By Inderjit Badhwar
“Surya” means the sun. A new chief justice of India (CJI) always brings a sense of occasion, but Justice Surya Kant’s elevation feels distinctly consequential. His journey from the modest fields of Petwar in Hisar to the highest judicial office is a story not merely of professional ascent, but of immersion in India’s lived realities. He is, in many ways, a judge forged by the anxieties, aspirations, and contradictions of the country he now serves as the 53rd CJI.
As he takes charge, his early statements signal a chief justice who wishes to steer the judiciary not only with doctrinal clarity, but with grounded sensitivity. His emphasis on a uniform national judicial policy, a strengthened ADR ecosystem, technology-enabled courts, and the evolution of “swadeshi jurisprudence” reflects an expansive imagination—perhaps one of the boldest in recent years.
And yet, if I may speak candidly, vision alone is never the measure. The test lies in implementation, especially in a judicial system that is vast, uneven, and prone to inertia.
Justice Surya Kant inherits a judiciary standing at a defining crossroads. The backlog crisis—over five crore cases—has become a national trauma. Trial courts are overburdened, sessions courts struggle with vacancies, High Courts often pull in contradictory directions, and the Supreme Court itself oscillates between constitutional court and court of daily grievances. At a time when citizens need clarity, consistency, and constitutional protection, the system risks appearing fragmented and fatigued.
Justice Surya Kant’s insistence on judicial coherence touches the heart of the matter. The divergence across courts is not merely academic—it erodes public trust. A person’s liberty, business, or basic rights can depend on geography or the individual judge before whom they appear. His call for a uniform judicial policy, backed by stronger internal mechanisms and a curated repository of binding precedents, is much-needed. But it faces a challenge that is both cultural and administrative: the judicial system’s traditional comfort with autonomy and reluctance towards standardisation. Coherence cannot be imposed; it must be cultivated. This will require sustained collaboration with the collegium, High Courts, and state judicial academies—none of which change direction easily.
There are also deeper structural challenges that the new chief justice must confront with both sensitivity and firmness.
One such challenge lies in the widening gap between courts and citizens. High litigation costs, unfamiliar languages, and procedural complexities have turned courts into intimidating spaces for ordinary Indians. Justice Surya Kant’s commitment to technology and ADR is promising, but the past has shown us that technological reforms often remain urban, English-centric, and inaccessible at the grassroots. The e-Courts Mission cannot merely digitise the old system; it must democratise it. Unless the poorest litigant can navigate court processes in her own language, from her own district, tech reform will remain a slogan.
Another critical challenge is the credibility of judicial independence. Recent years have seen accusations—sometimes fair, sometimes exaggerated—of judicial deference to the executive, inconsistent constitutional scrutiny, and silence on issues demanding institutional courage. The failures are institutional, not personal; they belong to the judiciary as a whole. But Justice Surya Kant as CJI now faces the responsibility—indeed the opportunity—to reverse that perception. He must show that constitutional adjudication need not be loud to be firm, and that independence need not be confrontational to be genuine.
He must also learn from recent judicial missteps:
Long delays in crucial constitutional cases.
Inconsistent approaches to personal liberty.
Lack of transparency in case listing.
Collegium opacity despite repeated commitments to reform.
The widening disconnect between Supreme Court pronouncements and trial court realities.
These are not failures to be defended; they are lessons to be internalised. Legacies are built not by avoiding criticism, but by learning from it.
His swadeshi jurisprudence vision, too, will require nuance. While reclaiming India’s legal heritage is important, there is a thin line between cultivating indigenous thinking and rejecting global wisdom. The judiciary must avoid appearing isolationist or politically aligned. If swadeshi jurisprudence becomes a tool for cultural exclusion or doctrinal insularity, it will weaken rather than strengthen our legal system. Justice Surya Kant must therefore champion a jurisprudence that is proudly Indian, but confidently internationalist—drawing from global best practices without compromising national identity.
And amid all this, perhaps the most profound truth is this: Judges who assert judicial independence in defence of the Constitution do not need “support” from politicians. They need the trust of the people, which is far more enduring and far more potent.
As the Editor of India Legal, I welcome Justice Surya Kant with admiration for his scholarship, respect for his humility, and hope in his reformist instinct. But I also welcome him with a journalist’s skepticism—the kind that believes that institutions are strengthened not by praise, but by accountability.
Justice Surya Kant’s tenure as CJI is short, but legacies are not measured in years—they are measured in direction. If he can set the judiciary on a path of consistency, transparency, accessibility, and Indian-rooted confidence, he will leave behind a mark far greater than the calendar allows.
The challenges before him are immense. But so is the reservoir of faith with which the nation watches its judiciary.
Welcome, Chief Justice. May your tenure be as steady as your ideals and as fearless as the Constitution demands.
The post A Rising Surya appeared first on India Legal.