Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that judicial appointments under the Collegium system will strongly prioritise merit, integrity, experience, and the right judicial temperament. He emphasised balanced transparency in the appointment process while safeguarding institutional integrity.
The newly appointed Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, has laid out a clear and people-focused roadmap for his 15-month tenure that began on November 24.
In an in-depth interview with Ananthakrishnan G, the CJI spoke at length about judicial reforms, pendency of cases, transparency in appointments, judicial independence, social media criticism, and some of the most challenging cases he has handled during his long judicial career.
His responses reflect a strong commitment to constitutional values, access to justice, and institutional integrity.
Reflecting on his more than 14 years at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Surya Kant recalled his close involvement with cases related to the drug menace in Punjab. He explained that the issue was extremely serious and deeply rooted.
“I was assigned that matter around 2015, when I was among the senior judges in the High Court. And until I was transferred as Chief Justice to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, I made it a point to list it regularly, at least once a month, so that we could continuously monitor the issue and work toward improving the situation.”
According to him, the case required continuous judicial supervision rather than one-time directions.
He candidly described the experience as demanding and emotionally taxing.
“If I may say, candidly, this was a true test of patience and, quite frankly, a labour of love in many ways.”
He emphasised that the problem could not be solved through a single order.
“It wasn’t the kind of case that could be resolved through one sweeping order or by issuing broad directions to the authorities. It required sustained oversight and constant engagement with all stakeholders.”
Justice Surya Kant explained that when he first began hearing the matter, the drug situation in Punjab was completely out of control.
“At that time, the drug menace in Punjab was at a highly uncontrolled level.”
He said his first priority was to understand the ground reality by listening to affected families, reviewing the response of institutions, and engaging directly with the government machinery.
He also revealed that he had to intervene to ensure honest officers were not sidelined.
“During this time, I also had to prevent several attempts to transfer officers who were genuinely doing good work on the ground.”
Only after detailed status reports were filed by all concerned authorities did the court get a clear picture of the crisis.
“Once every concerned authority had submitted status reports, and we finally had a clearer picture of what was actually happening, we were able to move forward in a more structured way.”
Justice Surya Kant said the case covered every possible aspect of the drug crisis.
“This case and its trajectory were truly all-encompassing when I think of it.”
On the criminal side, the court constituted investigative committees and ordered action against major drug traffickers, including extradition. Border security was strengthened using physical infrastructure and technology.
At the same time, the court did not lose sight of victims.
“But none of this meant we could overlook the victims.”
He said the court issued directions for setting up de-addiction and rehabilitation centres to support addicts and their families, many of whom were poor and vulnerable. Awareness among young people was also prioritised.
“We also emphasised awareness among the youth by mandating changes in school and college curricula, through a committee of experts tasked with developing appropriate interventions.”
He summed up the court’s approach by saying,
“In that sense, the approach in this case was holistic: punitive, preventive, rehabilitative, and educational.”
Addressing the frequent criticism that the Chief Justice of India acts as the “master of the roster,” Justice Surya Kant said the role is often misunderstood.
“It is correct that the CJI is also referred to as the master of the roster, but I think this role is often heavily misunderstood and misconstrued.”
He explained that being the senior-most judge brings administrative duties along with judicial work.
“One of these responsibilities would be overseeing the roster.”
He clarified that case allocation is not done arbitrarily.
“However, that does not automatically imply that matters are assigned in a unilateral manner.”
According to him, decisions are taken after discussions with other judges, keeping in mind availability, experience, and the smooth functioning of the court.
On the issue of judicial independence, Justice Surya Kant strongly agreed with the view that independence also means freedom from pressure groups.
“Absolutely, I would agree.”
He said independence is the foundation of India’s justice system.
“Judicial independence is the cornerstone of an effective Justice Delivery System in our country.”
He added that the judiciary’s responsibility is only towards the Constitution and the people it serves.
When asked what he would like to do differently from his predecessors, Justice Surya Kant made it clear that continuity is as important as change.
“It wouldn’t be right to say that I need to do something completely different from my predecessors.”
He pointed out that the institution has seen many Chief Justices, each with different priorities.
“But what has always been common is the commitment to the institution and to the cause of justice.”
ALSO READ: CJI Surya Kant: I Will Not Take Browbeating, Not So Easy With Me
His main focus, he said, would be reducing pendency.
“For me, what I would really like to focus on is the issue of pendency and ensure it is effectively tackled by streamlining our existing systems and strengthening mediation as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.”
He also stressed the importance of access to justice.
“Alongside that, I want to work toward a system where every single person in this country has access to justice and proper representation.”
Speaking about social media criticism and viral court clips, Justice Surya Kant said there is no need to regulate social media.
“I don’t think there’s any need to “control” social media.”
He warned that such steps could harm liberty.
“That would be the wrong word to use, and quite frankly, a harsh measure that risks curtailing liberty.”
He acknowledged that social media has the potential to promote democratic awareness but often does the opposite when context is missing.
“However, when context is stripped away and people aren’t given the full picture, it has the opposite effect.”
He cautioned that excessive focus on such reactions could weaken real freedoms.
“Ultimately, if we aren’t careful, we could potentially reach a point where liberty feels like it exists more in principle than in practice.”
On trolling and backlash arising from short video clips of hearings, he said such criticism should not affect judges.
“Often what gets shared on social media or becomes viral content are just brief snippets from court proceedings.”
He explained that judges often test arguments and ask questions that can be misunderstood when taken out of context.
“When those moments are isolated and posted online, misunderstanding is almost inevitable.”
He was clear about how judges should respond.
“And of course, with that comes trolling, which must be ignored at all costs because it stems from a place of nescience and is not meant to be constructive.”
He added that focusing on social media chatter would distract judges from their core duty.
“The moment we shift our focus from our duties to what is being said on social media, justice will inevitably suffer.”
On the principle that bail should be the norm, Justice Surya Kant reaffirmed its importance while explaining why outcomes may differ.
“The principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ has been developed through judicial interpretation and is an essential feature of our criminal jurisprudence.”
However, he said decisions depend on case-specific facts.
“The application of this principle—and the perception that it may not always be followed uniformly—is deeply dependent on the specific facts, context, and gravity of each case before the court.”
Defending the Collegium system, Justice Surya Kant acknowledged that reforms are always possible.
“Any system or practice, no matter how well-established, will at some stage require improvement.”
He said the system is more transparent today than before.
“The same applies to the Collegium system, which is certainly far more open and transparent today than it once was.”
He praised the introduction of personal interactions with candidates.
“The introduction of in-person interactions with candidates, a reform that had been undertaken by my predecessors, has been a very welcome step.”
He said it allows for better assessment.
“It allows each member of the Collegium to assess the candidate directly and arrive at a more objective view.”
Looking ahead, he stressed the importance of merit.
“Going forward, I believe an even stronger emphasis must be placed on the credentials of the candidate—their merit, their integrity, and their experience.”
According to him, these factors must remain central to judicial appointments.
On transparency after the National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down, Justice Surya Kant said improvements have already been made.
“Regarding transparency, I believe we have already taken significant steps.”
He pointed to the practice of recording reasons for decisions.
“For instance, we now try to provide reasons for approvals and disapprovals in elevation matters.”
At the same time, he cautioned against excessive disclosure.
“At the same time, we must recognise that the process is inherently complex and, quite frankly, quite lengthy.”
He said not everything can be made public.
“It is crucial to strike a balance and also maintain the integrity of the system.”
Finally, speaking about the need for expertise in specialised areas of law, Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court already has strong experience in taxation matters.
“I believe many of my colleagues possess extensive experience and expertise specifically in taxation.”
However, he acknowledged the growing importance of niche areas.
“Nevertheless, there are several niche and rapidly evolving areas of law that courts are increasingly dealing with.”
He said courts often rely on experts in such cases.
“In such situations, we have often relied on the assistance of domain experts appointed to aid the court.”
This is particularly important in environmental matters.
“This approach is especially important in environmental issues, where legal decisions need to be based on scientific knowledge.”
He concluded by stressing responsible decision-making.
“Protecting fragile ecosystems and avoiding further damage to flora and fauna requires us to seek expert advice, ensuring our actions are both effective and responsible.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Surya Kant
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
