NEW DELHI: A court that protects the rights only of those who can litigate is not performing its constitutional function, it is merely performing them, said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The ICJ also said that the judiciary must not only be a guardian of rights, but “must be sufficiently accessible for this guardianship to be genuine.”
Justice Kant, who visited Queen Mary University of London on Friday to participate in an event organized by the Center for Commercial Law, held a wide-ranging discussion and was asked by students a variety of questions on issues including the judiciary, access to justice and the future of the legal profession.
In response to a question about the role of the judiciary in maintaining public confidence in a constitutional democracy, Justice Kant said that public confidence is not simply given to an institution, but is earned, on an ongoing basis, through transparency, consistency and the courage to self-correct.
He said, “I explicitly said that judicial power does not come from the appearance of infallibility. Institutions become stronger when they remain open to learning and correction.”
The CJI said in a constitutional democracy, the judiciary is the last line of accountability, but it itself must be accountable to the Constitution and the people it serves.
“This is why I pushed for a uniform national judicial policy, because predictability and coherence ultimately generate trust. When courts speak with one voice on fundamental issues, citizens can plan their lives under the law. This is what the rule of law actually requires,” he said.
In response to a question about the most important role of the judiciary in a modern democracy, Justice Kant said that the first duty of the judiciary is to ensure that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are not mere words on a parchment, but living guarantees that uphold the freedom of every citizen.
He said that the judiciary is entrusted with the sacred responsibility of guaranteeing the rights of people, especially the marginalized and the voiceless, against any violations or infringements.
He added: “But I would like to add something that is often overlooked, and has been on my personal agenda since day one, which is that the judiciary must not only be the guardian of rights, but must be accessible enough for this guardianship to be real. A court that protects the rights only of those who can afford litigation is not performing its constitutional function. It is only performing it.”
Responding to a query on how technology will change the future of courts and access to justice, the CJI said one of the most important contributions of technology has been in expanding access to justice.
“Ultimately, I envision a future in which technology acts as an enabler of justice, making courts more accessible, procedures more efficient and institutions more transparent while preserving the basic human values that underpin the rule of law,” he said.
Justice Kant said the challenge facing the judiciary is to embrace innovation without losing sight of the constitutional obligation to fairness, accessibility and equal justice for all.
In response to a question about what justice means to him personally, he said that it is indeed a deep question and there can be no single or final answer to it.
“What is justice? Is retribution the principle of an eye for an eye? Is it the mechanical application of legal rules exactly as they appear in the statute books? Or is it something more subtle, closer to the wisdom often associated with the rule of King Solomon, where the law is applied with an understanding of human realities?” He said.
In his view, justice lies somewhere between these two extremes, the CJI said.
“The judge must remain anchored in the law, while exercising the degree of discretion allowed by the law,” he said.
Judge Kant said that the challenge lies in achieving the right balance between consistency and flexibility, between principle and pragmatism, between objectivity and the humanitarian considerations that every case inevitably raises.
“For me, this is the essence of justice. It is the ability to walk the fine line between objectivity and subjectivity,” he said.
The CJI also answered a question on the challenges society poses to the legal system today.
“There are many of them, but I will mention the three that I consider to be the most important in our time. The first, and this applies to the Indian subcontinent in particular, is the crisis of scale,” he said, adding that the second challenge is speed in confronting allegations of justice.
He added: “There is enormous pressure on legal systems to achieve quick results, and this pressure is not always wrong, because justice delayed is justice denied. But speed that sacrifices careful thinking leads to its harms, and this trade-off must be dealt with honestly.”
Technology is reshaping how disputes arise, how evidence is created, and how courts should function, the CJI said.
He said seeing litigants leave the courtroom with a genuine feeling that they were heard and that justice was done is the most rewarding aspect of being a judge for him.
India’s jurisprudence has evolved significantly since independence, and while the country has retained many strengths of its common law system, “we have also developed a distinctly Indian constitutional and legal identity,” the CJI said.
“Increasingly, our courts have sought to interpret and apply legal principles in a way that reflects India’s unique social realities, cultural diversity and constitutional aspirations, which we refer to as Swadeshi jurisprudence,” he said.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
