Back
CJI Surya Kant: Judiciary Cannot Be Beyond Scrutiny, Criticism Needed for Accountability
In a landmark address that resonates deeply with the legal community, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declared that the judiciary must remain open to scrutiny and constructive criticism to sustain . Speaking at the sixth Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, the CJI articulated a vision of that goes beyond mere procedural openness, urging the institution to embrace accountability as a continuous, self-reinforcing process.
The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time when the judiciary’s relationship with public perception is under intense discussion. With the theme “: Transparency and as Pillars of the Legal System,” the lecture underscored that the judiciary’s authority rests not on coercive power but on the trust of the people. “ is not decoration. It is, in fact, the only currency that authority is ever paid in, the only coin the judiciary has ever truly had,” CJI Kant observed, framing trust as both the foundation and the endpoint of .
A Call for Institutional Openness
CJI Kant did not mince words when addressing the need for . “The judiciary as an institution is not and cannot be above scrutiny. of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to and ,” he said. This statement marks a significant reaffirmation of the principle that no branch of government, including the judiciary, is immune to examination.
The Chief Justice cautioned against any attempt to shield the courts from criticism. “It lies at the heart of transparency itself. For a court cannot seek the confidence of the public by placing itself beyond scrutiny. It must remain willing to be examined, questioned and, where necessary, criticised,” he added. The message was clear: transparency is not a passive attribute but an active commitment to being answerable.
Trust Earned, Not Given
One of the most compelling aspects of the address was the distinction CJI Kant drew between public approval and . He argued that courts do not earn trust by simply delivering popular outcomes. Instead, trust is built when even those who lose a case walk away believing that the process was fair. “A court does not earn trust by being liked, or by handing out the outcomes people wanted. It earns trust when the people who lost, who wanted an entirely different result, still walk away believing that the process which decided against them was a fair one. That is a far harder thing to earn than approval, and far more valuable,” he said.
This nuanced understanding challenges the tendency to equate judicial popularity with institutional health. The CJI stressed that trust must be renewed continuously through the ordinary, everyday functioning of courts, case by case. “That trust is not something any institution can earn once and then, simply rely on forever. It has to be renewed continuously, and it is shaped far more by the accumulated, ordinary experience people have of a system, case after case, than by any single moment or judgment,” he noted.
Transparency in Reasoning
CJI Kant also delved into the meaning of transparency in the context of judicial decisions. He argued that transparency is not merely about open courtrooms or public hearings. It requires that the reasoning behind a decision be accessible to anyone who cares to examine it. “A court that announces its verdicts but keeps its reasoning to itself has not really been transparent, whatever else it may have done,” the Chief Justice asserted.
This observation is particularly relevant in an era where judgments are often delivered in summary form or with delayed detailed reasoning. The CJI’s insistence on as a cornerstone of transparency reinforces the principle that the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on the quality of its justification, not just the outcome.
The Textbook Episode: A Case in Point
In a pointed reference to recent events, CJI Kant invoked the ’s intervention in the Class 8 textbook row. The court had earlier taken of a passage that referred to ‘’, initially ordering the textbook’s withdrawal and making strong remarks about the depiction. However, the court later closed the proceedings after the chapter was revised and recalled its harsher findings against individual academicians.
The Chief Justice used this episode as an “occasion to consider the relationship between and in the institution.” He quoted from the court’s own order, which stated that “the judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism.” The episode illustrated the delicate balance between protecting and allowing space for critique. By ultimately withdrawing the strong language and closing the matter, the court demonstrated a capacity for —a quality CJI Kant argued is essential for maintaining trust.
Implications for the Legal System
The address carries profound implications for legal practitioners, judges, and policymakers. The CJI’s call for continuous reform challenges the judiciary to avoid complacency. “We, without any hesitation, acknowledge that reform must be the rule. No institution can survive and feel proud to be static,” he said. This statement signals a willingness to revisit long-standing practices, including the relationship between the and the executive. The Chief Justice noted that there is no major barrier to dialogue between these branches, suggesting that reforms are possible within the existing system.
At the same time, CJI Kant acknowledged that not all issues are suitable for public debate. He cautioned that there are certain institutional and administrative matters that may not be appropriate to address from a public platform. This pragmatic recognition balances the ideal of transparency with the realities of judicial administration.
The Currency of Trust
Perhaps the most memorable metaphor of the lecture was the Chief Justice’s description of as the judiciary’s only currency. Unlike the legislature or the executive, the judiciary controls neither the purse nor the sword. Its authority rests entirely on the belief of the people that justice will be done fairly. As CJI Kant put it, “That trust is not something an institution can earn once and then simply rely on forever. It has to be renewed continuously.”
For legal professionals, this message underscores the importance of not only the substance of judicial decisions but also the manner in which they are delivered and communicated. Every interaction with the justice system—from the smallest case to the most high-profile judgment—contributes to the reservoir of .
Conclusion
CJI Surya Kant’s address at the Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture was a masterclass in judicial philosophy, blending candour with a deep understanding of constitutional democracy. By insisting that the judiciary must remain open to scrutiny and criticism, he has set a benchmark for institutional behaviour that resonates far beyond the courtroom. The lecture serves as a reminder that transparency and are not abstract ideals but the very pillars on which the edifice of justice rests. As the legal community digests these remarks, the challenge will be to translate the Chief Justice’s vision into everyday practice—ensuring that the judiciary not only does justice but is seen to be doing so, in every case, every day.
