Separation of Powers – CJI’s Refusal and Judicial Propriety

Separation of Powers Latest News

• Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant declined a request by Opposition leaders to meet him over allegations against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Background

• On October 10, 2026, the Leaders of the Opposition wrote to the CJI seeking an appointment to submit a memorandum concerning the conduct of CEC Gyanesh Kumar during the SIR exercise.
• Their concerns included alleged arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters, closure of Metro stations, cancellation of trains and barricading of major roads in Delhi. 
• The CJI declined the meeting, noting that related issues were already before the Supreme Court. 
• He advised the Opposition leaders to invoke the Court’s judicial powers through established legal procedures rather than submit a memorandum through its administrative channel.

‹ ›

Constitutional Basis of the Separation of Powers

• The doctrine of separation of powers divides governmental functions among the legislature, executive and judiciary to prevent excessive concentration of authority.
  • Legislature: Makes laws and holds the executive accountable.
  • Executive: Implements laws and administers government policies.
  • Judiciary: Interprets laws, adjudicates disputes and reviews the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
• Although the Constitution does not establish a rigid separation of powers, it distributes functions among the three organs and provides mechanisms for checks and balances.
• The Supreme Court has recognised separation of powers as part of the basic structure doctrine, meaning that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy this foundational principle.
• The doctrine preserves institutional independence while allowing each organ to perform its constitutionally assigned role.

Judicial Propriety and the Sub Judice Principle

• The CJI’s refusal was grounded in the need to maintain judicial neutrality and avoid private discussions about matters pending before the Court.
• Judicial propriety
  • Judicial propriety refers to the ethical standards and conduct expected of judges to preserve impartiality, independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
  • A private meeting with political leaders concerning pending litigation could create an impression that one party had access to the Court outside established procedures. 
  • Even without actual bias, such an appearance could undermine confidence in judicial fairness.
• Sub judice principle
  • The term sub judice refers to matters that are currently under judicial consideration.
  • When a dispute is pending before a court, parties are expected to present their arguments through recognised legal procedures. This enables all sides to be heard fairly and ensures that judicial decisions are based on evidence, law and arguments presented in court.
  • The CJI noted that the issues raised by the Opposition were already before the Supreme Court. 
• Accordingly, a meeting to discuss them outside judicial proceedings would be incompatible with separation of powers and established judicial propriety.

Judicial Ethics and the Bangalore Principles

• The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct provide internationally recognised ethical standards for judicial behaviour. They emphasise six core values:
  • Independence: Judges must remain free from improper influence.
  • Impartiality: Cases must be decided without bias or favouritism.
  • Integrity: Judicial conduct must uphold public confidence.
  • Propriety: Judges must avoid conduct that creates an appearance of impropriety.
  • Equality: All parties must receive fair and equal treatment before the courts.
  • Competence and diligence: Judges must perform their duties efficiently and conscientiously.
• These principles highlight that judicial independence requires not only the absence of actual interference but also conduct that sustains public trust in the judiciary.

Historical Debates over Judicial Independence

• India’s constitutional history contains several episodes that have shaped debates over judicial independence and executive influence.
  • Supersession of judges in 1973: Following the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the appointment of Justice A.N. Ray as CJI over three senior judges raised concerns about executive influence over judicial appointments.
  • Collegium system: Subsequent judicial decisions developed the collegium framework for appointments and transfers of higher judiciary judges, seeking to protect judicial independence.
  • Judicial press conference in 2018: Four senior Supreme Court judges publicly raised concerns about the allocation of cases and the functioning of the judiciary.
  • Interactions between political leaders and judges: Visits and public statements involving political leaders and serving or former judges have periodically triggered debate about the appearance of institutional closeness.
• These episodes demonstrate why transparency, ethical conduct and safeguards against undue influence are important to maintaining public confidence in judicial institutions.

Implications for Constitutional Governance

• The CJI’s decision illustrates the distinction between the judiciary’s administrative role and its judicial function.
• The Supreme Court does not act as an administrative supervisory authority over every constitutional institution. However, it can examine alleged violations of fundamental rights and the legality of official action through appropriate judicial proceedings.
• The approach reinforces three principles:
  • Equal access to justice: Political leaders must use the same established legal procedures available to other litigants.
  • Procedural fairness: Disputes should be heard transparently, with all parties given an opportunity to present their cases.
  • Institutional independence: The judiciary must remain insulated from political pressure while retaining the authority to review unlawful executive action.

Source: TH