The judiciary cannot place itself beyond scrutiny, and fair, informed criticism of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a constitutional democracy, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, adding that public trust is “the only currency that authority is ever paid in.”
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has said that the judiciary must remain open to scrutiny and criticism in order to maintain public trust in the justice system, observing that a court cannot claim the confidence of the public while placing itself beyond examination, and that fair and constructive critique of judicial functioning is essential to institutional accountability.
The CJI was delivering the keynote address at the 6th Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, on the theme “Justice Seen To Be Done: Transparency And Public Trust As Pillars Of The Legal System.” Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani also spoke at the event.
‘The judiciary is not and cannot be above scrutiny’
The CJI was unequivocal that the courts are not exempt from public examination, and that criticism, far from undermining the judiciary, is a healthy and necessary feature of a democracy:
“The judiciary as an institution is not and cannot be above scrutiny. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction.”
Linking that openness directly to transparency, he said that a court cannot demand public confidence while shielding itself from questions:
“It lies at the heart of transparency itself. For a court cannot seek the confidence of the public by placing itself beyond scrutiny. It must remain willing to be examined, questioned and, where necessary, criticised.”
‘Public trust is the only currency authority is ever paid in’
A central theme of the address was that public trust is the very foundation of judicial authority. The CJI pointed out that, unlike the executive and the legislature, the judiciary commands neither the “power of the purse” nor the “power of the sword,” and depends instead entirely on the confidence it inspires:
“Public trust is not decoration. It is, in fact, the only currency that authority is ever paid in, the only coin the judiciary has ever truly had.”
That trust, he cautioned, could neither be taken for granted nor earned once and relied upon thereafter. It had to be renewed continuously, and was shaped, he said, “far more by the accumulated ordinary experience people have of the system, case by case, than by any single moment of judgment.” In other words, it is the everyday functioning of the courts, rather than any one landmark verdict, that builds or erodes confidence.
Reasoning, not just outcomes: what transparency demands
The CJI drew a sharp distinction between announcing a decision and being genuinely transparent, tying transparency to the giving of reasons. A verdict without disclosed reasoning, he suggested, falls short of true transparency:
“A court that announces its verdict but keeps its reasoning to itself has not really been transparent, whatever else it may have done. Public trust, in turn, is not the same thing as public approval, and the difference matters a great deal. A court does not earn trust by being liked or by handing out the outcomes people want.”
The observation draws an important line: judicial legitimacy rests not on popularity or on delivering the results a section of the public may desire, but on reasoned, open decision-making that can be examined and understood, even by those who disagree with the outcome.
Reform ‘must be the rule’, with a caveat
The CJI also emphasised that reform must be a continuous process and that no institution can afford to stand still. “We, without any hesitation, acknowledge that reform must be the rule. No institution can survive and feel proud to be static,” he said.
At the same time, he entered a note of caution, observing that certain institutional and administrative issues may not be appropriate, or prudent, to address from a public platform, a measured qualification that distinguishes legitimate public accountability from matters better handled within the institution’s own processes.
Why the remarks matter
Coming from the head of the judiciary, the remarks are significant for the posture they signal at a time when the courts, their functioning, their delays, and the conduct of individual judges, are the subject of intense public and political discussion. By affirming that the judiciary “is not and cannot be above scrutiny” and that criticism is not a threat but an instrument of accountability and self-correction, the CJI positioned openness, rather than defensiveness, as the source of judicial legitimacy. That framing sits alongside a broader, ongoing conversation in legal circles about transparency in judicial appointments, the handling of allegations against judges, and the accountability mechanisms available within the system.
Equally notable is the CJI’s insistence that trust is earned in the ordinary, case-by-case working of the courts and through reasoned decisions, not through popularity or crowd-pleasing outcomes. It is a reminder that the authority of a judiciary that wields neither budget nor force depends wholly on its credibility, and that credibility, in turn, depends on its willingness to explain itself and to be questioned. The caveat that some administrative matters are not fit for a public platform reflects the balance the judiciary seeks to strike between accountability to the public and the confidentiality that certain internal processes require.
Source: Keynote address by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the 6th Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, “Justice Seen To Be Done: Transparency And Public Trust As Pillars Of The Legal System,” on September 14, 2026.