Senior advocate and former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve has launched a sharp critique of the Opposition, accusing political parties of orchestrating a deliberate campaign to destabilise the government, weaponise the judiciary for political ends, and erode public confidence in constitutional institutions. His remarks came in an exclusive interview on 12 October 2026 in New Delhi.

Key Accusations Against the Opposition

Salve questioned the Opposition's repeated attempts to seek meetings with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and its sustained criticism of both the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India (ECI). He argued that political parties must work within established constitutional procedures rather than taking to the streets or publicly attacking institutions whenever their demands go unmet.

'In my opinion, this is a political movement aimed at destabilising the system. It is the government's responsibility to confront it firmly. I believe it should continue to do so,' Salve said.

On Using the Supreme Court as a Political Tool

Salve alleged that the Supreme Court was being increasingly drawn into political disputes, with parties filing cases for optics rather than genuine legal remedy. He insisted that judges were discharging their duties conscientiously when examining such matters.

'Absolutely. In my opinion, they are trying to use the Supreme Court as a political tool every day,' he said.

He also took aim at what he described as the Opposition's conditional faith in the judiciary — one that holds only as long as verdicts go in their favour. 'When they do not get the order they want, they say that they have lost faith in the judiciary,' Salve said. 'This is a very unfortunate situation for India's future. You cannot say that if the court does not deliver a judgment of your choice, you will lose faith in the judiciary.'

Institutions Must Not Be Weakened, Salve Warns

Emphasising the foundational role of constitutional bodies, Salve warned against any attempt — irrespective of political affiliation — to target or weaken institutions. 'We must not weaken or target our institutions. The Constitution has established separate institutions, including the judiciary, the legislature, the elected executive and the Election Commission. Each has its own jurisdiction, and the courts maintain a system of checks and balances,' he said.

This comes amid a period of heightened political friction, with the Opposition escalating protests on multiple fronts while several matters are simultaneously pending before the courts — a combination Salve argued made street agitation unnecessary and counterproductive.

Protests, the Festive Season, and Public Inconvenience

Salve questioned the logic of sustained street protests while legal proceedings were already active. Referring specifically to demonstrations linked to the Election Commission, he asked: 'Is it necessary to create a commotion every day? Is it necessary to inconvenience the people of Delhi?'

He further noted that protests during the festive season could cause tangible harm to businesses and ordinary citizens dependent on daily commerce — an impact, he argued, that political leaders must weigh before mobilising supporters.

Congress's Legal Strategy Under Scrutiny

Salve reserved particular scepticism for the Indian National Congress (Congress), questioning why a party with access to some of the country's most experienced lawyers was pursuing a course of public agitation over legal recourse. 'From a legal perspective, I am surprised that a party with such extensive legal expertise is choosing this course of action,' he said, adding that Congress leaders themselves should clarify whether the protests were taken on legal advice.

On the right to protest, Salve acknowledged the constitutional guarantee but underlined its limits: 'The main point is that the right to protest is subject to the applicable police laws. It does not exist outside the law.'

With political tensions showing no sign of easing ahead of upcoming legislative sessions, Salve's intervention is likely to sharpen the debate around the boundaries of lawful dissent and the independence of constitutional institutions.