CJI Surya Kant’s strong remarks come amid rising public attacks on judges over courtroom observations. Emphasizing judicial independence, he warned that attempts to intimidate or mischaracterize judges will not be tolerated, reaffirming the judiciary’s authority and integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has raised serious concerns over the growing trend of judges facing adverse public commentary for their oral observations made during court hearings.
Speaking during a hearing on former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna’s plea seeking transfer of rape trials against him, the CJI stressed that judicial remarks, often hypothetical, should not trigger allegations against judges.
CJI Kant, who recently faced criticism for his comments during a case on the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya immigrants, asserted that he would not be intimidated by public reactions.
“There are hypothetical situations in court. We make observations. But I am not someone who will take browbeating. Not so easy with me. As soon as the judge makes an observation there are allegations made against him,”
— CJI Surya Kant
He added that judicial officers cannot be held to ransom, and it is essential for the Supreme Court to protect the morale of the district judiciary.
Revanna’s counsel had argued that the trial judge made adverse remarks against him and cited critical observations from the Karnataka High Court as justification for transferring the case. However, the Supreme Court found this insufficient, emphasizing that courtroom observations serve as part of judicial reasoning and should not be weaponized against judges.
The Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea, reinforcing that the judiciary must remain free from undue pressure.
The Chief Justice recently came under criticism for oral remarks during a December 2 hearing involving a habeas corpus plea concerning missing Rohingya immigrants. Petitioner Rita Manchanda, an author and activist, had raised concerns about the disappearance of five Rohingya individuals.
Multiple former judges and legal experts, among them Justice A.P. Shah, Justice K. Chandru, and Justice Anjana Prakash, criticized CJI Kant’s comments in an open letter. They described the remarks as “unconscionable,” particularly objecting to the perceived equating of refugees with intruders.
Their December 5 letter stated:
“Your words carry weight… A remark that equates vulnerable persons seeking shelter with ‘intruders’ further dehumanises those fleeing genocidal persecution and weakens the moral authority of the judiciary.”
In response, on December 9, a group of 44 retired Supreme Court and High Court judges issued a statement condemning what they termed a “motivated campaign” against the CJI.
They argued that the criticism misrepresented routine courtroom queries and unfairly portrayed the Chief Justice as biased.
“The Chief Justice is being attacked for asking the most basic legal question: who, in law, has granted the status being claimed before the Court?”
The statement emphasized the importance of fair criticism but warned against attempts to delegitimize the judiciary.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Surya Kant