Gyanesh Kumar row: Why did some demand CJI Surya Kant's resignation? Supreme Court Bar Association condemns calls

A massive controversy stirred up on Monday after the Kerala Congress unit posted on X, seeking the resignation of CJI Surya Kant over his 'Ye mera vishay nahin hai [his matter doesn't pertain to my domain]' remarks.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) condemned statements circulated on social media on Monday calling for the resignation of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.

In a resolution dated October 12, 2026, the SCBA said, as per Live Law, "Statements of this nature belittle the institution of the judiciary and amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice."

Meanwhile, the SCAORA expressed strong disapproval of public statements calling for CJI Surya Kant's resignation.

"Public statements seeking the resignation of the head of the judiciary risk undermining the dignity of the office and public confidence in the institution," the resolution stated.

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and some political parties called for a protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Here's how the events took place:

1. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge had written to CJI Kant, seeking a meeting between 4 pm and 5 pm on Monday to hand over a memorandum that demanded:

> An end to "vote chori"

> Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's resignation

> Halting of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls

> Switching back to the paper ballot format

2. The CJI, however, declined to meet them. According to PTI, the CJI said in his reply to the letter that he "cited some reasons" and stated that he "won't be able to meet."

He reportedly said, "I had received a letter yesterday, and I have given the reply. Letter was of day before yesterday, but I was out."

He refused to divulge the content of the letter and said, "Please ask the content of the letter from them. I have maintained its confidentiality." The letter was later released by the Congress on X.

3. When asked about protests against the CEC in Delhi over the past few days and the associated restrictions on movement in the national capital, CJI Surya Kant said on Monday that the matter was related to law and order.

"Ye law and order ka mudda hai. Ye mera vishay nahin hai. [This is a matter of law and order; it doesn't pertain to my domain]," CJI Surya Kant was quoted by PTI as saying. He refused to divulge reasons for his refusal to meet Congress leaders over the issue of "vote chori."

The CJI, however, asserted that the "doors of the Supreme Court are open for everybody," whether a commoner or a lawmaker, when asked how opposition leaders could put forth their grievances after he had declined to meet Kharge and Gandhi.

"Any petition... anyone who desires, whether a common man or a member of any elected body, every citizen of India has a right to reach us. We will hear issues in consonance with the law, and whatever rights people deserve, we will grant them," CJI Kant said.

The CJI was speaking during an interaction with reporters on the sidelines of an event to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at Vigyan Bhawan.

4. Reacting to the CJI's remarks, the Congress' Kerala unit wrote in a now-deleted post on X, "Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it."

The X post went viral in no time, drawing major backlash from leaders across segments.

5. Not only did the rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) criticise the remark, but even the Congress distanced itself from the statement posted by its Kerala unit.

Congress leader Pawan Khera said the party "completely disagrees" with the position and reiterated its "absolute faith" in the judiciary.

"We completely disagree with this position, whoever has done it. It is completely incorrect. We have absolute faith in the judiciary of this country and respect the highest court. That is exactly why we went to the doorstep of the highest court and knocked on its door, because of the confidence we have in the judiciary," Khera told news agency ANI.

6. KPCC president Sunny Joseph said the person responsible for posting the controversial message against the Chief Justice of India on the party's official 'X' account had been removed from the charge.

"The KPCC will examine the circumstances under which such a post was made," Joseph said, adding that the post was made without the knowledge, consent or consultation of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) leadership.

He clarified that the Congress party had no disagreement with regard to the impartiality of the judiciary.

7. The Congress also shared the letter sent by the CJI in his reply to Kharge and Gandhi on Monday. In his letter, the CJI declined the meeting on Monday and told them that discussing pending cases would be improper and urged them to file a petition with the court either physically or online.

He said in the letter that the Supreme Court has no administrative powers to deal with the issues raised in their letter. The CJI advised the opposition leaders to invoke the court's powers under Article 32 rather than submit a memorandum. CJI Kant noted that similar issues were listed before the Supreme Court on October 13.

On Monday, Rahul Gandhi filed a petition before the Supreme Court over alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, according to Bar and Bench.

The Opposition demanded a halt to SIR and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged 'vote chori'.

He wrote, "At the very outset, it may be noted that the issues referred to hereinabove are already sub judice before the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, 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."

CJI Kant also noted that under the constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with government functioning on its administrative side.

"I also wish to remind you that within our constitutional framework, the Supreme Court of India is not endowed with any administrative powers to deal with the issues highlighted in your letter," his letter, shared by the Congress on X, read.

He, however, wrote, "...in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of our Constitution, along with other plenary powers, including that of judicial review, we are duty-bound to consider on judicial side the gravamen of issues affecting the citizens of India."

"Supreme Court of India reiterates its commitment to preserve and protect the Fundamental Rights of every citizen of India and they are entitled to seek enforcement of such rights at all hours through the procedure known in law. 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 on the administrative side," Kant wrote.