The Opposition cannot defend democracy by pressuring constitutional institutions to endorse its political demands.
There is something deeply ironic about an Opposition that invokes the Constitution at every turn but appears to forget its provisions whenever they become inconvenient. The Congress-led INDIA bloc’s much-publicised political marches, memoranda and demands for the removal of constitutional functionaries increasingly raise one question: Is this a serious constitutional battle or an exercise in political theatre to remain relevant?
The latest episode, involving the Congress leadership’s proposed march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant declined to grant an audience, should prompt some serious introspection. What exactly does the Opposition hope to achieve by marching to an institution whose head has already indicated that he will not entertain its request for a meeting? Is the objective to pursue a constitutional remedy or to manufacture another headline?
The CJI is under no obligation to grant an audience to every political delegation seeking to present a memorandum. The judiciary must preserve its independence, impartiality and public credibility. Any impression that judicial leadership can be summoned, cajoled or pressured by political parties would be damaging to the very institution the Opposition claims to defend. The refusal to meet a delegation is not, by itself, a judgment on the merits of its allegations. It is a decision that must be respected within the established institutional framework.
The Congress, meanwhile, seems unwilling to learn from its recent political misadventures. Its earlier, much-hyped march to the Election Commission of India failed to deliver the political breakthrough it sought. The reported confrontation involving Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders, including the controversy surrounding their entry into Akashvani premises, has only added to the spectacle. Political leaders who expect citizens to respect the law must demonstrate the same respect themselves.
More fundamentally, the demand that the Chief Justice direct the Chief Election Commissioner to resign exposes a troubling confusion between constitutional authority and political wishful thinking. The CJI has no power to sack the CEC. Nor can the President remove the CEC merely because an Opposition delegation demands it. The Constitution prescribes a specific process for removal, involving parliamentary action on constitutionally specified grounds. Political displeasure, however loudly expressed, cannot substitute for that process.
The Opposition has already approached President Droupadi Murmu with its demand concerning the CEC. It is entitled to submit representations, raise questions and pursue lawful remedies. But neither the President nor the judiciary is obliged to accept its conclusions simply because they have been packaged in a memorandum and accompanied by a street mobilisation.
The Election Commission, for its part, is expected to discharge its constitutional responsibilities impartially and address legitimate electoral concerns through established procedures. If the Opposition believes that electoral irregularities have occurred, it must produce verifiable evidence, identify specific violations and pursue the remedies available under law. Allegations of electoral wrongdoing deserve scrutiny; they do not become established facts merely through repetition at press conferences or demonstrations.
Equally, the Opposition must remember that peaceful protest is a democratic right, subject to lawful restrictions. Criticism of those in power cannot be a reason to deny that right. But exercising it does not confer a licence to trespass, disrupt public institutions or presume that every constitutional authority must grant a personal audience.
If the INDIA bloc genuinely believes that the electoral system requires urgent parliamentary scrutiny, why not demand a special session of Parliament, seek a substantive debate and place its evidence before the nation? Parliament is the appropriate forum for political accountability and legislative deliberation. Street mobilisation may attract cameras, but it cannot replace constitutional procedure.
The Congress once commanded a national political presence that few parties could rival. Today, its leadership risks allowing institutional confrontation to become a substitute for political reconstruction. Rahul Gandhi and his allies would do well to distinguish between challenging an institution through lawful means and attempting to pressure it into validating their political narrative.
Bharatt’s constitutional institutions are not subordinate to the ruling party. Neither are they instruments of the Opposition. They must be allowed to function independently, with accountability governed by law rather than political convenience.
The message is simple: democracy does not mean that constitutional authorities must agree to every demand, nor that every refusal constitutes an insult. A responsible Opposition questions, substantiates and pursues remedies. It does not mistake political noise for constitutional power.
The Opposition must decide whether it wants to strengthen democratic institutions or weaken public confidence in them through perpetual confrontation. Bharat needs an Opposition that remembers the Constitution—not one that remembers its provisions only when they serve its political purpose.
