“Justice, like a harvest, cannot be forced; it must be cultivated with diligence and respect for the natural rhythm of due process.” -CJI Surya Kant
The Indian judiciary is the sentinel of our Constitution and the protector of the people’s rights. It is a solemn institution burdened with the onerous responsibility of dispensing justice impartially, efficiently, and with integrity. On November 24, 2025, Justice Surya Kant took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice of India, stepping into one of the most powerful roles in our democracy.
His appointment heralds hope for judicial reforms, accelerated justice delivery, and restoration of faith in the judiciary. This blog brings together his judicial footprint, the immediate administrative landscape, his views of justice and court’s role, the goals he seems to be signalling, and a few original angles for thinking about what his tenure could mean for the jurisprudence of India and institutional design.
Why does his tenure matters?
Justice Surya Kant’s tenure as 53rd CJI is expected to last approximately for 1 year 2 months, i.e. till February 2027.[1]
Justice Surya Kant’s tenure matters because it arrives at a moment when the Supreme Court is confronted with complex constitutional disputes, rising public scrutiny, and urgent administrative challenges. He holds a broader vision to tackle the mammoth backlog in the apex court. On the very first day of his tenure as the CJI, he marked a decisive and reform-oriented approach, immediately signalling his commitment towards judicial efficiency.
On November 24, 2025, he did away with the practice of “same-day mentioning” of the cases, requiring henceforth that all mentioning must be in writing. He told to the bar-
“I had said it sitting in Court No. 2 that unless someone’s liberty is involved or a death sentence is to be executed, I will never allow listing of a case on the same day. This practice has to be discouraged,”[2]
This step will help to reduce the misuse of oral mentions that fill the court listing with petitions without adequate merit and issues of relatively low importance, taking court’s invaluable time. On the same day, a bench led by Justice Kant heard 17 cases in two hours,[3] showing his hands-on leadership style which prioritize substantive judicial work over procedural delays.
Key Verdicts and the Principles Shaping His Jurisprudence
Justice Surya Kant participation in series of landmark cases marks his judicial legacy which played a crucial role in shaping India’s constitutional landscape. His approach reflects his philosophy he once said- “Justice is not locked away in legal commentaries or textbooks; it is a sleeping force which judges must breathe life into and awaken.” This is reflected in many judgements, some of them being-
Article 370 abrogation case[4]
He has been part of benches that dealt with highly sensitive federal questions, including the litigation circling Article 370. While the court’s rulings on the abrogation and its legal ramifications involved several judges and complex constitutional argumentation, Justice Surya Kant’s participation in those benches marked him as a jurist familiar with areas at the core of centre-state federal architecture and special status provisions-areas which demand technical constitutional parsing as well as sensitivity to political consequences.
Section 124A sedition case[5]
As part of a three-judge bench, Justice Surya Kant delivered a landmark order effectively placing the colonial sedition law in abeyance. The interventionunderscored the necessity of constitutional scrutiny, balancing state authority with safeguarding freedom of speech and personal liberty. His approach reflects the evolving legal standards moving beyond the colonial legacy towards values of democratic society. The contribution exemplifies court’s role as constitutional guardian, ensuring penal statues remains consonant with aspiration of democratic governance.
Pegasus Spyware case[6]
Justice Surya Kant significantly contributed in strengthening judicial accountability through his judgements including the Pegasus spyware litigation. The decision upholds constitutional stability by insisting on transparent, independent expert led inquiry upon unverified government assurance. The intervention reinforced fundamental guarantees of privacy and press freedom with broader interpretation of state accountability in constritutional democracy.
In Re: Section 6A of Citizenship Act 1955[7]
Justice Surya Kant made a significant contribution to constitutional jurisprudence through interpretation of fraternity as foundational constitutional value representing engagement with preamble’s normative commitment by upholding the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. This approach is reflection of citizenship as a matter of legislative and constitutional determination than a communal preference. The judgement underscores fraternityoperation as an affirmative obligation to embrace diversity[8].
Justice Surya Kant has emerged as a transformative figure in shaping the contemporary constitutional landscape of India through his nuanced and progressive judgments. His judicial trajectory reflects a commitment to constitutional morality across diverse areas of law, including institutional minority status determinations, judicial review of executive actions, and expanding participatory rights of victims in criminal proceedings.
His jurisprudential contributions demonstrate scholarly rigor and doctrinal consistency through dissenting opinion in the Aligarh Muslim University reservation case; Justice Kant undertook a comprehensive examination of precedential frameworks.
Justice Surya Kant’s career signals a forward-looking vision characterized by legal realism blended with constitutional fidelity. He has consistently emphasized the judiciary’s duty to uphold justice beyond procedural technicalities in favour of justice underscores his vision of courts as custodians of both individual liberties and democratic integrity.
Public Remarks that reveal his vision
As CJI, Justice Surya Kant has made several remarks to the notional media in public that reflects his views of justice. His remarks in public appearances helps us to understand his priorities.
“Need to strengthen free speech” balanced by responsibility.[9]
In various public statements, CJI Surya Kant has highlighted that free speech is a fundamental right to be strengthened and also that public discourse needs accountability, accuracy, and respect. What this portends is a jurisprudential posture protective of liberties, yet alert to systemic harms in the form of misinformation or concentrated online abuse.
Judiciary isn’t a popularity context.[10]
In interviews with broadcast media, he has made a point of emphasizing that judges cannot, and should not, seek popularity; they have to be detached and fearless in the application of the law. That is a message plainly directed to two audiences: collegial peers who may face social or political pressure, and a digitally loud public that sometimes treats judicial decisions like products to be liked or disliked on social media.
Justice Surya Kant’s other public statements also potray a Chief Justice who is conservative about judiciary’s image. His statements offer a clear window to understand his values guiding his tenure. He says that judiciary must be independent, dignified, and untouched by the pressures of popularity and that courts are guided by constitutional principles, not public sentiment.
Equally, he speaks on strengthening free speech while urging responsibility in public discourse, marking accuracy and restraint in an age of rapid misinformation. His remarks also reflect impatience with bureaucratic opacity, calling for greater transparency, timely action, and accountability from institutions whose decisions shape democratic life. These statements together portray a Chief Justice committed to striking a balance between liberty and responsibility and between institutional power and public trust.
“Justice must touch gently-A law that cannot feel, cannot heal.”[11]– His philosophy of Law
Justice Surya Kant has advanced a unique judicial philosophy-moral empathy, social context, and indigenous legal thinking. As he often says, “A law that cannot feel cannot heal,” which captures his jurisprudence that the law must be sensitive both to human suffering and to social realities, rather than being an abstract exercise in textual interpretation.
This philosophy is integrally linked to his argument for “Swadeshi jurisprudence.” Justice Kant, in his recent press interaction, asked why India, after 75 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, needed to lean heavily on judgments from other countries.
He advocated for the preparation of indigenous Indian legal principles that are rooted in the country’s constitutional values, social realities, and cultural context. As such, it does not really mean a complete rejection of comparative law but rather primacy of indigenous legal reasoning and selectiveness regarding when and how foreign precedents apply.
This approach chimes with the larger movement among postcolonial judiciaries to decolonize legal thinking and develop jurisprudence that reflects local values and priorities. In India, given the unique constitutional commitments towards social justice, secularism, and affirmative action, this means applying constitutional provisions in a manner that furthers substantive equality rather than mere formal equality.
Justice Kant has also spoken about balancing judicial activism with institutional restraint. He thus warned that “judicial overreach risks unsettling the balance of power between government branches.” This position is nuanced and recognizes that while the courts must protect constitutional values and individual rights, it must also respect the legitimate domain of the legislature and executive when the latter decides policy and resource allocation.
Priorities and his Vision as CJI
Stepping as CJI, Justice Surya Kant faces a mammoth task of addressing India’s huge backlog cases. This backlog has contributed to delaying of justice which risks denying justices in itself. Justice Kant has prioritized clearing of this backlog to provide justice to everyone. His plans to make judiciary more effective and taking an approach that makes law gentler. He also encourages alternate dispute resolution mechanisms as viable complements to litigation.
Another major goal that he sees is to restore the faith of citizens of the country in the lower courts. This pillar of his vision is necessary as due to this lack in faith, litigants often bypass high courts and approach the Supreme court. He promises to identify and cure systemic inefficiencies and judicial delays at the grassroots level. This holistic approach recognizes that a strong judiciary is built bottom up.
Thus, as Justice Surya Kant takes over the role of the 53rd Chief Justice of India, the judiciary is all set for far-reaching change. His decisive first-day reforms and deep commitment to efficiency, inclusion, and constitutional values demonstrate that his leadership will not just steer the apex court through its caseload but will shape the very ethos of justice delivery.
With experience drawn from landmark rulings and a forward-looking vision, Justice Kant’s stewardship offers hope that the Supreme Court will not just keep pace with contemporary challenges, but set new standards for fairness and judicial integrity.
[1]TheHindu,’Kant sworn in as the 53rd CJI; all eyes on pendencies, SIR case’ (24 November 2025),https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/justice-surya-kant-sworn-in-as-53rd-chief-justice-of-india/article70316338.ece (last accessed date 26 November 2025).
[2] HindustanTimes, ‘On Day 1, CJI Kant Cancels Same-Day Mention Practice’ (25 November 2025),https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/on-day-1-cji-kant-cancels-same-day-mention-practice(last accessed date 26 November 2025).
[3]Business Standard, ‘CJI Kant says no to oral mentioning of cases, hears 17 cases on first day’ (24 November 2025), https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/cji-kant-says-no-to-oral-mentioning-of-cases-hears-17-cases-on-first-day-125112400769_1 (last accessed 26 November 2025).
[4]Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1.
[5] S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 433.
[6]Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 401.
[7] In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 Writ Petition (C) No 274 of 2009.
[8]In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, Writ Petition (C) No 274 of 2009, Supreme Court of India, (17 Octoberr2024), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/16113/16113_2009_1_1501_56604_Judgement_17-Oct-2024.pdf (last accessed 26 November 2025).
[9]Timesof India, ‘Need to strengthen free speech: CJI Surya Kant'(24 Novemberr2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/need-to-strengthen-free-speech-cji-surya-kant/articleshow/125551207 (last accessed 26 November 2025).
[10]NDTV, “‘Judiciary Isn’t A Popularity Contest’: Justice Surya Kant On Criticism & Trolls” (25 November 2025), https://www.ndtv.com/video/judiciary-isn-t-a-popularity-contest-justice-surya-kant-on-criticism-trolls-1026213 (last accessed 26 November 2025).
[11]The Tribune, ‘Justice must touch gentlyfor law that cannot feel, cannot heal: Justice Surya Kant’ (23Novemberr2025), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/justice-must-touch-gently-for-law-that-cannot-feel-cannot-heal-justice-kant/ ( last accessed 26 November 2025).
Author Name- Mahee Chourasia
Second Year, BA LLB
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
Email: mahee24bal053@gnlu.ac.in
Phone: 9131639219
Mahima Prasad
Second Year, BA LLB
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
Email: mahima24bal054@gnlu.ac.in
Phone: 6261306493
