By Arun Srivastava
The famous Urdu saying “Nukta ke her pher se khuda juda ho jata hai” translates literally to: “By the displacement of a single dot, God (Khuda) becomes separate (Juda).” This has actually happened in the case of Rahul Gandhi. He had led a march to the Supreme Court along with other INDIA bloc leaders on October 12 to apprise the CJI Surya Kant of their problems. Prior to the march, he had appealed to the public to join them “as citizens” (specifically not as protesters) for submitting the communication to the Justice Kant, which demanded a halt to the ECI’s SIR of electoral rolls and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged “vote theft”.
Ironically this move of Rahul and INDIA leaders is being projected as an attempt to browbeat and question the authority of the Supreme Court by the BJP leaders, who seldom miss any opportunity to target and malign Rahul Gandhi. The country has curiously watched how the saffron ecosystem and its IT cell tried to build a nasty character assassination attack on him during last twelve years of Modi rule. Modi even used to address him as Pappu and Shahjada. But they could not succeed in their mission.
The narrative surrounding Rahul Gandhi and insinuating political campaigns against him has been a central point of debate in Indian politics for 12 years. The latest effort of the BJP to accuse Rahul of humiliating and browbeating Judiciary is the part of their conspiracy to malign his image and project him as a non-serious politician not competent to lead the opposition parties. In recent past the BJP, especially Modi has lost much his middle class support. This section was feeling dejected and alienated.
By projecting Rahul as non-serious and a person who even does not respect judiciary, the BJP intends to win back its support base in the middle class, which claims to be quite sensitive to such issues and matters. Political analysts point out that while intense social media messaging did impact his public perception for years, the narrative shifted significantly following his Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022–2023 and the subsequent 2024 general election results, which positioned him as a more formidable and widely recognized Leader of the Opposition.
BJP looks at him with fear and awe. Saffron ecosystem and particularly Modi, Amit and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat are not sure what step he might take tomorrow. It is this fear of his unpredictable political moves and actions that has unnerved the Gujarati duo and Bhagwat. They intend to fetter him any how before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. In recent times various mood analysis reports project him as the next prime minister. The RSS and BJP are scared of his presence during the Lok Sabha elections. This fear has multiplied with Rahul emerging as the voice of the Gen Z, though he is above 50 years of age. Quite significantly this coincides with Modi losing the crown of Hindu Hridaya Samrat in the wake of multi crore scam and theft of ornaments offered as gifts to Lord Ram at Ayodhya.
The BJP leadership is still in the process of testing the water. It is evident in the form of fielding its national spokesperson and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Gaurav Bhatia to raise the issue before CJI Surya Kant. Bhatia filed an application in the Supreme Court against Rahul Gandhi, alleging that he undermined and dishonoured the dignity of the judiciary by taking a protest march to the Supreme Court to file a petition against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Bhatia argued that Rahul shouted slogans and threatened the judiciary using “crowdocracy”.
Bhatia who is a common face on TV channels appeared before CJI seeking criminal contempt action against Rahul. What has indeed come as a shock is CJI believing the argument of Bhatia and cautioning that no one can browbeat judiciary. Is really so naïve to dare to browbeat the Supreme Court? In fact Bhatia’s insinuation has not surprised as this has been culture of saffron ecosystem.
Under the Constitution, citizens have the fundamental right to assemble peaceably, which traditionally extends to the democratic practice of submitting petitions or memorandums to public officials. Furthermore, Article 350 explicitly grants every person the right to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State. Citizens have a constitutional right to petition the government, an absolute “right to a personal meeting” with a high-ranking official.
Rahul Gandhi filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court along with 10 prominent leaders from the INDIA bloc as directed by CJI himself. Obviously gathering swelled when Rahul and other leaders went to submit the petition to the registry as directed by CJI. Nevertheless it is a fact that march was not meant to intimidate, but rather to bring extreme public and institutional transparency to what they deemed a grave threat to democracy. Since it was a joint petition, accompanying senior INDIA leaders was imperative. Rahul would have been accused of indulging in one-upmanship game if he had left behind the other petitioner leaders. One believes CJI would certainly appreciate Rahul’s action, instead of treating it as a breach of institutional boundaries.
Democratic discourse operates at the intersection of dissent and democratic governance. While dissent ensures a check on the government of the day, seamless governance is an inviolable mandate by the people to the ruling dispensation. Hence, a delicate balance between the two is a must. This necessitates the inviolable sanctity of institutions of the state to ensure coherence and harmony in everyday life of the national public sphere. Any kind of coercive tactics of the ruling dispensation must be discouraged and condemned. It is sad that the relationship between the Modi government and the Indian judiciary has become a subject of intense domestic debate, with sharply contrasting views held by the political opposition, civil rights groups, and the ruling party.
Critics and secular political forces frequently allege that the government seeks to influence the judiciary to advance a specific political agenda: Critics point to instances where the Supreme Court has shown deference to executive decisions or delayed hearings on crucial civil liberties and constitutional questions, characterizing it as a “judicial retreat”. Several high-profile instances of judges resigning or retiring and promptly joining the BJP or accepting post-retirement government roles (such as former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi being nominated to the Rajya Sabha and Calcutta High Court judge Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay resigning from his post on March 5, 2024, joining the BJP on March 7, 2024, and contesting Lok Sabha election on BJP ticket for the Tamluk constituency) have raised concerns about judicial neutrality.
Organiser and OpIndia, published commentaries stating that “The Supreme Court is not Congress’s political darbar.” This is virtually an attempt to malign the apex court. If the Congress had treated apex court as darbar Rahul would not organised a programme to call on CJI and apprise him of the problems. The fact is the opposition did not lower the prestige of the Supreme Court, but rather acted as a conduit for the “people of India” to seek redressal. Rahul Gandhi’s, argument that the “people of India” would approach the court, was rooted in the idea of the judiciary as the ultimate custodian of citizen rights. Under this philosophy: the opposition formalized their grievances by filing a joint writ petition, seeking ten distinct forms of relief, including an independent audit of voter deletions.
Ultimately, the debate hinges on methodology versus intent. Since the intent was to represent the grievances of the Indian public regarding electoral integrity, the action is fundamentally respectful of the court’s role. Conversely, the legal and judicial consensus maintains that regardless of who is being represented. Yes, in a democratic country, citizens have a fundamental right to access the judiciary and approach courts for justice or to protect their rights. The Supreme Court also knows and this. The apex court is looking at the Rahul Gandhi petition with that spirit. (IPA Service)
