Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Surya Kant has noticed that after greater than seven a long time of uninterrupted constitutional adjudication, it was each logical and institutionally needed for the Supreme Court docket to more and more depend on an indigenous judicial philosophy relatively than borrowing doctrines from international authorized methods.
Justice Kant, who will take workplace because the 53rd Chief Justice of India on Monday, mentioned throughout a media interplay that the Apex Court docket has now developed a self-sustaining corpus of constitutional precedent that ought to type the dominant basis for future jurisprudential evolution.
The Supreme Court docket has delivered 1000’s of authoritative judgments since 1950 on each main space of constitutional regulation—from separation of powers, federalism, and basic rights to administrative regulation, due course of, environmental governance, and electoral regulation. These selections had been incessantly cited by courts in different jurisdictions, confirming that Indian constitutional thought had come of age and possessed its personal mature authorized vocabulary, he famous.
The CJI-designate additional mentioned that after 75 years of constitutional functioning, when the Indian verdicts had been being relied on internationally and when the nation’s judiciary had developed a considerable wealth of authorized doctrine tailor-made to Indian situations, why ought to it proceed to rely upon international jurisprudence formulated in opposition to completely completely different socio-political and historic contexts.
He defined that colonial-era frameworks—starting from courtroom procedures to legislative structure—had been meant to serve a governance mannequin basically completely different from a democratic and republican constitutional order. Thus, judicial reasoning should more and more be grounded in Indian realities, constitutional morality, and lived social situations.
He emphasised that indigenising Indian jurisprudence doesn’t suggest shutting out comparative studying. Somewhat, the aim is to make sure that international authorized sources complement Indian constitutional philosophy solely the place contextually acceptable. Justice Kant identified that international locations throughout Asia and Africa typically look to Indian doctrine as a reference level, and authorized cooperation—together with judicial coaching, institutional strengthening, and cross-jurisdictional educational engagement—continues to develop. He cited current discussions in Kenya concerning the event of judicial academies impressed by India’s mannequin.
Turning to institutional priorities, Justice Kant said that the fast problem going through the Supreme Court docket stays judicial arrears. Practically 90,000 issues are presently pending earlier than the Court docket, lots of that are held in abeyance as a result of the authorized points concerned require consideration by Structure Benches of seven or 9 judges. He indicated that constituting these bigger benches and delivering long-pending constitutional rulings would unlock 1000’s of issues in Excessive Courts and trial courts which can be awaiting authoritative rulings on questions of regulation.
Citing a current judgment he authored with Justice Dipankar Datta, which resulted within the disposal of roughly 1,000 related issues, Justice Kant remarked that focused and structured judicial interventions can considerably enhance docket administration if utilized constantly. Whereas acknowledging that pendency can by no means realistically attain zero in a jurisdiction the place filings are steady and increasing, he harassed that systemic backlog have to be maintained at a degree the place the Court docket doesn’t really feel overwhelmed by its personal administrative burden.
Justice Kant additionally addressed public curiosity litigation, clarifying that the Apex Court docket adjudicated issues based mostly on constitutional significance, public impression, and the problems raised—not the seniority or stature of counsel. He mentioned issues affecting rights, governance, nationwide implications or all-India penalties would at all times obtain judicial consideration, no matter who appeared.
On the query of judicial independence and public commentary, Justice Kant underlined that the workplace of the Chief Justice should stay insulated from repercussions of media narratives, together with commentary on social media. Courts had been required to talk solely by their judgments, and judges should preserve institutional energy by refusing to be drawn into public discourse. Accountability additionally lies in adjudicatory reasoning grounded in established authorized rules relatively than exterior response, added the CJI-designate.
In issues regarding taxation, Justice Kant famous that the Union Authorities has adopted a practical and policy-driven method, together with by board circulars discouraging litigation on modest income stakes. A structured mechanism may forestall avoidable consumption of judicial time in issues that didn’t require extended contestation.
Justice Kant’s elevation comes after participation in a number of important constitutional circumstances, together with these in regards to the abrogation of Article 370, the Pegasus surveillance matter, electoral roll revisions, and different landmark public regulation selections. His name for a distinctly Indian jurisprudential id marks a big philosophical shift in India’s constitutional journey—one which seeks to harmonise native authorized tradition, up to date governance challenges, and the accrued doctrinal authority of the Supreme Court docket.
![[CFP] The Legacy of the Big Bang EU Enlargement: Lessons Learned and Future Perspectives](https://i2.wp.com/assets.pubpub.org/dszqce38/favicon-61724872708457-01724931428186.png?w=350&resize=350,250&ssl=1)
