Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has emphasized that the boundary separating justice from injustice is not defined merely by the final judgment in a case, but hinges critically on whether the judiciary intervenes when a citizen needs it most. Addressing the platinum jubilee celebrations of the Kerala High Court, he observed that if an institution fails to step in at the right moment, even a favorable verdict delivered after prolonged delay loses its practical purpose and meaning for the litigant.
Looking Beyond a Delhi-Centric Constitutional Architecture
Rejecting an exclusively Delhi-centric view of the judicial apparatus, CJI Surya Kant stated that constitutional adjudication in India neither originates nor concludes solely within the Supreme Court in New Delhi. He pointed out that the true foundation of Indian democracy and the rule of law rests upon the network of 25 High Courts operating across the country. These courts act as the initial shield defending the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens on a daily basis. High courts remain in a superior position to address citizens' grievances because they interact directly with everyday realities and local conditions.
The Expansive Constitutional Power of Article 226
Underlining the specific constitutional mechanisms available to citizens, the Chief Justice highlighted the sweeping significance of Article 226. While Article 32 guarantees access directly to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 grants high courts the power to issue directions and writs not only for fundamental rights but also for any legal, statutory, administrative, or contractual disputes. This broad jurisdiction equips high courts to provide meaningful redress across a diverse spectrum of conflicts, particularly through their crucial power to grant timely interim protection before irreversible harm occurs.
The Trend of Seeking Urgent Hearings and Roster Reforms
CJI Surya Kant also drew attention to an emerging trend where litigants increasingly approach the Supreme Court merely to seek directions for urgent or expedited hearings of cases pending before high courts. He noted that the Supreme Court has consistently respected the institutional autonomy of high courts, including their constitutional prerogative to regulate their own roosters. Nevertheless, the rising volume of such requests underscores the need for self-reflection regarding the responsiveness and predictability of existing administrative mechanisms.
Harnessing Technology for Predictable Case Listing
Posing several key questions to the legal community, the Chief Justice asked whether institutional processes could better identify cases requiring immediate intervention. He stressed the importance of making the listing of cases more transparent and predictable for litigants. He further suggested that modern technology should be leveraged to prioritize matters where unaddressed delays could cause irreparable damage. He concluded by affirming that raising these concerns was not aimed at criticizing any institution, but rather at fulfilling a shared constitutional responsibility to make justice timely and accessible.
