Senior advocate and former Solicitor General Harish Salve has strongly criticised the INDIA bloc’s attempt to meet the Chief Justice of India (CJI) amid protests over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, calling the move “sheer stupidity” and accusing opposition leaders of using the Supreme Court as a political tool.
In an interview with IANS, Salve argued that political parties must follow established constitutional and legal procedures rather than attempt to exert pressure on the judiciary through public demonstrations. He said the courts were examining the issues before them and that disagreement with a judicial order should not be equated with a loss of faith in the institution.
Salve questioned why opposition leaders had sought a personal meeting with the CJI when they had access to senior lawyers and established legal channels.
“This is sheer stupidity,” he said, adding that political demands could not be made before the judiciary outside prescribed procedures.
Asked whether the Supreme Court was being used for political purposes, Salve replied, “Absolutely.” He said judges were doing their job by examining questions involving human rights, freedom of expression and the right to protest under Article 19 of the Constitution.
He also described the court’s handling of the protest-related petitions as balanced, arguing that its directions sought to ensure that restrictions were not imposed beyond what was necessary while requiring all parties to act within the law.
Salve said the right to protest was not absolute and had to be exercised in accordance with applicable laws. If authorities denied permission for a demonstration, he argued, organisers should challenge the decision through legal channels rather than violate restrictions and subsequently claim that their constitutional rights had been infringed.
The senior lawyer also criticised public statements questioning the judiciary after unfavourable rulings. Referring to comments by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Salve said faith in the judicial system and disagreement with a particular judgment were two different matters.
He argued that lawyers could criticise a judgment and explain why they believed it was wrong, but should distinguish such criticism from allegations that the judiciary was deliberately delivering incorrect decisions.
“If I had no faith in the judiciary, I would not appear in court myself,” Salve said, adding that the finality of a Supreme Court judgment remained distinct from whether an individual considered it correct.
On the opposition’s demand for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Salve said the Supreme Court would examine the allegations and the Election Commission’s response. He maintained that the CEC could not be directly removed by the Supreme Court and that any further action would have to follow the applicable constitutional procedure.
Salve also criticised what he described as the politicisation of constitutional institutions, including the judiciary and the Election Commission. He said governments might change through elections, but political parties should avoid weakening institutions or undermining public confidence in them.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s special hearing on protest-related restrictions, he said the right to demonstrate did not authorise anyone to disregard police restrictions. He argued that decisions denying permission could be challenged before the courts through the prescribed process.
The interview also touched on Salve’s allegations of foreign involvement in protests in India. He claimed, without presenting evidence in the interview to substantiate the allegation, that some protest activities were receiving foreign funding and being encouraged from abroad. He cited developments in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as part of his concerns about external influence.
Salve named some protest figures, including YouTubers and activists, and questioned how demonstrations were being financed. He said he expected the government to investigate allegations of foreign funding but offered no documentary evidence in the interview establishing that the individuals he mentioned had received such funds.
He further argued that the protests did not represent a widespread public uprising, contrasting them with public mobilisation over examination paper leaks, which he said had drawn support because of the impact on students.
Salve maintained that constitutional rights carried corresponding responsibilities, including respect for institutions and compliance with the law. He said the government had a duty to respond to attempts to undermine constitutional institutions, while insisting that disputes should be addressed through established legal and democratic processes.
FOLLOW NOW
