Gyanesh Kumar row: Why did some demand CJI Surya Kant’s resignation? Supreme Court Bar Association condemns calls

The most controversial remark was the CJI’s statement that protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar were a law-and-order issue. He said, “Ye mera vishay nahin hai,” meaning the matter did not fall within his domain. The comment came after Congress leaders sought a meeting about alleged “vote chori” and electoral-roll concerns.

The Kerala Congress unit then posted on X that Surya Kant should resign if law and order was not his responsibility. It added that the party would find a replacement who could handle it. The post was later deleted, but it quickly went viral and drew criticism from several political leaders.

Congress leaders later distanced themselves from the post. Pawan Khera said the party disagreed with it and had faith in the judiciary. Kerala Congress leaders said their leadership had neither known about nor approved the post. The SCBA and SCAORA also condemned the resignation demand.

The Supreme Court Bar Association is the professional association of lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association represents advocates-on-record, who are specially authorized to file and conduct matters before that court. These bodies speak for segments of the Supreme Court’s legal community and defend the institution’s professional standards.

They condemned public demands for CJI Surya Kant’s resignation because the demands followed criticism of a judicial response to a political request. The SCBA said such statements belittled the judiciary and attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. SCAORA expressed strong disapproval of the statements.

Their resolutions focused on institutional consequences rather than endorsing every judicial decision. SCAORA warned that the statements could undermine the dignity of the CJI’s office and public confidence. The SCBA’s resolution was dated October 12, 2026, while both associations called for respect for judicial independence.

The memorandum contained four main demands. Congress leaders wanted an end to “vote chori,” the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and a return to the paper-ballot format.

Rahul Gandhi and Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to CJI Surya Kant seeking a meeting between 4 pm and 5 pm on Monday. Their purpose was to hand over the memorandum and present concerns about alleged voter deletions and irregularities linked to the electoral-roll revision. The request was not for a judicial hearing during that meeting.

The CJI declined to meet them and said he had given reasons in his reply. He also said the memorandum’s issues were already pending before the Supreme Court. The controversy intensified after he described related protests as a law-and-order matter, prompting the Kerala Congress unit’s resignation demand.

The CJI’s central concern was that the memorandum dealt with issues already pending before the Supreme Court. A private meeting with political leaders about those matters could create the appearance that political representatives were influencing the Court’s handling of a case. Judicial propriety requires judges to remain impartial and avoid conduct that could raise such doubts.

The separation of powers also mattered. Congress leaders wanted to discuss alleged voter deletions, electoral-roll irregularities, the SIR, and the CEC’s resignation. These subjects involve political and constitutional questions that may require formal legal proceedings, not an informal administrative meeting with the Chief Justice.

The CJI also said the Court had no administrative powers to address the memorandum’s demands. However, he stressed that the Supreme Court’s doors remained open to every citizen. Anyone, including elected representatives, could file a petition, and the Court would hear issues according to law and grant rights where legally justified.

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an exercise involving the review and updating of electoral rolls. Electoral rolls determine who is listed as eligible to vote. The source does not provide the procedure’s detailed rules, but it identifies the SIR as the process at the centre of the dispute.

Congress alleged that voters had been deleted and that irregularities had occurred during the revision. Its memorandum therefore demanded that the SIR be stopped. The party also linked the issue to its broader allegation of “vote chori,” and sought the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The demand was part of a four-point memorandum that also called for paper ballots. Congress leaders wanted to hand it to CJI Surya Kant, but he declined their meeting request. He said the issues were already pending before the Supreme Court, leaving formal legal proceedings as the route for challenging them.

Law and order is generally handled by executive authorities and the police, rather than by the judiciary. The Election Commission, headed by the Chief Election Commissioner, conducts and supervises election-related processes, including electoral rolls. Courts interpret the law and decide whether alleged electoral violations have legal consequences.

That division explains the CJI’s response. When asked about protests against Gyanesh Kumar and movement restrictions in Delhi, he said the matter concerned law and order. He also said the Court had no administrative powers to deal directly with the memorandum’s political demands.

The judiciary can still examine alleged violations through a proper petition. Surya Kant emphasized that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to everyone, including lawmakers and ordinary citizens. This allows claims about voter deletions or electoral irregularities to be tested under law, while keeping policing, election administration, and adjudication in their respective institutional roles.

Separation of powers means that government functions are divided among different institutions. Executive authorities enforce decisions and maintain public order. Election authorities conduct elections. Courts interpret the law and decide disputes. This structure helps prevent political actors from directing judges or using informal meetings to influence pending cases.

The article illustrates the principle through the memorandum sought by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge. Their concerns about voter deletions, the SIR, and the CEC were already pending before the Supreme Court. The CJI therefore declined a private meeting, saying discussion could conflict with judicial propriety and institutional boundaries.

Separation of powers does not close the courts to citizens. Surya Kant said anyone, whether an ordinary citizen or an elected representative, could approach the Supreme Court. A formal petition creates a legal process, lets all sides be considered, and allows the Court to grant rights when the law supports them.

The SCBA and SCAORA warned that public calls for CJI Surya Kant’s resignation could harm more than one officeholder. They said such statements risked weakening respect for the judiciary and the dignity attached to the Chief Justice’s position. Public trust is important because courts must be seen as independent and capable of deciding disputes fairly.

The SCBA said resignation demands belittled the judicial institution and amounted to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. SCAORA similarly warned that they could undermine the dignity of the CJI’s office and confidence in the institution. Their concern was therefore about institutional pressure, not simply criticism of one comment.

Both associations responded with formal disapproval after the Kerala Congress post went viral. Their resolutions called attention to the wider consequences of political statements aimed at the head of the judiciary. The controversy also underscored the distinction between lawful criticism and pressure that may weaken judicial authority.