Gyanesh Kumar row: Why some demanded resignation of CJI Surya Kant? The Chamber of Advocates of the Supreme Court condemns the challenges | Today’s news
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCAORA) have condemned the statements circulated on social media on Monday calling for the resignation of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
In a resolution dated October 12, 2026, the SCBA, under the Live Law, said: “Statements of this nature disparage the institution of justice and amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.”
Meanwhile, SCAORA expressed strong disapproval of the public statements calling for the resignation of CJI Surya Kant.
Quick answers to key questions
•5 QUESTIONS
The calls followed his remark that the protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was a law and order issue outside his domain. The Kerala Congress unit said he should resign if law and order is not his responsibility.
He said the matters mentioned in their memorandum were already being heard in the Supreme Court, so discussing them in the meeting would be against separation of powers and judicial propriety. He also said the court has no administrative powers to deal with these issues.
They sought to submit a memorandum regarding the alleged deletion of voters and irregularities in the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Their demands included stopping the SIR and seeking the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Congress president Pawan Khera said the party disagreed with the statement and believed in justice. Kerala Congress leaders said the post was made without the knowledge or approval of their leadership.
The SCBA said such statements disparage the judiciary and attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. SCAORA warned that they risk undermining the dignity of the CJI’s office and public confidence in the institution.
“Public statements seeking the resignation of the head of justice risk undermining the dignity of the office and the public’s trust in the institution,” the resolution reads.
Why did some call for CJI Surya Kant’s resignation?
A massive controversy erupted on Monday after the Kerala Congress unit posted on X demanding the resignation of CJI Surya Kant over his “Ye mera vishay nahin hai (his matter does not concern my domain)” remarks on protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and some political parties have called for a protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
How events unfolded:
1. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to CJI Kant and asked for a meeting between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm on Monday to hand over a memorandum that demanded:
> Resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar
> Stopping Special Intensive Review (SIR) of voter lists
> Switching back to a paper voting format
2. However, the CJI refused to meet them. According to PTI, in his reply to the letter, the CJI said he had “given some reasons” and said he “will not be able to meet”.
He reportedly said: “I got the letter yesterday and I replied. The letter was the day before yesterday but I was away.”
He declined to reveal the contents of the letter, saying: “Please ask them about the contents of the letter. I have kept it confidential.” The letter was later released by Congress on X.
3. When asked about the protests against the CEC in Delhi in the past few days and the related restrictions on movement in the national capital, CJI Surya Kant on Monday said the matter was related to law and order.
“Ye law and order ka mudda hai. Ye mera vishay nahin hai. (This is a matter of law and order; it does not concern my domain),” CJI Surya Kant said, according to PTI. He refused to divulge the reasons behind his refusal to meet Congress officials over the “vote chori” issue.
However, the CJI claimed that “the doors of the Supreme Court are open to everyone”, be it a common citizen or a legislator, when asked how opposition leaders could air their grievances after he refused to meet Kharg and Gandhi.
“Any petition… anyone who wishes, be it a common man or a member of any elected body, every citizen of India has the right to approach us. We will hear the issues in accordance with the law and whatever rights the people deserve, we will give them,” CJI Kant said.
The CJI was speaking during an interaction with reporters on the sidelines of an event to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at Vigyan Bhawan.
4. Reacting to the CJI’s remarks, the Kerala Congress unit wrote in a now-deleted post on X: “Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
X’s post immediately went viral and generated a lot of backlash from leaders across segments.
5. Not only did the rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) criticize the remark, but even the Congress distanced itself from the statement released by its Kerala unit.
Congress president Pawan Khera said the party “totally disagrees” with the stance and reiterated its “absolute confidence” in the judiciary.
“We absolutely do not agree with this attitude, whoever has done it. It is absolutely wrong. We have absolute faith in the judiciary of this country and we respect the supreme court. That is exactly why we went to the doorstep of the apex court and knocked on its door, because of the trust we have in the judiciary,” Khera told ANI.
6. KPCC President Sunny Joseph said that the person responsible for posting the controversial message against the Chief Justice of India on the official party account ‘X’ has been removed from the charge.
“KPCC will investigate the circumstances under which such a post was made,” Joseph said, adding that the post was made without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) leadership.
He clarified that the Congress party had no objection to the impartiality of the judiciary.
7. The Congress also shared the letter sent by the CJI in a reply to Kharge and Gandhi on Monday. In his letter, the CJI rejected the meeting on Monday and told them that it would be inappropriate to discuss the pending cases and asked them to file an application in the court either physically or online.
In the letter, he said that the Supreme Court has no administrative powers to deal with the issues raised in their letter. The CJI advised the opposition leaders to invoke the court’s powers under Article 32 rather than submitting a memorandum. CJI Kant noted that similar matters were listed before the Supreme Court on 13 October.
On Monday, Rahul Gandhi moved the Supreme Court over alleged large-scale voter deletion and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, according to the Bar and Bench.
The opposition demanded a halt to the SIR and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the alleged “vote chori”.
Why did CJI Surya Kant refuse to meet Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharg?
In his letter to Congress leaders, CJI Kant said that the matters we are seeking are already pending before the Supreme Court.
He wrote: “At the outset, it may be noted that the above issues are already litigated in the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, convening a meeting to hear the pending cases would be totally contrary to the principle of Separation of Powers, an intrinsic aspect of the fundamental structural doctrine of the Constitution of India, and would be inconsistent with the established rule of law.”
CJI Kant also observed that under the constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court cannot interfere in the functioning of the government on its administrative side.
“I would also like to remind you that under our constitutional framework, the Supreme Court of India has no administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted in your letter,” read his letter shared by the Congress on X.
However, he wrote: “…in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of our Constitution, along with other plenary powers, including powers of judicial review, we are required to consider weighty issues affecting the citizens of India on the part of the courts.”
“The Supreme Court of India reiterates its commitment to uphold and protect the fundamental rights of every citizen of India and is empowered to seek enforcement of those rights at any time through a procedure known to law. It would therefore be more appropriate for you to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India instead of filing a memorandum on the administrative side,” Kant wrote.
