Lawyer and former Solicitor General Harish Salve has raised objections to the Opposition's bid to seek a meeting with the Chief Justice of India, as well as to the demonstrations directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, questioning the appropriateness of drawing the judiciary into these matters.
In remarks to a media outlet, Salve described the ruling as a flawed one and argued that the Supreme Court was being used to serve political purposes. Among the topics he addressed were the judiciary's relationship with political parties, the right to peaceful assembly, the functioning of constitutional bodies, opposition-voiced critiques directed at the courts, and claims that external funding had been channelled into protest activity.
Salve put forward the view that constitutional rights carry with them an obligation to operate within established legal boundaries. Addressing the question of whether the Chief Justice had turned away Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc delegation, Salve noted that his initial reading of those reports — that the leaders had ever sought a meeting — was that they were untrue.
Public posts from members of the Bar and Bench had already placed the matter on record — that an appointment had been sought and the Chief Justice had not granted it — prompting Salve to ask whether any senior lawyer within the party had counselled against that course of action. Salve pointed out that the Chief Justice does not sit on every case personally, with matters instead being distributed among designated benches that carry responsibility for delivering the resulting rulings, and that the court operates under a defined procedure with boundaries that all parties are bound to observe.
When asked whether the INDIA bloc's procession and attempted audience with the Chief Justice constituted an effort to apply pressure, Salve described the move as fundamentally ill-conceived, contending that the group appeared to proceed from a position of distrust toward both the Constitution and the country's established institutions. Salve put forward the view that bringing political demands of this kind before the courts runs counter to any genuine commitment to constitutional principles.
Salve, on being asked whether the Supreme Court had become a tool serving political ends, said yes without hesitation. He added that, at an earlier hearing, the bench had taken note of protesters' rights being raised while no legal counsel was showing up in court to represent those individuals. The court's recent directive, he argued, struck a reasonable balance — its language making clear that any action taken must stay within legal bounds and that the scale of the government's response ought to match the situation at hand.
Drawing on more than four decades at the bar, Salve stated that an approach of this nature — where individuals attempt to arrange meetings with the Chief Justice in such a fashion — was something he had not encountered throughout his career.
On the matter of public trust in the courts, Salve noted that an earlier professional culture had kept lawyers from speaking openly about ongoing cases. Attributing the breakdown of established customs to the politicisation of legal proceedings, he contended that attorneys who simultaneously hold positions of political leadership file court actions and, upon receiving unfavourable rulings, publicly declare a loss of confidence in the judicial system. In a statement on the matter, he characterised the development as one that bodes poorly for the country's path ahead.
Asked whether a lawyer who had lost confidence in the courts should keep appearing before the Supreme Court, Salve drew a distinction between having faith in the judiciary as an institution and accepting the outcome of any individual ruling. Invoking the English legal maxim that court decisions derive their authority from finality rather than infallibility, he drew a distinction between voicing dissatisfaction with a particular ruling and declaring a loss of confidence in the judiciary as an institution — the latter, he argued, carries the implication that judges are knowingly producing flawed outcomes.
When asked whether a political leader has the authority to submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice of India seeking the Chief Election Commissioner's removal, Salve pointed out that a published news report had set off a broad dispute — even though the matter was only about ten days away from being taken up by the court. The Election Commission, he noted, would submit its reply along with relevant records, leaving it to the Supreme Court to determine whether any procedural irregularity had occurred. Salve drew a distinction between the Supreme Court's powers and the constitutional pathway — potentially including an impeachment motion where the framework allows — that any removal of the CEC would require.
Addressing the health of India's constitutional framework, Salve urged that the country's institutions be protected rather than undermined or made targets of attack, pointing to the distinct roles assigned by the Constitution to bodies such as the judiciary, the legislature, the elected executive, and the Election Commission — each operating within its own defined sphere — with the courts serving as part of a broader system of mutual accountability. He put forward the view that functioning democracy depends on opponents' views being weighed on their actual substance, rather than reflexively written off as self-interested or tainted.
Addressing the court's special hearing and the relief it extended to demonstrators and members of the public, Salve described the ruling as a measured outcome that struck a reasonable balance — one directing that any restrictions applied beyond what the situation warranted be lifted, while leaving remaining decisions in the government's hands. The right to protest, he noted, operates within the bounds of applicable police laws rather than beyond them, and he pointed to Supreme Court rulings establishing that no individual stands exempt from legal obligations by virtue of exercising that right.
Salve conveyed that the administration had adopted a stance against allowing certain conduct to go unregulated, framing oversight of institutions as an obligation it was bound to uphold. He positioned the Constitution as both a source of protest rights and a basis for civic duties — including respect for institutions and adherence to the law.
Addressing the matter of overseas financial backing, Salve put forward the position that certain protest movements were drawing funds from abroad and that external actors were playing a role in stirring them up. His remarks targeted people based in Germany and various other countries, as well as certain digital content creators, all flagged over unresolved questions about the financial backing behind those organising the protests.
Drawing on comments attributed to India's Finance Minister about ongoing free trade talks, Salve put forward the view that certain overseas governments had taken a dim view of the direction India was heading. Parallels were drawn to political shifts in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, with the claim put forward that outside forces had a hand in each of those transitions. Salve took the position that the ongoing movement lacked the character of a genuine grassroots effort, and added that he fully expected a probe into the alleged foreign funding sources to get under way.
