Ex-Solicitor General Harish Salve Criticises Opposition's Planned March Towards Supreme Court Former Solicitor General Harish Salve has sharply disapproved of the opposition coalition's march toward the Supreme Court, cautioning against using the judicial branch as a lever for partisan disputes. A sharp debate over institutional sanctity and the boundaries of street agitation has surfaced following the opposition alliance's decision to organise a march to the highest court of the land. Taking serious exception to the proposed demonstration, former Solicitor General Harish Salve expressed deep concern regarding the growing inclination of political groupings to draw constitutional bodies into partisan crossfire. He stated that using the legal apparatus as an instrument to settle political disagreements represents an ill-conceived path that risks corroding foundational democratic conventions. The announcement of the march scheduled for 12 October caused immediate disruptions to civic movement across the national capital. As a preventive precaution against crowd congestion, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation shut down entry and exit points at six critical transit stations, including the busy Rajiv Chowk interchange. The escalation followed after Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant turned down an application from opposition representatives seeking a personal audience. Despite the refusal from the CJI, leaders representing the bloc chose to stand firm on their call to walk directly towards the court building. Warning Against Dragging Courts Into Electoral Clashes Interacting with IANS, the distinguished jurist argued that democratic institutions cannot be pressured into functioning according to the unilateral wishes of political factions. Salve observed that circumventing formal statutory routes reflects an alarming lack of patience with the rule of law. The current confrontation intensified after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi announced a public march targeting alleged ballot manipulation, calling for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and urging civil society groups along with everyday citizens to turn out in large numbers. In response, Salve warned that political outfits must not attempt to transform judicial corridors into ideological arenas. He underscored that constitutional courts are designed to evaluate evidence rather than arbitrate populist demands voiced outside their gates. Attempting to force outcomes through street mobilisation, he noted, undermines the essential trust required for judicial mechanisms to operate impartially. Protocol Surrounding Judicial Audiences and Grievance Redressal Addressing the aborted meeting between the opposition delegation and the Chief Justice of India, Salve highlighted the procedural duties governing the judiciary. He noted that the CJI cannot function as a recipient of political memoranda, as the legal pathway strictly requires formal petitions supported by verified records. If any entity harbours concerns regarding an administrative or constitutional authority, it must state those grievances through a properly instituted lawsuit rather than an informal visit. The veteran advocate highlighted that the apex court routinely arbitrates sensitive questions concerning human dignity, public dissent, and free speech under Article 19. While challenging an adverse judgment remains an inherent entitlement in an open democracy, casting doubt over the whole legal system when a decision fails to suit one's political agenda is deeply problematic. He maintained that intellectual disagreement with a verdict must not be conflated with undermining faith in the judicial institution itself. Statutory Limits Regarding Actions Against Election Authorities Responding to demands aimed at punishing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Salve cautioned against premature expectations of executive or judicial retribution. He pointed out that the Supreme Court cannot summarily dismiss a Chief Election Commissioner on its own accord, given that the Constitution prescribes an elaborate legislative procedure for any removal proceedings. Salve explained that the highest bench has already sought an explanation from the commission, meaning the regulatory authority will present its formal response and case records for judicial scrutiny. Judges will examine those facts thoroughly before delivering a measured determination. Salve also expressed concern regarding the severe civic disruption inflicted on ordinary commuters, small business owners, and daily wage workers across New Delhi, questioning whether daily urban blockades are an acceptable method of political conduct. Dissent Must Operate Within Established Legal Boundaries Elaborating on the scope of democratic protest, Salve observed that the freedom to register disagreement does not grant an exemption from municipal statutes and police directions. Whenever law enforcement denies operational permission for a public gathering, organisers are obligated to contest that regulatory decision through administrative appeals or legal petitions rather than violating the law. He also expressed bewilderment regarding the strategic decisions emerging from the Congress leadership, noting that an organisation staffed with prominent, experienced legal minds should understand the sanctity of courtroom protocols. Salve remarked that party leaders must make clear whether such aggressive street measures have been cleared by their senior legal advisers or if they represent an emotional departure from standard constitutional advocacy. Apprehensions Over External Influence and Protest Funding In his closing remarks, Harish Salve raised questions regarding the underlying sponsorship of prolonged domestic protests, pointing to potential external influence. He drew parallels with unexpected political transformations witnessed across neighbouring nations like Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, cautioning that foreign interests might be seeking to fuel internal instability. Emphasising that he does not view such street agitation as spontaneous mass movements of the public, Salve urged the central government to investigate allegations regarding foreign funding and illicit coordination. Protecting sovereign democratic structures, he argued, requires a thorough examination into whether overseas financial networks are being deployed to agitate domestic institutions. What this means for you The confrontation and planned march have directly disrupted urban commuting and civic routines in the national capital while intensifying national political debate. • In New Delhi: Metro transit access across six pivotal stations including Rajiv Chowk was abruptly suspended, forcing thousands of daily commuters to find alternative surface transport. Office goers and shoppers encountered severe delays throughout central transport corridors. • Across India: The standoff between major political parties and constitutional institutions deepens public scrutiny regarding the judiciary and election machinery. Citizens nationwide are witnessing intense debates surrounding institutional integrity and the limits of political agitation. • For local businesses: Heightened security cordons in central commercial hubs resulted in reduced customer footfall and interrupted deliveries. Retailers and street traders faced temporary economic setbacks during peak trading hours. • For court litigants: Strict barricading around the judicial complex created logistical difficulties for lawyers and citizens arriving to attend scheduled hearings. Regular court visitors faced rigorous police checks and restricted access gates. Why this happened The flashpoint emerged after opposition parties initiated a campaign alleging electoral irregularities and decided to direct their agitation towards the Supreme Court. • Grievance against election leadership: The opposition coalition demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged voting issues. This demand formed the core basis of their street mobilisation. • Refusal of judicial meeting: A delegation of opposition politicians sought an appointment with Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, which was declined. The judicial leadership indicated that formal legal filings should replace administrative representations. • Legal objections to institutional pressure: Former Solicitor General Harish Salve publicly criticised the move, warning that the judiciary cannot be treated as an instrument for political bargaining. He asserted that statutory guidelines must govern any action against constitutional appointees. • Concerns over external funding: Salve cited recent political upheavals in neighbouring countries, urging authorities to examine whether foreign financial assistance is influencing domestic agitations. Questions & Answers 1. What was Harish Salve's reaction to the opposition's Supreme Court march? He strongly criticised the plan, arguing that political parties are improperly attempting to treat the judiciary as a political weapon. 2. Why are opposition parties organising the demonstration? They are agitating over alleged voting theft issues and calling for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. 3. How did Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant respond to the delegation's request? The CJI declined the meeting request, indicating that grievances should be submitted as formal legal petitions rather than memorandums. 4. What civic disruption did the planned march cause in Delhi? Delhi Metro authorities closed entry and exit gates at six stations, including the Rajiv Chowk interchange, to maintain security. 5. What did Harish Salve state regarding removing the Chief Election Commissioner? He clarified that the Supreme Court cannot dismiss the Chief Election Commissioner directly, as strict constitutional removal procedures must be followed. 6. What allegation did Salve make regarding external funding? He expressed concern that foreign powers might be funding domestic protests and urged the central government to investigate the matter. https://trendkia.com/en/national/vipakshi-dalon-ke-adalata-gherava-karyakrama-ko-purva-solicitor-general-ne-bataya-anuchita-snsthaon-ke-sammana-ki-di-sikha-46754 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.