Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has commented on Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's decision not to grant a meeting to Opposition leaders, describing the Supreme Court's direction — that those with complaints pursue relief through established judicial channels rather than street demonstrations — as the appropriate course of action.
A written memorandum on alleged electoral irregularities, brought to the Supreme Court by INDIA bloc figures Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, did not receive a hearing from Chief Justice Surya Kant, who declined to meet with the delegation. At a Mumbai address, Fadnavis posed the question of where in the Constitution any obligation exists for the Chief Justice of India to receive a protest march.
The Supreme Court's stated position is that grievances belong before a judge and are to be resolved through lawful process. Members of the opposition have questioned the constitutional basis of the measures, with some lawmakers arguing that the approach taken runs counter to the principles laid out in the founding document.
Protesters directed verbal abuse at the Chief Justice after he indicated that receiving a demonstration march fell outside what his constitutional role permitted. Fadnavis contended that the appropriate path for political leaders with a genuine grievance lay in filing a petition and allowing the courts to hear the matter, while characterising the broader campaign as an organised effort to undermine public confidence in India's judicial institutions.
In remarks made publicly, Chief Justice Surya Kant affirmed that the Supreme Court stands accessible to all citizens, with the formal legal process available to anyone wishing to bring a grievance before it. According to available accounts, the Chief Justice declined to hold the requested meeting in part because the matters the Opposition had put forward were ones amenable to judicial proceedings, and because an administrative gathering of that nature carried the potential to blur the constitutional boundary between branches of government.
Fadnavis contended that the backlash directed at the Chief Justice following the meeting's non-acceptance constituted an effort to erode public trust in the judicial system. Among the actions set in motion by the INDIA bloc was a march toward the Supreme Court, alongside demands for answers on three distinct matters: allegations of irregularities in the electoral process, questions surrounding the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls, and a call for Gyanesh Kumar to be removed from his position as Chief Election Commissioner.
Gandhi and Kharge had requested a meeting with the Chief Justice of India through a written memorandum, proposing a window of 4 pm to 5 pm as their preferred time. The Chief Justice noted that petitioners of every kind — ordinary citizens and those holding elected office — retain the ability to bring matters before the Supreme Court, and that any such grievances would be taken up through established legal procedures.
Fadnavis and other BJP figures have put forward the position that Opposition moves amount to an effort to undermine or delegitimise constitutional institutions. Formal legal channels have remained the avenue the Supreme Court has pointed to for airing grievances, with the Chief Justice's office directing parties to file petitions rather than arrive through political delegations.
