Chief Justice Surya Kant Turns Down Meeting Request from the INDIA Bloc, Urges Legal Remedy

New Delhi – When the Congress‑led INDIA bloc of opposition parties asked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for a personal audience, the judge politely said no. He told the leaders that the matters they want to raise are already before the Supreme Court and that the proper channel is a petition, not a hand‑shaking meeting.

According to sources close to the court, Justice Kant explained that the judiciary cannot entertain a delegation representing a political party at the administrative level. "The Supreme Court is always open, 24 hours a day, for any citizen who comes with a petition," he is said to have remarked, adding that the court’s job is to hear cases and deliver judgments, not to hold political round‑tables.

Despite the refusal, the opposition’s planned march to the High Court on Monday is unlikely to be called off. The demonstration is part of a wider protest campaign demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Lok Sabha’s Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has framed the march as a “movement of all Indians”, not merely a party rally. He hopes the protest will add pressure on both the Election Commission and the Modi‑led government to address what the opposition calls systematic vote‑manipulation.

Just last week, the INDIA bloc handed a charter of demands to President Droupadi Murmu. The four‑point list calls for Kumar’s resignation, the repeal of the 2023 law that grants legal immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners, an immediate halt to the SIR exercise, and the restoration of roughly 13.3 crore voters who claim they were erased from the rolls.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has also targeted the 2023 immunity law, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of creating a shield that even the President of India or the Chief Justice does not enjoy. “That immunity is meant only for the Election Commissioner,” he said, implying a double standard.

The CJI’s refusal underscores the court’s insistence on maintaining a clear separation between judicial proceedings and political lobbying. While the opposition may still converge on the Supreme Court’s steps, they will now have to do so through formal petitions rather than a closed‑door meeting.