"Resign Now" Posts Against CJI Surya Kant: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Ban On Political Protests In Court Complexes

The public interest litigation, filed on Tuesday by Advocates Digant Mishra, Divyansh Bisht, Ashish Gopal Garg and Shweta Garg through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Utkarsh Jaiswal, arrays Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, the Indian National Congress and the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee as respondents, alongside the Union of India, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Supreme Court through its Secretary General as a proforma respondent.

The petitioners framed the question before the Court as "whether the precincts of the Supreme Court of India, the apex judicial institution and constitutional guardian of fundamental rights, can be permitted to become a venue for organised political mobilisation, public demonstrations or activities carrying the potential to exert pressure upon the administration of justice."

They stated on oath that the petition "is not filed on behalf of, at the instance of, or for the benefit of any political party or political affiliation", and that they "express no view whatsoever on the merits of any matter pending before this Hon'ble Court, including the matters relating to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the decisions of the Election Commission of India."

Background: CJI declines meeting on subjudice SIR and CEC issues

According to the petition, the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha wrote to the Chief Justice on October 10 seeking an appointment on October 12 to submit a memorandum. Its publicly announced demands, the petition says, included a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, whose decisions are under challenge before the Court.

The Chief Justice declined the meeting by a letter dated October 11. The petition quotes the letter as recording that the issues "are already sub judice before the Supreme Court of India" and that "convening a meeting to discuss pending cases would wholly contravene the principle of Separation of Powers, an intrinsic facet of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India, and would be incompatible with the established ethics and judicial propriety". The letter added that "it would thus be more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum." The petitioners described the letter as "a model of constitutional restraint".

Despite the letter, the petition says, a march to the Supreme Court was announced for October 12. As reported, the Delhi Police halted the procession at a barricade on Bhagwan Dass Road, and the Court's administration permitted a delegation to enter the premises and file a writ petition at the filing counter. The petition states that Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Akhilesh Yadav were reported to be among the leaders who entered the premises.

The petitioners clarified that they "do not question the filing of a writ petition by any citizen, including any political leader". Their concern, they said, is "the conversion of the act of approaching this Hon'ble Court into a political procession, with crowds, slogans and a public spectacle directed at the Court, in respect of matters already pending before it."

"Resign Now" and "So we will": Posts against CJI

The petition places on record two posts made on X on October 12, after the Chief Justice was reported to have told reporters that the protests in Delhi were "law and order ka mudda" and "mera vishay nahin hai".

At 4:48 PM, the petition says, the official handle of the Kerala unit of the Congress posted, "Dear Surya Kant, If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it."

At 6:35 PM, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra posted, in the petition's words "in apparent reference to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India": "Surya clearly Can't. So we will."

The petitioners submitted that the first post "addressed the Chief Justice of India by name, without the courtesy of his title", "struck at the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice of India and implied that the highest judicial office in the land is a matter of political choice." They added: "It is indeed shocking that the post of @INCKerala could issue from the official handle of a unit of a national party at all."

The petition also records that the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association condemned the resignation calls, and that the post was later deleted, with the party's national leadership publicly disagreeing with it.

Relying on Article 124(4), under which a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President after an address by both Houses of Parliament on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the petitioners argued that the Constitution provides "an exclusive mechanism for the removal of a Judge."

Citing C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, where the Court held that Bar association pressure to coerce a judge to resign was impermissible, the petition contends: "If an association of officers of the court cannot coerce a Judge to resign, a fortiori a political party cannot."

The plea further says that the demand "carried the unmistakable message that a Judge who declines political overtures may face a political campaign for his removal. Such a message, if left unchecked, has an obvious tendency to interfere with the administration of justice."

The petitioners stressed that the conduct complained of was directed at matters "not merely pending, but listed for hearing on the very next day, 13.10.2026." Three things together, they argued, raise "serious concern" that the events had a tendency to prejudice the pending proceedings: the march in support of the memorandum's demands, the resignation demand against the Chief Justice presiding over the Bench seized of related matters, and the public description of the march as a test of whether the Court would act as guardian of the Constitution.

The petition relies on State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, which held that "A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law", and on In re P.C. Sen, (1969) 2 SCR 649, where the Court held that comments on pending proceedings "emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources". The petitioners pointed out that several leaders who led the march filed a writ petition the same evening and "are thus themselves litigants before this Hon'ble Court."

Quoting E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, the petition reminds the Court that judges "cannot take their cue from sentiments of politicians", and, quoting In re Prashant Bhushan, that "An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand."

On the right to protest, the petitioners accepted that dissent is "an important feature of democracy", but argued that it "cannot be understood as conferring an unrestricted entitlement to enter restricted or operational court areas, obstruct access to court buildings, assemble in a manner that disrupts judicial work, intimidate persons involved in adjudication, or seek a favourable judicial outcome through collective pressure."

Article 19(2), the petition notes, expressly allows reasonable restrictions "in relation to contempt of court". Relying on Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439, that "demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone", the petitioners contend that "The precincts of a constitutional court are, by their very nature, not a designated place for political protest."

They also invoke Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, under which even lawyers may protest only "outside and away from court premises", and argue that "political parties, who have no role in the administration of justice, cannot claim a higher right to take political processions to the gates of this Hon'ble Court or into its precincts."

The petition further cites US federal law prohibiting picketing near courts and Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965), where the US Supreme Court said "mob law is the very antithesis of due process", for persuasive value.

Arguing for equal treatment inside court complexes, the petitioners submitted that "Article 14 does not admit of a separate procedure for political leaders." Political leaders, "however high their office, can claim no special access to the Chief Justice or to the Judges, no entourage, no right to sloganeering and no platform for political messaging within the judicial campus."

Citing the 1997 "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life", the petition argues that political actors "must not seek to draw Judges into such engagement, whether through private meetings, memoranda on the administrative side, or public spectacle."

The petitioners contend that there is currently no "uniform, neutral and enforceable framework" that regulates processions near the Supreme Court and High Courts, prohibits political protests within judicial complexes, prevents organised pressure in sub judice matters, or prescribes the decorum expected of political parties inside court campuses. Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, they say, are "temporary and area-specific, and are not designed with the particular requirements of the judicial process in view."

Relying on Vishaka, Vineet Narain, Prakash Singh and Kodungallur Film Society, the petitioners ask the Court to lay down guidelines that would operate as law until Parliament or the appropriate authority acts.