CJI Kant Highlights Inequities in Global Legal Frameworks: A Call for True Equality

At the 14th St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant delivered a profound critique of the current international legal order. Addressing delegates under the theme " Equal Justice , Equal Law : Access as the Measure of International Law's Humanity," CJI Kant argued that the international community has failed to ensure egalitarian application of legal standards, often allowing international law to prioritize the interests of the powerful over the principles of fairness.

The Chief Justice’s address, which drew on both ancient philosophical traditions and modern constitutional realities, served as a stern reminder that the foundation of any legitimate legal order is equality—not as a ceremonial ideal, but as the "grammar of legality."

The Historical Foundations: Beyond the Magna Carta

In a departure from conventional Eurocentric legal histories, CJI Kant invited the attendees to look toward the 4th-century Indian text, Arthashastra . He challenged the popular narrative that credits exclusively the 1215 Magna Carta with the genesis of equality before the law.

CJI Kant argued that Kautilya’s treatise established a foundational compact: a ruler who considers himself above the law ceases to be a ruler, whether morally or in reality. By tracing these concepts to ancient Indian statecraft, as well as drawing parallels to the Roman lex regia and the Islamic tradition of shari’a , the Chief Justice emphasized that the foundational requirement for legal legitimacy—that the law must apply equally to all—is a universal human endeavor rather than a privilege dispensed by the West.

The Problem of Unequal Scrutiny

A significant portion of the address was dedicated to the geopolitical imbalances plaguing contemporary international legal systems. CJI Kant highlighted the precarious position of nations in the Global East and South. Many of these states are currently engaged in a double struggle: building robust administrative institutions while simultaneously grappling with the lingering repercussions of colonialism and deep-seated systemic poverty.

According to the CJI, these nations are often subjected to a weight of international scrutiny, sanctions, and pressure that is rarely applied to wealthier, more influential states. He asserted that the compliance records of powerful nations are far from "irreproachable," yet they often operate outside the same rigor of enforcement applied to developing countries.

"The fact that the question must still be posed—whether international law is a privilege of the few or a law among equals—is, in my opinion, an indictment in itself," the Chief Justice stated. He suggested that if international legal instruments continue to be used as tools of pressure rather than conduits for equity, they will lose their moral authority and their practical utility.

Indian Judicial Experience: Access as the First Step

To demonstrate how these abstract principles can be realized in practice, CJI Kant turned to the experience of the judiciary in India. He described the Indian constitutional courts as having moved beyond the "technical convenience" of legal procedure.

Under the umbrella of the Supreme Court of India, the judiciary has proactively removed barriers to access. By relaxing traditional rules regarding standing, entertaining letters as Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and prioritizing legal aid, Indian courts have attempted to ensure that the law is not a gated community for the elite.

The Chief Justice underscored a vital lesson from India’s experience: "the Indian Constitutional Courts have interpreted and provided a broad and expansive interpretation of constitutional guarantees in order to eliminate all such barriers. This approach ensures that access to law and justice is not just a technical convenience but a non-discriminatory founding principle of governance."

For practitioners, this serves as a model for how courts can act as the final frontier against social, economic, and geographical disparities. By treating procedure as a "servant of justice" rather than its "master," the court maintains its credibility as a defender of the common citizen.

The "Organized Will of the Stronger Party"

The core tension in the Chief Justice’s speech lay in his stark warning: if equality is removed from the equation of law, what remains is merely the "organized will of the stronger party." This phrase captures the existential threat to international law today—that it is seen increasingly as a mechanism for institutionalizing power dynamics rather than curbing them through neutral legal principles.

The Chief Justice argued that international proclamations, declarations, and treaties—such as those centered on the rights of women, children, and economic rights—cannot sustain themselves on moral ambition alone. Unless they are anchored in the twin foundations of equal justice and equal law, they become "hollow statutory declarations."

Implications for Legal Practice and Global Governance

The implications for legal professionals and policymakers are significant. The CJI’s message calls for a paradigm shift in how we engage with international human rights instruments and multilateral platforms. Practitioners in the field of international law must advocate for a model that transcends:

  1. Procedural Formalism: Moving away from a strict adherence to forms of law that ignore the substantive inability of parties to seek actual remedies.
  2. Geopolitical Double Standards: Demanding accountability for all nations—not just those on the margins of economic power—thereby restoring the perceived fairness of international institutions.
  3. Institutional Humility: Adopting the understanding that equality is not a gift from those in power, but the essential condition that justifies the existence of law itself.

Conclusion: Keeping the Foundation Solid

Drawing the debate to a close, CJI Kant returned to his opening metaphor: the Thunder Stone used to support the Bronze Horseman in St. Petersburg. Just as the stone supports the massive structure above it, equal justice and equality before the law act as the base upon which the entire legal edifice rests.

If this base is allowed to crumble, the structure of international legal order cannot stand. It is, according to the Chief Justice, the burden of every jurist and every institution to ensure that this foundation holds firm. The message was clear: for international law to call itself "law," it must treat the sovereign state and the individual with the same level of integrity, regardless of their economic or political clout.

As we move forward in an increasingly polarized legal landscape, the Chief Justice’s address serves as a clarion call to restore the "humanity" in international law by returning to its most fundamental premise: that the rule of law is only as strong as its commitment to equal application for all.