'Don't drag Supreme Court into politics': CJI Surya Kant amid Delhi protests row

The core principle is that democratic protest and court access must coexist. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court cannot become a “site of disruption” or be “dragged into any politics.” The court must continue hearing matters and serving people who depend on it.

Kant told Supreme Court Bar Association president Pradeep Rai that there must be no obstruction to court functioning. He also stressed that lawyers, their clerks, court staff and litigants must be able to move freely. He told Gopal Sankaranarayanan that lawyers could protest, but only at designated places.

The CJI agreed to list fresh petitions about detentions, internet shutdowns and police action. In return, he asked the Bar to ensure that democratic activity did not affect the court. The immediate requirement was peaceful protest outside court operations, while the petitions could proceed through the judicial process.

The Opposition wanted to approach the Supreme Court over the alleged police crackdown on protesters, alleged irregularities in electoral processes and the functioning of constitutional institutions. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi sought a meeting with Chief Justice Surya Kant. Gandhi later announced a march involving Opposition parties, young people and civil society groups.

They wanted to present a memorandum and apprise the CJI of their concerns. The proposed march formed part of a wider campaign against alleged electoral irregularities and the police action against protesters demanding the resignation of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Kant declined the meeting partly because related matters were already pending before the Supreme Court. He also had an adjudicatory role in some of those issues. Meeting political leaders about pending disputes could therefore create concerns about impartiality, influence or the appearance of prejudging cases. The Opposition instead moved toward a public march and legal proceedings.

An adjudicatory role is the court’s responsibility to hear disputes, assess legal claims and issue binding decisions. It differs from a political or administrative role. The court must decide cases through legal submissions and evidence, while protecting the parties’ opportunity to be heard.

In this situation, Opposition leaders wanted to discuss police action, alleged electoral irregularities and constitutional institutions with the CJI. But related issues were already pending before the Supreme Court. The article also says the CJI himself had an adjudicatory role in matters concerning some issues raised by the Opposition.

A private political meeting about pending cases could create an appearance that one side had gained special access or that the judge had formed a view early. It could also pressure the institution. Kant therefore declined the meeting, while allowing legal petitions to be listed and heard through the court’s normal process. This protects impartial decision-making.

The protests raised concerns across several parts of public life. The article mentions alleged restrictions on movement, mass detentions, suspended internet services and curtailed public transport. It also describes restrictions around court complexes, which could prevent lawyers, litigants and staff from reaching or using the courts.

The alleged impact covered metro and railway services, internet connectivity and access to justice. Lawyers also raised claims that senior advocates were detained and manhandled. Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that no public order imposing restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS was available. He also alleged that children were hit and police personnel took pride in the action.

The Supreme Court treated these concerns as both civil-liberties and institutional-access issues. A special bench directed normal metro and railway operations, undisturbed internet and removal of court-area restrictions. Other petitions concerned detentions and police action. The CJI separately focused on preventing disruption inside the court.

The special bench responded by protecting both protest rights and ordinary civic movement. It directed authorities to protect the right to peaceful protest and restore freedom of movement. It also said that no person should be detained except according to the procedure established by law.

The directions covered essential services and access to justice. Metro and railway services were to operate normally. Internet connectivity was to remain undisturbed. Restrictions around court complexes were to be removed, so lawyers, litigants and court staff could reach the courts and cases could proceed.

These orders created an immediate legal framework for the protests while the wider disputes remained before the Supreme Court. The CJI later agreed to list more petitions, including matters about detention and police action. At the same time, he warned that protests should not interfere with the court’s own functioning. The approach combined judicial scrutiny of restrictions with institutional protection.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is a preventive public-order provision. Under established legal practice, an executive magistrate may use it when urgent action is considered necessary to prevent obstruction, danger to life or safety, public disturbance or a riot. The provision is meant to address an immediate risk, not decide guilt.

An order can direct people in a particular area to abstain from an act or follow a specified direction. Depending on its terms, it can restrict assemblies, movement or conduct that authorities believe may cause disorder. The order should identify the situation and restrictions clearly, and it can be challenged through legal processes.

In the article, Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that no order under Section 163 was available in the public domain. He linked that concern to the protests and police action. The CJI did not comment on the allegations then. The special bench instead stressed lawful detention, movement and court access.

Constitutional democracy requires space for peaceful dissent. People and lawyers must be able to protest, raise concerns and seek legal remedies. At the same time, courts must remain accessible, neutral and able to decide disputes without obstruction or political pressure. Neither protest rights nor judicial independence should cancel the other.

The article gives both sides of that balance. The special bench protected peaceful protest, freedom of movement and lawful detention. It ordered normal metro and railway services, undisturbed internet and removal of restrictions near court complexes. The CJI said lawyers could protest at designated places, but not obstruct court functioning or movement.

Kant also declined to meet Opposition leaders because related issues were pending and he had an adjudicatory role in some matters. That separation helps protect impartiality. The petitions could still be listed and heard. The continuing challenge is to permit public dissent while keeping hearings, access and judicial decisions free from disruption.