Justice Surya Kant, seniormost Supreme Court judge, emphasizes that while separation of powers forms the architecture of India’s constitutional democracy, judicial review serves as its heartbeat, ensuring accountability, legality, and the supremacy of constitutional values.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRI LANKA: In an address delivered at the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Justice Surya Kant, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court of India, reflected deeply on the living spirit of India’s Constitution and the judiciary’s central role in preserving its democratic essence. His lecture, titled “The Living Constitution: How the Indian Judiciary Shapes and Safeguards Constitutionalism,” offered an insightful exploration of how India’s judiciary continues to serve as both guardian and conscience-keeper of the nation’s democracy.
ALSO READ: I Am Reminded of the Film The Lunchbox, Where Ila Dreams of Moving to Bhutan: CJI Gavai
Justice Surya Kant began by underscoring that the separation of powers lies at the heart of India’s democratic framework.
“India presents a compelling illustration of the substantive application of the doctrine of separation of powers,”
he said.
“A prominent example lies in the judiciary’s dominance over appointments to the Supreme Court and high courts.”
He observed that this mechanism not only ensures the judiciary’s autonomy but also protects it from external interference.
“The mechanism preserved the judiciary’s autonomy regarding its administrative functionality, both inside the courtroom as well as outside,”
he explained.
The principle, he said, forms the “architecture” of India’s constitutional democracy.
“If the separation of powers is the architecture of India’s constitutional democracy,” he declared, “judicial review is its heartbeat.”
Justice Surya Kant described judicial review as the judiciary’s most vital power, one that allows it to ensure that no branch of government acts beyond constitutional limits.
“Under the aegis of judicial review, the Indian judiciary was entrusted with the profound power of examining the constitutionality of actions undertaken by every organ of the state,”
he said.
He emphasized that judicial oversight is not optional but essential:
“Judicial review ensured that no act of governance was beyond the purview of judicial oversight. This expansive power of review is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy and a part of our basic structure.”
For Justice Surya Kant, judicial review represents more than a procedural step — it is a moral and structural duty.
“Judicial review, therefore, is not merely a procedural safeguard; it is a structural commitment to accountability, legality and the supremacy of constitutional norms.”
Turning to India’s three-tier judicial structure, district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant noted that it embodies the constitutional promise of equal justice.
“It reflects a remarkable constitutional commitment that justice should not be a privilege reserved for the powerful but a right accessible to every citizen,”
he said.
Justice Surya Kant celebrated the flexibility and dynamism of the Indian Constitution, which he described as a living document capable of evolving with society.
“A whole host of rights have emerged as a result of expansive judicial interpretation,” he said, citing examples such as “the right to a speedy trial, the right to free legal aid in a criminal trial and even the right to die with dignity.”
Through landmark judgments, he added, the judiciary has touched nearly every sphere of human life.
“These pronouncements have affirmed, among others, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to live in a pollution-free environment, the right to shelter, the protection of marine ecosystems and the right to health.”
Such developments, he said, demonstrate the judiciary’s enduring responsibility “to ensure that justice reaches even those who are too often left unheard.”
Raising fundamental questions about the limits of judicial power, Justice Surya Kant asked:
“How far can courts go in shaping policy? Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?”
He stressed that the answer lies in the intent and integrity of the judiciary.
“When courts act to empower the powerless, while being grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy. They deepen it instead.”
Justice Surya Kant emphasized that the judiciary’s real strength lies not in enforcement powers but in moral conviction.
“Through these decades of interpretation, the Indian judiciary has emerged as the Constitution’s fiercest protector. Yet, its power is not coercive — it is moral and intellectual,” he said.
“It derives not from the force of arms but from the force of reason; not from command, but from conscience.”
He reminded that the judiciary’s legitimacy ultimately depends on public trust, a trust earned through fairness, restraint, and courage.
“The judiciary’s legitimacy rests on the trust of the people,” he said, “and it is a trust earned through fairness, restraint and courage in moments of crisis.”
Justice Surya Kant highlighted that the judiciary’s commitment extends beyond protecting rights — it upholds fairness as the soul of justice.
“Courts in the country have consistently striven not to merely protect the rights of individuals but also to uphold the deeper principle of fairness that underpinned justice itself.”
He also reaffirmed the right to legal representation for all, regardless of circumstances.
“This commitment extends even to those accused of the gravest offences, ensuring that every person, regardless of circumstances or means, has access to effective legal representation.”
Concluding his lecture, Justice Surya Kant reflected on the shared democratic values of India and Sri Lanka.
“Both our nations have wrestled with the same questions — how to reconcile democracy with stability, rights with duties, and law with justice?”
He said the judiciary in both countries serves not as an adversary to the other branches of government but as their moral compass.
“The judiciary’s answer, in both contexts, has been to act not as a rival to the legislature or the executive but as their conscience-keeper.”
