The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) backed CJI Surya Kant’s response to Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, stressing judicial independence, separation of powers, and the need to address grievances through established legal procedures without obstructing courts or judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has backed Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s response to Opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, emphasising that political parties must seek judicial remedies through established legal procedures rather than administrative meetings with the judiciary.
In a resolution passed by majority on Monday, the association reiterated its commitment to judicial independence and said that grievances requiring judicial intervention should be brought before the Supreme Court in accordance with the law. It also cautioned against any action that could obstruct court functioning or affect the fair and independent administration of justice.
“SCAORA appreciates the stand taken by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in making it clear that political parties seeking resolution of their grievances must approach the Court through the judicial process,” the resolution stated.
The association maintained that the Supreme Court could independently examine any grievance placed before it through the appropriate legal process. It stressed that judicial independence must be respected by all parties and that matters requiring legal resolution should be pursued through established procedures.
“No action should be taken that may obstruct the functioning of the Courts or hamper the fair and independent dispensation of justice,” the resolution said.
CJI Rejects Request for Meeting on Pending Issues
The resolution followed a request by Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, seeking an appointment with the CJI on Monday between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.
The Opposition leaders wanted to submit a memorandum raising several concerns, including issues relating to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the arrest of students, the closure of Metro stations and the cancellation of trains.
In his response, CJI Surya Kant informed them that issues similar to those highlighted in their communication were already pending before the Supreme Court. He explained that holding a meeting to discuss matters under judicial consideration would conflict with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
“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 CJI wrote in his letter.
The response underscored the distinction between the administrative functioning of the Supreme Court and its judicial responsibilities. The CJI clarified that the court did not possess administrative powers to address the issues raised in the Opposition leaders’ letter.
Supreme Court Reaffirms Commitment to Fundamental Rights
Despite declining the requested meeting, CJI Surya Kant reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s responsibility to protect citizens’ fundamental rights through its judicial jurisdiction.
The CJI stated that the Supreme Court remained committed to preserving and protecting the fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. He also emphasised that individuals could seek enforcement of those rights at any time through procedures recognised by law.
The letter stated that the Supreme Court of India was committed to protecting the fundamental rights of every citizen and that legal remedies remained available to those seeking judicial intervention.
The CJI advised Gandhi and Kharge to invoke the court’s judicial powers instead of seeking to submit their memorandum through the administrative side. He also assured them that any petition filed in accordance with the law would be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.
The response made clear that the court remained open to examining legitimate grievances, provided they were presented through the prescribed legal channels.
Related Matters Scheduled for Hearing
CJI Surya Kant also informed the Opposition leaders that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, October 13.
He indicated that they could approach the Supreme Court by filing a petition either physically or through its electronic filing facility. The available procedures would allow the concerns to be placed before the court for consideration under the applicable legal framework.
| Also Read: Opposition leaders detained as Delhi protest targets CEC Gyanesh Kumar |
SCAORA’s resolution reiterated the importance of maintaining the judiciary’s independence while ensuring that individuals and political parties retained access to legal remedies. The association’s position was that grievances should be addressed through judicial proceedings rather than through meetings that could raise concerns about the separation of powers.
The development highlights the importance of established legal procedures in resolving disputes involving public institutions, citizens’ rights and matters pending before the judiciary. Both the CJI’s response and the Bar association’s resolution emphasised that the Supreme Court’s role is to examine such issues independently and decide them in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
