02/04/2026
The manner in which Chief Justice Surya Kant’s bench is handling the matter does not augur well for the institution at all. The apex court is increasingly being perceived as an active player in West Bengal’s politics, especially after today’s order directing an NIA investigation. Instead of deciding the constitutionality of the SIR process and laying down clear limits on the powers of a clearly partisan Election Commission, Chief Justice Kant’s bench appears to have taken a keen interest in ADMINISTERING the process itself, effectively ensuring that the SIR proceeds without any hindrance. The companion judges on the bench, Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, have taken no objection to this approach, which is all the more disquieting. Certain observations from the bench, for instance, one not able to vote in this election can vote in the next, reflects a totally cavalier approach to serious allegations of mass disenfranchisement. These have only deepened concerns and invited further criticism of the court. At a time when the capture of a constitutional institution like the Election Commission is complete, the manner in which the Supreme Court has proceeded in this politically fraught matter raises dangerous questions about the role it is choosing to play.
The Court’s INACTION and delay in the AAP-Delhi constitutional crisis created conditions that enabled a political outcome favourable to the BJP. In the Bengal matter, however, the Court is not inactive, but ACTIVELY engaged in a manner that may have significant political consequences for yet another opposition-led government. The Supreme Court’s role is to create a just, fair, and equal level playing field to the greatest extent possible. In the Bengal SIR case, the Court is being seen as creating something totally opposite.
Chief Justice Kant’s bench ought to have confined itself to deciding the legality of the SIR process, particularly given that it was initiated just months before an election with great hurry, leading to mass disenfranchisement of citizens, rather than allowing the judiciary, including the state judiciary, to become entangled in the administration of a politically sensitive process. The use of judicial officers for the SIR process, the appointment of High Court judges as appellate authorities, etc. is the greatest sign of how the Supreme Court is being run like a Khap Panchayat. These do nothing but risk doing grave disservice to the institution of the judiciary, whose credibility ultimately rests on public trust and a perception of unimpeachable integrity. Once that image erodes, only chaos reigns supreme. Chief Justice Kant’s bench have totally ignored and disregarded these dangerous concerns. Might I add that equally troubling is the silence of the Bar, which is meant to act as a check on the Bench.
Whichever way the Bengal elections unfold, the role of the Supreme Court judges in this episode will not be forgotten.
