NEW DELHI — The Congress party’s decision to remain publicly silent on a high-profile protest demanding the restoration of India’s Supreme Court to full judicial strength has sparked debate over its strategic priorities, even as the opposition intensifies its attacks on the government over education scandals and disaster mismanagement. While civil society groups, retired judges, and activists rally behind the Citizens for Judicial Probity (CJP) at Jantar Mantar, neither Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge nor former party chief Rahul Gandhi has issued a statement in support—a silence that critics say undermines the party’s self-proclaimed role as a defender of democratic institutions.
The protest, now in its second week, has drawn attention to the Supreme Court’s seven vacancies out of its sanctioned strength of 34 judges, a situation that has contributed to mounting case backlogs and delayed hearings on critical constitutional matters. The CJP, a collective of legal experts and activists, has accused the government of deliberately stalling appointments to weaken judicial independence. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led administration has dismissed these claims, insisting that appointments are being processed in accordance with established procedures.
Despite the Congress’ vocal criticism of the government on other fronts—including the alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the deadly landslide in Wayanad—its leadership has not publicly engaged with the CJP’s demands. Gandhi, who represents Wayanad in Parliament, has been active on social media in recent days, condemning the BJP over the NEET scandal and expressing solidarity with landslide victims, but has made no mention of the judicial protest. This omission has drawn sharp criticism from prominent figures, including education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike in solidarity with the CJP.
“When the very institution that is supposed to uphold the Constitution is being weakened, where are the voices that claim to defend democracy?” Wangchuk asked in a video message posted on Monday. Describing the Congress’ silence as “a display of pettiness,” he questioned whether the party’s commitment to institutional accountability was selective. His remarks have amplified scrutiny of the Congress’ stance, with some analysts suggesting that the party’s absence from the protest reflects a strategic calculation rather than an oversight.
What Happened
The CJP’s protest began on July 10, with retired judges, senior advocates, and activists staging a sit-in at Jantar Mantar, a traditional site for demonstrations in New Delhi. The group’s primary demand is the immediate filling of the seven vacancies in the Supreme Court, which they argue has led to judicial inefficiency and compromised the court’s ability to function as a check on executive power. The protest has gained traction in legal circles, with several prominent lawyers and former judges expressing support.
However, the Congress party, which has historically positioned itself as a guardian of constitutional values, has not issued a public statement in solidarity with the CJP. While party leaders have been vocal on other issues—such as the NEET paper leak, which they allege was mishandled by the government, and the Wayanad landslide, where they have demanded accountability for alleged lapses in disaster preparedness—they have remained conspicuously silent on the judicial appointments issue.
Congress leaders contacted by Herald Express declined to comment on the record about the party’s stance. However, a senior party strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the party’s focus on NEET and Wayanad was a deliberate choice to highlight issues with “immediate electoral resonance.” The strategist added that the party’s legal cell was monitoring the judicial appointments issue but had not yet formulated a public response.
Why It Matters
The Congress’ silence on the CJP protest is significant for several reasons. First, it contrasts sharply with the party’s aggressive posture on other institutional controversies, raising questions about whether its commitment to democratic accountability is selective. The Supreme Court’s vacancies have been a long-standing concern, with legal experts warning that delays in appointments could undermine public trust in the judiciary. By not engaging with the CJP’s demands, the Congress risks being perceived as prioritizing political expediency over principle.
Second, the party’s absence from the protest provides the BJP with an opportunity to portray the opposition as inconsistent in its defense of democratic values. The government has already sought to deflect criticism by emphasizing procedural delays in judicial appointments, though critics argue that the executive’s influence over the collegium system—the body responsible for recommending judges—has contributed to the stalemate.
Third, the Congress’ silence could alienate civil society groups and legal activists who view the Supreme Court’s vacancies as a critical threat to India’s democratic framework. The party has historically relied on support from these constituencies, and its failure to engage with the CJP’s protest may weaken its credibility as a defender of institutional integrity.
Background and Context
The Supreme Court’s vacancies are not a new issue. The collegium system, which was established by a series of Supreme Court judgments in the 1990s, is responsible for recommending judicial appointments. However, the process has often been mired in delays, with the government and the collegium frequently at odds over nominations. In recent years, the BJP-led government has been accused of sitting on collegium recommendations, leading to prolonged vacancies in the higher judiciary.
The current protest by the CJP is the latest in a series of efforts by civil society groups to draw attention to the issue. In 2023, a similar campaign was launched by retired judges and lawyers, who argued that the government’s delays were eroding the judiciary’s independence. The Congress, at the time, had publicly supported the demand for faster appointments, framing it as part of its broader critique of the BJP’s alleged attacks on democratic institutions.
However, the party’s current silence suggests a shift in strategy. With state elections looming in Maharashtra, Haryana, and Jharkhand later this year, the Congress appears to be focusing on issues that resonate more directly with voters, such as education and disaster management. The NEET scandal, in particular, has become a rallying point for the opposition, with the Congress accusing the government of compromising the integrity of medical entrance examinations.
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
The Congress’ silence has led to competing interpretations of its motives. Some analysts argue that the party is deliberately avoiding the judicial appointments issue because it does not want to alienate the government at a time when it is seeking cooperation on other fronts, such as the NEET investigation. Others suggest that the party’s legal cell is still assessing the political implications of engaging with the CJP’s demands and may issue a statement in the coming days.
The BJP, for its part, has sought to downplay the significance of the vacancies, arguing that the government is following due process. Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has stated that the appointments are being processed in accordance with the law and that the government is committed to filling the vacancies as soon as possible. However, critics counter that the government’s control over the collegium system gives it undue influence over judicial appointments, a claim the BJP denies.
There is also uncertainty about how the Supreme Court itself will respond to the protest. While the court has not commented on the CJP’s demands, some legal experts believe that the judiciary may take suo motu cognizance of the issue if the vacancies continue to affect its functioning. However, others argue that the court is unlikely to intervene directly in the appointments process, given its historical reluctance to challenge the executive on this matter.
What to Watch Next
The coming days will be critical in determining whether the Congress will break its silence on the CJP protest. If the party continues to avoid the issue, it may face further criticism from civil society groups and opposition allies who view the Supreme Court’s vacancies as a pressing concern. Conversely, if the Congress issues a statement in support of the CJP’s demands, it could reignite its narrative of defending democratic institutions, potentially bolstering its credibility ahead of the state elections.
Another key development to watch is the government’s response to the protest. If the BJP accelerates the appointment process, it could undermine the CJP’s claims and reduce the political salience of the issue. However, if the vacancies persist, the protest is likely to gain momentum, putting additional pressure on both the government and the opposition.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s handling of the vacancies will be closely scrutinized. If the court takes steps to address the backlog of cases or issues a statement on the appointments process, it could shift the dynamics of the debate. However, given the judiciary’s traditional reluctance to engage in public disputes with the executive, such a move seems unlikely in the near term.
Conclusion
The Congress’ silence on the CJP protest highlights the complex calculations that political parties make when balancing principle and pragmatism. While the party has been vocal on issues like NEET and Wayanad—both of which have clear electoral implications—its decision to stay quiet on the Supreme Court’s vacancies suggests a strategic prioritization of short-term gains over long-term institutional concerns.
For the Congress, the challenge will be to reconcile its role as a defender of democratic values with its need to remain electorally competitive. If it continues to sidestep the judicial appointments issue, it risks ceding ground to the BJP, which has already sought to portray the opposition as inconsistent in its commitment to institutional accountability. However, if the party chooses to engage with the CJP’s demands, it could reinforce its narrative of standing up to the government’s alleged attacks on democracy.
For now, the silence speaks volumes—and the coming days will reveal whether the Congress is willing to break it.
Story synopsis gathered from: [Hindustan Times](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/where-is-rahul-gandhi-congress-cjp-protest-sonam-wangchuk-hunger-strike-jantar-mantar-wayanad-landslide-bjp-101784024819443.html) — source.
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source.
