SCBA Slams Social‑Media Calls for CJI’s Resignation as Congress Reaffirms Faith in the Judiciary

In a brisk statement that rippled through legal circles on Tuesday, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) took a firm stand against a wave of social‑media posts demanding the resignation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The association warned that such calls not only tarnish the image of the apex court but also risk meddling with the very fabric of justice.

According to the SCBA, “remarks of this nature belittle the institution of the judiciary and amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.” While the bar body underscored the right of every citizen to approach the courts for relief, it also appealed for a return to “dignity and decorum” in public discourse surrounding the highest judicial office.

The controversy sparked after a now‑deleted post from the Keralam Congress unit threw disparaging comments at the CJI and even suggested his replacement. The post quickly gathered traction, prompting the SCBA to intervene.

On the political front, Congress MP Pawan Khera stepped forward to clarify the party’s position. In a media briefing, Khera said, “We completely disagree with that stance. It is absolutely incorrect. We have absolute faith in the judiciary of this country and respect the highest court.” He added that the party’s recent visit to the Supreme Court’s doorstep was driven by confidence in the judicial process, not contempt.

Khera also hinted at a broader strategy among the opposition, noting that “INDIA bloc partners are currently brainstorming our next steps following the Special Intensive Revision row.” He warned that the ruling administration was “failing to counter allegations of electoral malpractice,” and suggested that the government was uneasy because “the country is responding sharply.”

The remarks came against a backdrop of heavy security in central Delhi, where thousands of political workers and civil‑rights activists converged for a “March for Democracy” heading toward the Supreme Court.

Adding its voice to the chorus defending judicial independence, the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association (SCAORA) released a resolution on the same day. The body praised Chief Justice Kant’s insistence that political parties channel grievances through the courts, not via informal meetings or memoranda. “No action should be taken that may obstruct the functioning of the Courts or hamper the fair and independent dispensation of justice,” the resolution read.

Earlier, CJI Surya Kant had turned down a request from Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge for a personal meeting to submit a memorandum covering a litany of issues—from alleged electoral anomalies to student arrests and metro disruptions. In a letter dated October 11, Kant reminded the opposition that many of those matters were already sub‑judice before the Supreme Court. He argued that convening a meeting would breach the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Instead, the Chief Justice invited the leaders to file petitions under Article 32 or use the court’s e‑filing system, assuring them that a hearing would be scheduled at the earliest opportunity. He also noted that similar matters were slated for a hearing on October 13.

The episode, with its mix of legal pronouncements, political posturing, and street‑level activism, underscores the delicate balance India’s democracy strives to maintain between a vibrant opposition and an independent judiciary.