Justice Surya Kant says the Collegium system, though imperfect, is vital to protecting judicial independence and limiting executive interference. He also calls for transparency and moral clarity in judicial and technological decisions.
In a powerful address at Seattle University, Supreme Court Judge Justice Surya Kant strongly defended the Collegium system of appointing judges in India. He acknowledged that although the system is not perfect, it still plays a very important role in protecting the independence of the judiciary.
Speaking on the topic
‘The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders’, Justice Kant highlighted how the Collegium system limits interference by the executive and legislature.
ALSO READ: New Supreme Court Collegium Announced After Justice Gavai Becomes CJI
Justice Kant said,
“Despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard… preserving the Judiciary’s autonomy.” He explained further, “[The Collegium system] significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary’s autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.”
He also acknowledged the criticisms of the Collegium system, especially the lack of transparency and clearly defined criteria for appointments.
However, he noted that the Supreme Court is now taking steps to improve public confidence in the system.
“[The system] has been subject to sustained criticism— particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in [it],” he stated.
Justice Kant then discussed the broader role of courts in Indian democracy, questioning the boundaries of judicial power.
He reflected,
“Yet they also invite questions: How far can courts go in shaping policy?” and added, “Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?”
He answered this himself, saying,
“The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it.”
Acknowledging that the judiciary has been criticised for crossing the line between judicial activism and overreach, Justice Kant said the judiciary is now showing more restraint.
he said,
“The judiciary has not remained impervious to [this] criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach,”
He added,
“In recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.”
He also spoke about the judiciary’s role in India’s democratic development.
he said,
“The Indian judiciary… has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy’s moral spine,”
calling it
“the sentinel of constitutional morality.”
Justice Kant reminded the audience of how the judiciary faced challenges to its independence during the Emergency period in India.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 4 Madras High Court Judges for Permanent Appointment
He said,
“The Indian judiciary, too,… traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness…”
He explained that it is not only the fact that Indian courts are independent that makes them special, but how they use that independence.
“The judiciary’s evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India’s vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.”
Talking about the values that define a constitutional democracy, he stated,
“Constitutional democracy is… a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,” and added that “in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.”
Justice Kant stressed on the role of the judiciary in India’s complex democracy:
“In a democracy as vast and diverse as India’s, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.”
He beautifully described the moral responsibility of the judiciary by saying,
“Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.”
Earlier, on June 3, 2025, during his visit to the Washington State Supreme Court Temple of Justice in Olympia, Justice Kant spoke about the Indian Supreme Court’s role in protecting the right to free speech.
He remarked,
“Pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression…” and added, “These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.”
Drawing similarities between the Indian and American judicial systems, he stated,
“In both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold… Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.”
On June 6, 2025, while participating in a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation Headquarters, Justice Kant also talked about the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial functions.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Orders Major Reshuffle, Transfers 21 High Court Judges
He said,
“I am firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.”
He warned that technology should not widen inequalities in society.
“Technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,” he said, and concluded, “Technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity” and “must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.”
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Collegium
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
