Separation of powers and CJI’s refusal, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request from Opposition leaders for a meeting to discuss allegations against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
• The refusal was based on the principle of maintaining judicial neutrality and the separation of powers, an intrinsic facet of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Opposition leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi had sought to submit a memorandum concerning the CEC and the Election Commission of India.
• The CJI advised the leaders to invoke the Supreme Court’s judicial powers by filing a petition, as the issues were already sub judice.

Detailed Insights:

• The Opposition's request followed a police crackdown on citizens protesting against CEC Gyanesh Kumar's conduct during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
• Rahul Gandhi, as a member of the Selection Committee, had previously recorded a note of dissent on CEC Kumar's selection under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
• The CJI's response highlighted that convening a meeting on pending cases would contravene the separation of powers and established judicial propriety.
• The Supreme Court, on its judicial side, is duty-bound to consider issues affecting citizens and protect fundamental rights.
• The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emphasize that judges must avoid any act of impropriety that could compromise public perception of judicial neutrality.
• Historical instances of scrutiny over judicial propriety include interactions between the executive and judiciary, and the supersession of judges after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Separation of Powers: Division of governmental powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to prevent concentration of authority.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: A constitutional principle that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be altered by parliamentary amendment.
• Sub Judice: A matter currently under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.
• Judicial Propriety: The ethical conduct and behavior expected of judges to maintain public trust and impartiality in the judiciary.