Three matters — the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and police action against demonstrators in Delhi — formed the basis of a meeting request put forward by Opposition leaders, though Chief Justice of India Surya Kant did not take it up.

Judicial propriety served as the stated basis for the position, with attention drawn to petitions currently before the Supreme Court and the direct involvement the CJI held in hearing matters connected to those questions. That ruling came within hours of Mallikarjun Kharge, who leads the Congress party, and Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition, jointly putting in a request for a meeting with the Chief Justice of India during the 4 pm to 5 pm window on Monday.

Those familiar with the matter said the Chief Justice outlined why convening such a meeting would be unsuitable at that time, given that connected cases remain before the Supreme Court for adjudication. A letter from Kharge and Gandhi reached the CJI laying out concerns about the health of constitutional institutions and calling for his direct involvement in addressing them.

Among the items on their proposed agenda were the law-enforcement response to demonstrators calling for CEC Gyanesh Kumar to step down, the pace at which SIR-related cases were being heard, and the makeup of the body tasked with selecting election commissioners.

Addressing reporters in Bengaluru, Kharge indicated that a meeting had been arranged for between 4 and 5 pm, at which point the Chief Justice of India would be briefed on the prevailing situation. Kharge stated that no demands would be made of the CJI, though concerns would be presented and his involvement sought.

That statement preceded a ruling by the Chief Justice of India that came after four days of Opposition activity in Delhi, which included gatherings near the Election Commission of India offices, a sit-in at Rajghat, and an attempted march toward the poll body's premises. A delegation of opposition figures also brought concerns about voting irregularities directly to President Droupadi Murmu.

Kharge put forward the claim that the nation is effectively living under an unannounced state of emergency. He further contended that unrest spreading through the country fell under the joint responsibility of both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. Opposition figures described the prevailing conditions as a crisis in everything but official designation and pledged to press ahead with their challenge.

Rahul Gandhi separately announced a plan to lead a march to the Supreme Court on Monday, extending an open invitation to opposition parties, youth groups, and civil society organisations to take part. His party issued a statement pledging to press on with efforts to uphold democratic principles and constitutional rights.

Gandhi told supporters that participants who took part without incident on Saturday were subjected to physical force by both police and BJP members, according to his account. Speaking to supporters, Gandhi conveyed plans for a march to the Supreme Court the following day, describing it as a demonstration by Indians standing together across divisions of party affiliation, gender, caste, religious community, and state boundaries.

The march, Gandhi indicated, would conclude with a memorandum handed to the Chief Justice of India — a document calling for accountability over what attendees characterise as irregularities in the electoral process, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision exercise, and the departure of Gyanesh Kumar from the Chief Election Commissioner's office. The broader movement, he said, was expected to bring together young people, opposition parties, and civil society groups around shared commitments to constitutional principles.

Parties in opposition have put forward a call for the Chief Justice of India to be included among those who sit on the panel responsible for appointing election commissioners. Legislation enacted in 2023 established that three figures sit on the panel — the Prime Minister, whoever holds the position of Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet minister of the Prime Minister's choosing.

On 23 September, the justices on that Supreme Court panel found themselves divided over whether the legal challenge warranted referral to a Constitution bench. On the question of referring the matter, Justice Dipankar Datta took a position against it, whereas Justice Satish Chandra Sharma put his weight behind convening a bench of five judges.

Denials of any deliberate interference with voter rolls have come from both the Election Commission and the BJP, with each pointing instead to standard administrative procedures — the removal of deceased registrants, people who have relocated, and those who cannot be traced — as the ordinary mechanism behind name deletions.