Courts Aren't for 'Firing Opposition Guns': Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Former SC Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul warns against using courts as political tools amid the INDIA bloc's petition against the ECI.
In a poignant reflection on the intersection of law and politics, former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has cautioned that the judiciary must not be transformed into a political battlefield. Speaking on the current climate of legal challenges, Justice Kaul emphasized that courts are designed to function as constitutional checks and balances, not as platforms for the opposition to "fire the guns" at the ruling government.
Legal Issues vs. Political Sparring
Justice Kaul noted that court intervention is inherently subjective and should be strictly confined to legal matters. He revealed that in previous cases, including those in Chennai, he had explicitly advised litigants to move their grievances outside the courtroom if the core of the dispute was political rather than legal.
"I said, don't get them to court. This is a political issue. Please take this outside the court; do it on a different platform. If it raises a legal issue, then the court will deal with it. That's how it must work," Justice Kaul stated.
He stressed that while the judiciary serves as a vital check on government power, it is not intended to be a tool for political maneuvering. This observation comes at a time when the opposition frequently turns to the courts as a primary recourse against constitutional bodies.
The Danger of a Polarized Society
The former judge highlighted a worrying trend of extreme political polarization, describing a societal divide characterized by "bhakt" and "hater" mentalities. According to Justice Kaul, this environment creates a restrictive atmosphere for judges, where the intense public glare can make them hesitant when dealing with sensitive issues.
He argued that such polarization blinds the public to the actual function of the court. When a ruling goes against the government, it is often viewed as political bias rather than the court simply performing its constitutional duty. Conversely, when a ruling favors the government, it is viewed through the same skewed lens.
Justice Kaul urged a return to a "middle path," noting that being closely identified with one political side prevents individuals from recognizing that a government can do some things right while the court may disagree with others on different points.
The Backdrop: The SIR Controversy
These remarks emerge amidst a heated legal battle involving the INDIA bloc and the Election Commission of India (ECI). Following a protest march on October 12, leaders of the alliance, including Rahul Gandhi, filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Key Demands of the INDIA Bloc:
- A comprehensive judicial audit of the SIR process.
- Full disclosure of data regarding deleted voters.
- The immediate suspension of the exercise across various states.
The tension escalated further following media reports suggesting internal friction within the ECI. It was alleged that Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had raised objections to decisions made without full consensus.
ECI Denies Unilateral Action
Responding to the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India has firmly rejected these allegations of unilateral decision-making. The ECI clarified that all three SIR orders issued across 2025 and 2026 were unanimous decisions made by the full Commission. Furthermore, the body clarified that no modifications were made to Form 6, dismissing the claims of procedural irregularity.