Should Political Issues Be Resolved in Court? Former SC Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul Thinks Not
Click to start listening
Synopsis
Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul stresses the need for political disputes to be settled outside the courtroom, particularly regarding the Bihar electoral roll's Special Intensive Revision. He advocates for addressing such issues through the Election Commission, a constitutional body, rather than burdening the Supreme Court with political matters.
Key Takeaways
- Political disputes should be settled politically.
- The Supreme Court has defined limitations.
- Election Commission plays a crucial role in electoral processes.
- Legal intervention is warranted only in cases of legal discrepancies.
- Maintaining checks and balances is vital.
New Delhi, July 15 (NationPress) Justice (retired) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, a former Supreme Court judge, emphasized the importance of exercising restraint when it comes to resolving political disputes in courts. He expressed a desire that the ongoing conflict regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral roll could be resolved by the Election Commission without necessitating the involvement of the apex court.
"Political disputes should be resolved through political means. The court is not a venue for political issues," Justice Kaul stated in an interview with IANS.
He further remarked, "The Supreme Court has its limits. It cannot formulate policies or perform the responsibilities of the Election Commission. The court's primary role is to uphold checks and balances in the system."
The retired judge noted that while there is no objection to approaching the Supreme Court for issues with legal implications, other matters should be directed to the appropriate institutions for resolution.
"Different organizations have been established for specific functions. The Election Commission is a constitutional body. Judicial intervention should only occur if there is a legal discrepancy in any process," he explained.
Justice Kaul pointed out that political parties increasingly tend to escalate their disagreements to the Supreme Court.
He asserted that it should be the Supreme Court's discretion to determine which cases to hear.
"The Supreme Court cannot handle every matter. It does not create policies or replace the Election Commission's duties. Its function is to maintain a system of checks and balances," he reiterated.
Justice Kaul also suggested that a balanced approach is necessary for ensuring fair elections, cautioning that unfavorable outcomes in elections should not lead parties to claim bias against the Election Commission.
In an indirect reference to allegations of 'election fixing' made by opposition parties against the Election Commission, he remarked, "These disagreements are fundamentally political. Nowadays, it seems nearly impossible to find a middle ground, as opinions vary widely."
"I have faith in the electoral system's integrity. The Election Commission has facilitated victories for opposition parties in various states. The BJP is currently in power, and it too will achieve victories. It is unreasonable to claim that a loss indicates a problem with the system," Justice Kaul stated.
The opposition has criticized the ongoing SIR in Bihar, alleging it is being conducted hastily and with documentation requirements that could disenfranchise a significant portion of the state's 7.9 crore voters.
The Election Commission has countered these claims, asserting that Enumeration Forms (EFs) for 83.66 percent of the 7.89 crore voters in Bihar have already been collected as of Monday. With 11 days remaining for the final submission date, officials assure that the process will be completed without issue.
Point of View
We uphold a commitment to impartiality and integrity in our reporting. We recognize the significance of Justice Kaul's insights on the separation of political and judicial responsibilities. Navigating these complex issues requires careful consideration to maintain public trust in our institutions.
NationPress
12/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an electoral process aimed at updating the electoral roll in Bihar, ensuring that all eligible voters are included and any inaccuracies are addressed.
What did Justice Kaul say about courts handling political disputes?
Justice Kaul emphasized that courts should not be the primary venue for resolving political disputes, advocating for resolution through appropriate political channels.
Why are opposition parties concerned about the SIR?
Opposition parties have expressed concerns that the SIR is being rushed and may impose documentation requirements that could disenfranchise a large number of voters in Bihar.
How has the Election Commission responded to these allegations?
The Election Commission has countered the allegations by stating that a significant percentage of Enumeration Forms have already been collected and that the process is on track to be completed smoothly.
What does Justice Kaul suggest about the role of institutions?
Justice Kaul suggests that specific institutions, like the Election Commission, are designed to handle particular issues and that legal intervention should be reserved for cases involving legal discrepancies.
