The All India Bar Association criticised 23 opposition parties for submitting a memorandum to the Chief Justice over the Election Commission’s electoral roll revision, saying grievances must be pursued through courts, calling the move constitutionally inappropriate and institutionally improper.
The All India Bar Association (AIBA) has criticised the reported decision of 23 opposition parties and one Independent Member of Parliament to submit a joint memorandum to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) regarding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Calling the move “constitutionally inappropriate and institutionally improper,” AIBA Chairman and Senior Advocate Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala said that grievances against the Election Commission must be raised before a competent court and not through political representations addressed to the CJI.
Dr. Aggarwala has written to the Chief Justice of India expressing concern over what he described as an attempt to draw the country’s highest judicial office into a political controversy.
He emphasised that the office of the Chief Justice must remain above political disputes and should not be used as a forum for political messaging.
According to the press release, the Chief Justice of India is not the administrative head of the Election Commission. The Election Commission functions as an independent constitutional authority under Article 324 of the Constitution, and any challenge to its actions must be brought before the appropriate court by filing a properly drafted petition supported by pleadings, documents and affidavits.
A political memorandum, Dr. Aggarwala said, cannot replace judicial proceedings because courts decide cases on the basis of evidence, law and adversarial hearings, not on political representations.
The AIBA Chairman further stated that if the opposition parties genuinely believe the Special Intensive Revision process suffers from illegality, arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity, they are free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings. He pointed out that the opposition has sufficient financial resources as well as access to senior advocates and legal advisers to pursue judicial remedies.
Dr. Aggarwala questioned the decision to submit a political memorandum instead of approaching the judiciary. According to him, this raises serious doubts about the legal strength and bona fides of the allegations. He remarked that the opposition’s choice of political representation over judicial proceedings suggests that they may themselves believe their claims may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Expressing strong objection to involving the Chief Justice personally in the controversy, Dr. Aggarwala said such actions blur the distinction between constitutional adjudication and political pressure.
He warned that drawing the CJI into day-to-day political disputes is unhealthy for democracy, the judiciary and the credibility of the electoral process.
The press release also cautioned against making allegations against constitutional institutions without subjecting them to judicial scrutiny.
Dr. Aggarwala observed that the Election Commission, like the judiciary, is a constitutional body and allegations of bias, manipulation or misuse must be responsibly made and proved through lawful proceedings. Reckless allegations, he said, could weaken public confidence in democratic institutions.
In his letter to the Chief Justice, Dr. Aggarwala referred to reports that 23 opposition parties and Independent MP Kapil Sibal had submitted a joint memorandum seeking intervention in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He reiterated that if the memorandum contains legally sustainable grounds, the opposition should immediately file a writ petition or other appropriate legal proceedings instead of relying on political representations.
The letter further argues that using the office of the Chief Justice as a platform for political messaging creates the impression that political parties are attempting to exert pressure on the judiciary while avoiding the discipline, accountability and consequences of formal judicial proceedings.
Such an approach, Dr. Aggarwala said, undermines constitutional processes and established legal remedies.
Concluding the letter, Dr. Aggarwala urged that the opposition’s memorandum should not be considered as a basis for any administrative or judicial action. He warned that entertaining such political representations outside the judicial process could create an unfortunate precedent encouraging political parties to bypass established legal remedies.
Stressing the importance of preserving judicial independence, he said the dignity, neutrality and sanctity of the office of the Chief Justice of India must be protected at all costs.