BJP leaders highlighted the ceremony – held at the residence of the President – as a significant constitutional event attended by key dignitaries including the President, the Prime Minister and the Vice-President. They argued the role of Leader of the Opposition carries an expectation of participation in landmark constitutional proceedings. A BJP spokesperson said that skipping this occasion raised questions about Gandhi’s commitment to democratic institutions and procedures.
Advancing their critique, the party linked the absence to broader concerns over the Congress party’s approach to governance and constitutional observance. They cited earlier instances of non-attendance at other such ceremonies as indicators of a pattern. One BJP official remarked that when constitutional ritual loses priority, democratic conventions start eroding. Another commented that Gandhi “remains busy with jungle safaris, parties and foreign tours” instead of fulfilling the responsibilities of his post.
For his part, Rahul Gandhi has not issued a detailed public explanation for missing the event, beyond standard commitments elsewhere. Congress spokespersons have defended his priorities as dictated by political obligations and constituency demands. They have rejected accusations of disrespect, asserting that absence does not equate to disdain for constitutional principles. They emphasise the Leader of the Opposition role inherently involves multiple demands and engagements beyond ceremonial functions.
Legal scholars and institutional observers view the incident as more than a simple scheduling choice. They note the symbolic weight of such high-profile rituals in reinforcing separation of powers and signalling respect for judiciary independence. One constitutional law expert commented that while non-attendance does not breach any formal rule, it can provoke perceptions about the office-holder’s stance on core state institutions.
The timing of the criticism is notable. It coincides with wider political manoeuvring ahead of major electoral contests. Analysts believe the BJP is leveraging this moment to reinforce narratives of constitutional stewardship, contrasting it with opposition parties perceived as lax. Conversely, some Congress insiders view the response as a tactical escalation intended to deepen partisan divisions rather than foster institutional dialogue.
Amid this backdrop, the journey of Justice Surya Kant to the apex judiciary also carries significance. His appointment was completed in seven days after the central government submitted formalities, a notably compressed timeline compared with past practice. He takes office with a rich background spanning both jurisdictional and regulatory domains, and his early decisions will be under close review for signals about the Court’s direction.