On Monday, the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association each released formal statements pushing back against social media content that demanded Chief Justice of India Surya Kant vacate his post. A resolution dated 12 October 2026 from the SCBA, as carried by a news channel, held that remarks of that kind diminish the standing of the judiciary and constitute an attempt to interfere with the course of justice.

Separately, the SCAORA adopted a position of disapproval toward public calls for CJI Surya Kant to step down, with its resolution noting that such calls place at risk both the dignity attached to the office and the broader trust that the public holds in judicial institutions.

A post published Monday by the Kerala Congress unit on X — urging Chief Justice Surya Kant to vacate his position on the grounds that he had described protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as beyond his jurisdiction — attracted widespread public attention and prompted debate across various quarters. A demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was organised by the Congress Janata Party along with a number of other political parties, centred on what they described as irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision process for updating electoral rolls.

A joint letter from Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Lok Sabha Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi reached Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna requesting a Monday window between 4 pm and 5 pm for the delivery of a memorandum, the contents of which called for an end to alleged vote theft, the departure of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from his post, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and a return to paper-based balloting. No meeting with the group was granted by the CJI.

The Chief Justice's written response to the letter, as relayed by a news outlet, noted that certain reasons had been put forward for being unavailable for a meeting, with the CJI also confirming in his own words that a letter had arrived the previous day and that a reply had already been sent. He noted that the correspondence had arrived two days prior, though personal absence had prevented an earlier response, and when asked about its contents, directed enquiries to the original senders rather than sharing what the letter contained.

The speaker noted that the letter's contents had been kept private, while also pointing out that the Congress party later put the letter on X. Separately, when journalists asked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday about the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner that had taken place in Delhi over recent days — and the movement restrictions those gatherings had prompted across the capital — he indicated that the matter belonged to the domain of law and order, conveying that position in Hindi. CJI Surya Kant was reported by a television news outlet to have indicated that the matter falls under law and order, placing it outside his jurisdiction.

Posed with the question of how opposition figures could bring their grievances forward — given that he had chosen not to meet Kharge and Gandhi over the dispute, and without offering any explanation for that choice — CJI Kant responded that the Supreme Court remains accessible to every person in the country, from a private citizen to an elected official, and that any petition filed by any Indian, whatever their position, would be taken up and decided in line with the law, with all applicable rights fully protected. Those remarks came at the margins of a Vigyan Bhawan function marking 33 years since the National Human Rights Commission was established, where the CJI fielded questions from journalists in attendance.

A post published on X by the Kerala Congress unit — and later deleted — urged Justice Surya Kant to vacate his position if questions of law and order lay beyond the court's reach. The message, which threatened to find a replacement capable of handling the role, prompted objections from leaders across multiple sectors. The post drew pushback from the BJP, while the Congress party's own Kerala wing found itself at odds with the national organisation over the same remark.

Pawan Khera, speaking on behalf of the Congress party, conveyed its opposition to the stance in question while affirming the party's trust in the judicial system. The statement expressed confidence in the country's judicial system and noted regard for the nation's top court. Khera told a prominent news channel that the decision to bring the matter before the country's highest court reflected the trust placed in the judicial system.

KPCC president Sunny Joseph confirmed that the person who put up the contested post on the party's official X account has been relieved of that responsibility, adding that the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee's leadership had neither prior knowledge of nor any hand in the decision to run it, and that the organisation intends to examine the circumstances under which the post went live. The Congress party's position, as put forward by him, held that trust in the judiciary's independence remained intact and undisputed.

A response letter from the Chief Justice of India to Kharge and Gandhi was also made public by the Congress party. The CJI's written response conveyed that a meeting on pending matters would be procedurally inappropriate, and those seeking one were pointed toward the court's formal petition process, available both in person and through online channels. The letter stated that matters of the kind raised fell outside the Supreme Court's administrative authority to address.

Opposition leaders were directed by the Chief Justice to pursue constitutional remedies through Article 32 petitions rather than presenting a written memorandum to the court. CJI Kant pointed out that on 13 October, a bench of the Supreme Court had already taken up matters of the same kind. In a written communication to Congress leaders, the Chief Justice noted that the matters they wished to raise were already pending before the Supreme Court.

In the written submission, the matter was described as one already before the Supreme Court of India for adjudication, with the related questions falling under its active consideration from the outset. In his written reply, Chief Justice Kant stated that scheduling any meeting to deliberate on matters still before the courts would run counter to the Separation of Powers principle embedded within the Constitution's basic structure doctrine, and would sit at odds with accepted standards of judicial conduct — adding that, under the same constitutional arrangement, the Supreme Court holds no authority over administrative functions of government and therefore lacks the capacity to act on the concerns raised in the letter addressed to him.

In a written order invoking Article 32 alongside the court's broader plenary authority, the Supreme Court of India set out that questions touching on the rights of Indian citizens fall within its obligation to examine on the judicial side, and separately affirmed that those citizens may approach the court at any hour to seek enforcement of their Fundamental Rights through legally recognised procedures. Kant's written communication advised that invoking the Supreme Court of India's judicial authority would be a more fitting course of action than routing the matter through a memorandum on the administrative side.

A petition lodged by Rahul Gandhi before the Supreme Court on Monday raised concerns about reported mass deletions of voter names and procedural irregularities tied to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, as carried by a news outlet. Rival parties called for an end to the Special Intensive Revision process and put forward the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from his post, citing what they described as electoral fraud.