Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant on Sunday declined the request of INDIA bloc leaders for a meeting to submit a representation over alleged electoral irregularities ahead of their planned march to the Supreme Court on Monday, stating that they should instead approach the court by filing a petition, as the matter is already sub judice.&nbsp;&nbsp;The CJI’s email response also detailed the grounds for the rejection of the request.The CJI said the meeting would be inappropriate, as the issues raised by the opposition were already sub judice before the Supreme Court, reported LiveLaw, citing sources.&nbsp;The response emphasised that the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and the delegation would be more appropriately addressed through judicial proceedings rather than by submitting a memorandum through the administrative route, the sources added.&nbsp;They added that the court could not intervene in the government’s functioning through its administrative role. The leaders were told they could seek protection of their fundamental rights through the judicial process.&nbsp;Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha LoP Mallikarjun Kharge sought an appointment with the CJI between 4pm and 5pm on Monday to submit a memorandum demanding action over alleged electoral irregularities.&nbsp;&nbsp;Rahul had announced that opposition parties, civil society groups, and young people would march to the Supreme Court, seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and a return to paper ballots.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Opposition plans ‘March for Democracy’</h2>&nbsp;Congress described Monday’s protest as “Chalo Delhi—March for Democracy” and asked participants to gather at the Connaught Place–Barakhamba Road junction at 1.30 pm.In a video post on X, Gandhi said youths, opposition parties, and civil society groups would join the march.&nbsp;“Tomorrow, we will march to the Supreme Court as Indians, united beyond party, gender, caste, community, and state,” he said.&nbsp;Kharge and Gandhi had announced plans to march to the Supreme Court on Monday and submit a memorandum to the CJI over allegations of “vote chori”, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and their demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>INDIA bloc leaders met President Droupadi Murmu on Friday</h2>&nbsp;The move to approach the CJI followed a meeting between INDIA bloc leaders and President Droupadi Murmu on Friday, during which the opposition submitted a memorandum outlining four demands.&nbsp;These included the CEC’s resignation, scrapping of assembly elections held over the past two years, suspension of the SIR exercise, and restoration of paper ballots.&nbsp;The memorandum also sought the restoration of 13.30 crore voters allegedly deleted from electoral rolls.&nbsp;After the meeting, the Lok Sabha LoP said he was surprised that Murmu had not denied the opposition’s allegations of “vote chori” and had instead asked them to provide evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I was shocked that the president did not deny Vote Chori. Instead, she asked us to bring her proof. We will bring her a mountain of it,” he wrote on X.&nbsp;<h2>BJP accuses Rahul of dragging president into political row</h2>&nbsp;The BJP attacked Rahul Gandhi for his remarks and accused him of dragging the president into a political confrontation.&nbsp;&nbsp;BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra said accepting a memorandum did not amount to endorsing its contents. “The anarchist Rahul Gandhi tried to pull the President of India into the anarchism that he's trying his best to conduct on the streets of India,” Patra said.&nbsp;&nbsp;A bench led by CJI Surya Kant had, in May 2026, upheld the validity of the power of the Election Commission of India to conduct the SIR. The CJI's bench is also seized of petitions challenging the various decisions of the CEC, which are alleged to have been taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant’s email response to INDIA bloc leaders also detailed the grounds for the rejection of the request. The CJI said the meeting would be inappropriate, as the issues raised by the opposition were already sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant on Sunday declined the request of INDIA bloc leaders for a meeting to submit a representation over alleged electoral irregularities ahead of their planned march to the Supreme Court on Monday, stating that they should instead approach the court by filing a petition, as the matter is already sub judice. The CJI’s email response also detailed the grounds for the rejection of the request. The CJI said the meeting would be inappropriate, as the issues raised by the opposition were already sub judice before the Supreme Court, reported LiveLaw, citing sources. The response emphasised that the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and the delegation would be more appropriately addressed through judicial proceedings rather than by submitting a memorandum through the administrative route, the sources added. They added that the court could not intervene in the government’s functioning through its administrative role. The leaders were told they could seek protection of their fundamental rights through the judicial process. Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha LoP Mallikarjun Kharge sought an appointment with the CJI between 4pm and 5pm on Monday to submit a memorandum demanding action over alleged electoral irregularities. Rahul had announced that opposition parties, civil society groups, and young people would march to the Supreme Court, seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and a return to paper ballots. Opposition plans ‘March for Democracy’ Congress described Monday’s protest as “Chalo Delhi—March for Democracy” and asked participants to gather at the Connaught Place–Barakhamba Road junction at 1.30 pm. In a video post on X, Gandhi said youths, opposition parties, and civil society groups would join the march. “Tomorrow, we will march to the Supreme Court as Indians, united beyond party, gender, caste, community, and state,” he said. Kharge and Gandhi had announced plans to march to the Supreme Court on Monday and submit a memorandum to the CJI over allegations of “vote chori”, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and their demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. INDIA bloc leaders met President Droupadi Murmu on Friday The move to approach the CJI followed a meeting between INDIA bloc leaders and President Droupadi Murmu on Friday, during which the opposition submitted a memorandum outlining four demands. These included the CEC’s resignation, scrapping of assembly elections held over the past two years, suspension of the SIR exercise, and restoration of paper ballots. The memorandum also sought the restoration of 13.30 crore voters allegedly deleted from electoral rolls. After the meeting, the Lok Sabha LoP said he was surprised that Murmu had not denied the opposition’s allegations of “vote chori” and had instead asked them to provide evidence. “I was shocked that the president did not deny Vote Chori. Instead, she asked us to bring her proof. We will bring her a mountain of it,” he wrote on X. BJP accuses Rahul of dragging president into political row The BJP attacked Rahul Gandhi for his remarks and accused him of dragging the president into a political confrontation. BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra said accepting a memorandum did not amount to endorsing its contents. “The anarchist Rahul Gandhi tried to pull the President of India into the anarchism that he's trying his best to conduct on the streets of India,” Patra said. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant had, in May 2026, upheld the validity of the power of the Election Commission of India to conduct the SIR. The CJI's bench is also seized of petitions challenging the various decisions of the CEC, which are alleged to have been taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant’s email response to INDIA bloc leaders also detailed the grounds for the rejection of the request. The CJI said the meeting would be inappropriate, as the issues raised by the opposition were already sub judice before the Supreme Court.

CJI Surya Kant declines INDIA bloc leaders’ request for meeting ahead of march to SC, asks them to file petition

In a rare acceptance of judicial corruption and impropriety, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday said that there is a ‘growing unfortunate trend’ of judges passing a series of orders on the eve of their retirement for extraneous considerations. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by a principal district judge from Madhya Pradesh who had challenged his suspension just 10 days before retirement. The suspension was allegedly linked to two judicial orders passed by the judge. The bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, flagged this “unfortunate trend” of judges trying to “hit sixes” just before retirement.&nbsp;<h2>‘Started hitting sixes just before retirement’</h2>&nbsp;“Petitioner just before retirement, started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,” the bench remarked, indicating its unease in delving into the specifics.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pm-modi-conferred-oman-s-top-national-honour-delhi-muscat-sign-free-trade-agreement-1766054772351">PM Modi conferred Oman’s top national honour; Delhi, Muscat ink trade agreement</a>&nbsp;The district judge was originally due to retire on November 30 but was suspended on November 19 over the two judicial orders. While he was initially set to retire on November 30, the Supreme Court on November 20 directed the Madhya Pradesh government to postpone his retirement by one year after the state increased the retirement age of its employees to 62 years.&nbsp;The CJI pointed out that the judge was unaware of the retirement age extension when he issued the disputed orders.“The judicial officer did not know, when he passed those two orders, that his retirement age had been increased by one year. There is a growing trend of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” CJI Surya Kant remarked.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-govt-admits-laxity-in-helicopter-plane-collision-that-killed-67-in-washington-1766059461973">US govt admits laxity in helicopter-plane collision that killed 67 in Washington&nbsp;</a><h2>Bench questions decision to approach SC</h2>&nbsp;The bench also questioned why the district judge had not approached the high court to challenge his suspension.Counsel for the judge told the top court that since it was a full court decision, the judicial officer felt it would be better to approach the Supreme Court for a fair hearing.Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for the judge, apprised the court of the officer’s “impressive career” and said he had received very good ratings in his annual confidential reports.“How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by the higher judiciary,” Sanghi asked.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-you-are-doctor-death-french-anaesthetist-who-poisoned-12-patients-to-death-jailed-for-life-1766051562239">‘You are Doctor Death’: French anaesthetist who poisoned 12 patients to death jailed for life</a><h2>‘But if the orders are palpably dishonest?’</h2>&nbsp;The bench responded, “Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a judicial officer for passing orders which are erroneous. He cannot be suspended for this. But if the orders are palpably dishonest?”&nbsp;The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea while observing that there have been several instances where full court decisions have been set aside by high courts on the judicial side, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court instead.&nbsp;The top court also took exception to the judicial officer seeking the grounds of his suspension through RTI applications.“He could have submitted a representation in this regard. It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information,” the court observed.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-india-s-manufacturing-is-declining-rahul-gandhi-s-remark-in-germany-sparks-row-1765987924685">‘India’s manufacturing is declining’: Rahul Gandhi’s remark in Germany sparks row</a>

The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea while observing that there have been several instances where full court decisions have been set aside by high courts. It also took exception to the judicial officer seeking the grounds of his suspension through RTI applications.

In a rare acceptance of judicial corruption and impropriety, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday said that there is a ‘growing unfortunate trend’ of judges passing a series of orders on the eve of their retirement for extraneous considerations. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by a principal district judge from Madhya Pradesh who had challenged his suspension just 10 days before retirement. The suspension was allegedly linked to two judicial orders passed by the judge. The bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, flagged this “unfortunate trend” of judges trying to “hit sixes” just before retirement. ‘Started hitting sixes just before retirement’ “Petitioner just before retirement, started hitting sixes. It is an unfortunate trend. I do not want to elaborate on it,” the bench remarked, indicating its unease in delving into the specifics. Also Read: PM Modi conferred Oman’s top national honour; Delhi, Muscat ink trade agreement The district judge was originally due to retire on November 30 but was suspended on November 19 over the two judicial orders. While he was initially set to retire on November 30, the Supreme Court on November 20 directed the Madhya Pradesh government to postpone his retirement by one year after the state increased the retirement age of its employees to 62 years. The CJI pointed out that the judge was unaware of the retirement age extension when he issued the disputed orders. “The judicial officer did not know, when he passed those two orders, that his retirement age had been increased by one year. There is a growing trend of judges passing so many orders just before retirement,” CJI Surya Kant remarked. Also Read: US govt admits laxity in helicopter-plane collision that killed 67 in Washington Bench questions decision to approach SC The bench also questioned why the district judge had not approached the high court to challenge his suspension. Counsel for the judge told the top court that since it was a full court decision, the judicial officer felt it would be better to approach the Supreme Court for a fair hearing. Senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for the judge, apprised the court of the officer’s “impressive career” and said he had received very good ratings in his annual confidential reports. “How can an officer be suspended for judicial orders which can be appealed against and rectified by the higher judiciary,” Sanghi asked. Also Read: ‘You are Doctor Death’: French anaesthetist who poisoned 12 patients to death jailed for life ‘But if the orders are palpably dishonest?’ The bench responded, “Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a judicial officer for passing orders which are erroneous. He cannot be suspended for this. But if the orders are palpably dishonest?” The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea while observing that there have been several instances where full court decisions have been set aside by high courts on the judicial side, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court instead. The top court also took exception to the judicial officer seeking the grounds of his suspension through RTI applications. “He could have submitted a representation in this regard. It is not expected of a senior judicial officer to resort to the RTI route to get information,” the court observed. Also Read: ‘India’s manufacturing is declining’: Rahul Gandhi’s remark in Germany sparks row

The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea while observing that there have been several instances where full court decisions have been set aside by high courts. It also took exception to the judicial officer seeking the grounds of his suspension through RTI applications.

CJI Surya Kant flags ‘unfortunate trend’ of judges passing multiple orders days before retirement

chief-justice-of-india-surya-kant

Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant, News on Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant, stories on Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant, articles on Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant, Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant stories at Wion, Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant news, Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant latest news

chief justice-of-india-surya-kant

CJI Surya Kant declines INDIA bloc leaders’ request for meeting ahead of march to SC, asks them to file petition

CJI flags unfortunate trend of judges passing many orders days before retirement