Examine how judicial propriety and the separation of powers shape the ways in which political actors may seek judicial redress.

In October 2026, CJI Surya Kant declined a request from the Leaders of the Opposition to meet him over allegations against the Chief Election Commissioner. He wrote that the judiciary "cannot blur constitutional lines" and must stay out of the "political thicket" [1]. The episode shows how two principles decide which routes to the court are open to political actors. Separation of powers sets those routes, and judicial propriety rules out the informal ones.

Separation of powers: which routes are legitimate

• Open court is the only channel: Political actors can approach the Court only through formal remedies, such as Article 32 petitions. Rahul Gandhi has already sought relief from the Supreme Court this way [1].
• Each organ keeps its own remedies: The CEC can be removed only through Parliament, under Art. 324(5). So the CJI cannot give any relief outside court proceedings.
• Basic structure: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) protects separation of powers. India follows functional separation with checks and balances, not a rigid division.

Judicial propriety: no private access

• No one-sided contact: A matter that may come before the Court cannot be discussed privately with one side. Doing so invites claims of pre-judgment and demands for recusal.
• Same rule for every side: The Bar objected when the One Nation One Election JPC proposed to meet judges, and the CJI applied the same standard to the Opposition [1].
• Justice seen to be done: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) asks judges to keep a distance so that they are impartial in appearance as well as in fact.

Concerns and way forward

• Trust deficit: Under the CEC and ECs Act, 2023, the government holds a 2:1 majority on the selection panel. If the LoP post is vacant, the panel may have only ruling-party members [2]. The Selection Committee may also pick names outside the Search Committee's shortlist [3]. This pushes the Opposition to look for other channels.
• Fixes:
• The Court should hear rights-related petitions (Art. 19, Art. 21) quickly.
• The Full Court should write a rule against meeting political actors into its code of conduct.
• Parliament should balance the CEC selection panel [2].

Separation of powers decides where political grievances can be taken, and judicial propriety decides how they must be raised. Refusing a private meeting is not refusing justice, because the courtroom stays open. Rules that are applied the same way to every side, and a more balanced appointment process, would protect the Court's neutrality and public trust in free and fair elections, which are part of the basic structure.