suspension of the SIR process.

How did the CJI Respond? 

On October 12, the CJI replied to the October 10 letter, without directly mentioning the October 11 representation. 

• He declined the meeting because the issues raised were already sub judice before the Court. 
• He said meeting to discuss pending cases would violate the Separation of Powers, a part of the basic structure doctrine, and would be against judicial ethics and propriety. 
• He said the Constitution gives the Supreme Court no administrative power to deal with these issues. However, the Court was bound to examine them on its judicial side. 
• He reaffirmed that citizens can seek enforcement of their fundamental rights at any time through the procedure established by law. 
• He advised the leaders to invoke the Court's judicial powers rather than submit a memorandum. 

He noted that petitions on similar issues were listed for October 13. He assured that any petition the leaders filed would be heard at the earliest opportunity. 

Mr. Gandhi then filed a writ petition with 12 other Opposition leaders. It has been registered and is ready for hearing.

What Does the Law Say? 

The CJI's response rests on three pillars. 

1. Separation of Powers

• It divides governance among the legislature, executive and judiciary, and is an unalterable part of the basic structure. 
• The judiciary decides disputes and reviews executive or legislative action only through judicial proceedings. 
• It has no executive or administrative oversight to intervene in government policy. 

2. Sub Judice Rule and Judicial Propriety

• The CJI also leads the Bench hearing the CEC-related cases. A private meeting with one side would bypass procedural fairness. 
• One-on-one meetings with political parties outside court compromise impartiality and create an impression of bias. 
• Disputes must be settled in open court, where both sides are heard under the principles of natural justice. 

3. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

• These set ethical standards for judges, including avoiding any impropriety that could damage public confidence in judicial neutrality.

When has Judicial Propriety Come under Scrutiny? 

• PM's visit to CJI Chandrachud (2024): Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud's residence for a Ganesh Chaturthi pooja drew criticism over perceived closeness between the executive and judiciary. 
• Judges praising political leaders: Justice P.N. Bhagwati congratulated Indira Gandhi on her return to power. Justice M.R. Shah reportedly called PM Modi a "model and a hero". Justice Arun Mishra called him a "versatile genius". 
• CJI Ranjan Gogoi: PM Modi visited the Supreme Court at then CJI Gogoi's invitation during a BIMSTEC conference. Justice Gogoi was later nominated to the Rajya Sabha after retirement. He was also one of the four judges at the January 2018 press conference that raised concerns about case allocation under CJI Dipak Misra. 
• Supersession after Kesavananda Bharati: After this judgment established the basic structure doctrine, Indira Gandhi's government superseded Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover to appoint Justice A.N. Ray as CJI. All three resigned. 
• Insulating the judiciary: Concerns over executive overreach in appointments led to the Collegium system and the adoption of the Bangalore Principles.

Conclusion 

CJI Surya Kant's refusal reaffirms that the judiciary acts only through open court proceedings, not private meetings. Relying on the separation of powers, the sub judice rule and the Bangalore Principles, he directed the Opposition to the proper judicial route. He also assured an early hearing, so access to justice was preserved. Set against past controversies over closeness between judges and politicians, the episode shows that judicial independence depends on the absence of influence and on public confidence that no such influence exists.