'𝐂𝐉𝐈 Surya Kant's most powerful rulings are the ones he refuses to write', says Advocate Balraj Singh Malik A written ruling can be read, quoted, appealed, and overturned. Not deciding leaves no paper, no precedent, no appeal, and no record that can be used against the judge. This is the cleanest judicial shield the court can offer the government, and it has become Chief Justice Surya Kant's permanent method. He rarely delivers such a ruling in the government's favor that exposes the court. He simply finds an accepted procedural path that ensures the court never rules against the government at all. Each path looks normal when viewed separately. But when put together, they form a coherent pattern of non-decision that shields the government from scrutiny and maintains the image of the court's formal independence.
Here are the techniques, each with a recent example:
1. Transfer and delay until the opportunity passes
On February 16, petitions challenging Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's anti-Muslim speeches were sent back to the high court, along with a reprimand that the petitioners were trying to "frustrate" it. West Bengal SIR complaints were also sent to the Calcutta High Court. In July, a demolition petition was dismissed with the remark that even if the structure were demolished that very day, the court would not hear the case. The case isn't dismissed; it simply never gets heard as long as the grievance can be stalled or reversed.
2. Declaring violations outside the court's purview On October 13, amid a lockdown in Delhi, nearly 7,000 people in custody, and internet services shut down, the Chief Justice called it a "law and order" issue and said, "This is not my domain." The country's highest court removed collective restrictions on citizens' rights from its concern. 3. Letting the calendar decide On September 28, thousands of voters whose names were struck from Bengal's electoral rolls sought an urgent hearing before the by-elections. The response was, "These are just by-elections." The Bihar SIR challenge was left pending while voting continued on the revised lists. Here, delay is not neutral; it is the real decision, and it creates no written order that can be challenged. 4. Denying responsibility while letting the measure continue On October 5, the court said it had never approved the revised Form 6, yet refused to halt its use. The court got the title of inquiry; the Election Commission got the form. 5. Keeping the record sealed In the Pegasus case, the government refused to cooperate with the court's own expert committee. The Chief Justice asked what was wrong with a country using spyware and kept the report out of public view. An inquiry was ordered, then effectively buried. 6. Refusing to examine evidence On July 22, 2026 when videos of police beating students were shown, the response was "Don't waste our time." Evidence the court refuses to see cannot lead to any conclusion. 7. Forming a committee and leaving it inactive In August, 2026 the bench constituted a five-member panel on police excess. No report or intervention came from the major October actions. Forming the committee is recorded as action, while no action happens. 8. Granting personal relief while validating the method In the Kejriwal case, the court ordered bail but upheld the CBI's arrest as valid. On the same bench, Justice Bhuyan called the arrest unjustified, time-bound to block bail, and warned that the CBI should stop looking like "parrots in a cage." The opposition leader was released; the agency got judicial approval for its arrest methods. 9. Using suo motu powers only to protect the institution The court took suo motu cognizance of a school textbook chapter on judicial corruption, seized copies, and blacklisted the authors. A letter petition seeking similar attention to police brutality against students received no response.10. Treating the complainant as the problem.
The petitioners challenging hate speech were told that they were demoralizing the High Courts; opposition parties were told that they were fighting their electoral battles in the courtroom. Once the person approaching the court is themselves framed as the source of the difficulty, there is no longer any need to examine the substance of the complaint.
10. Treating the complainant as the problem
The petitioners challenging hate speech were told that they were demoralizing the High Courts; opposition parties were told that they were fighting their electoral battles in the courtroom. Once the person approaching the court is themselves framed as the source of the difficulty, there is no longer any need to examine the substance of the complaint.
by
Balraj Singh Malik, Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment