The recent statements and administrative decisions announced by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant mark one of the most consequential course corrections attempted by India’s higher judiciary in recent decades. They are commendable steps. Taken together, these measures strike at some of the deepest systemic infirmities afflicting our legal ecosystem—endless litigation, unequal access to justice, procedural gaming by powerful lawyers, and the growing misuse of criminal process by enforcement agencies.
At the heart of the Chief Justice’s vision lies a simple but transformative idea: constitutional courts must function like hospitals with emergency wards. If an individual’s liberty is threatened at midnight, the doors of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts must not remain closed. This commitment to 24×7 accessibility for legal emergencies restores the primacy of fundamental rights, especially Article 21, to its rightful place.
Ending the Tyranny of Endless Arguments
One of the most debilitating features of India’s judicial process has been the culture of interminable oral arguments in high-stakes cases. Matters dragged on not because justice required it, but because the system allowed it.
By enforcing strict timelines, insisting on concise written submissions, and requiring advance declaration of oral-argument schedules, the Chief Justice has sent a clear signal: court time is a shared public resource, not the private preserve of a few senior advocates. This reform is not cosmetic—it directly addresses inequity, ensuring that poor litigants receive both attention and time, rather than watching justice delayed indefinitely while marquee matters consume weeks.
There will, as the CJI correctly observed, be no repetition of cases argued for 26 days. That chapter deserved to close.
A Shield Against Midnight Arrests
Perhaps the most far-reaching assurance offered by the Chief Justice is protection against harassment through late-night arrests. The reality is uncomfortable but undeniable: enforcement agencies increasingly appear at citizens’ doorsteps at unearthly hours, using the threat of arrest as a coercive tool rather than a lawful necessity.
By making it explicit that emergency hearings can be sought at any hour, the judiciary has reclaimed its role as the sentinel on the qui vive. The message is unmistakable liberty does not sleep, and neither should constitutional protection.
Relief for Independent Directors and Board Professionals
These reforms will be especially reassuring for independent directors, who have become collateral damage in the over-criminalisation of corporate governance. Despite repeated judicial pronouncements clarifying that independent directors are not responsible for day-to-day operations—and cannot be treated as default accused—the ground reality has been brutal.
Independent professionals, many of them distinguished experts, have been summoned, threatened, and arrested as if they were hardened criminals. This has led to a disturbing trend: mass resignations from boards and an acute shortage of willing independent directors, undermining the very purpose for which board independence was mandated.
The requirement of independent directors was meant to strengthen governance, transparency, and accountability—not to expose professionals to arbitrary criminal jeopardy. In this context, the CJI’s approach opens an important opportunity.
There is now a strong case to institutionalise judicial guidance—directing magistrates and lower courts not to issue arrest warrants mechanically and reminding probing agencies of settled law limiting the liability of independent directors unless direct, operational involvement is clearly established.
Such guidance, cascading through the judicial hierarchy, would restore confidence among board professionals and realign enforcement practices with constitutional fairness.
Constitutional Clarity on Contentious Social Questions
The CJI’s willingness to explore a nine-judge Constitution Bench to adjudicate the recurring conflict between religious freedom and women’s rights also deserves recognition. Whether it concerns Sabarimala, entry into mosques, practices like female genital mutilation, or exclusion from places of worship, these questions demand principled, authoritative resolution—not fragmented, case-by-case uncertainty.
A larger bench promises doctrinal clarity, stability, and legitimacy in areas where law, faith, and equality intersect.
Rebuilding Trust in the Justice System
These steps represent more than administrative tinkering. They signal an effort to humanise the justice system, curb abuse of process, and make courts responsive to the citizen rather than intimidating for them.
In a legal environment where cases often linger for decades, where procedure overwhelms substance, and where power asymmetries skew outcomes, this intervention by the Chief Justice deserves unreserved commendation.
If implemented in letter and spirit—and reinforced across all judicial levels—these reforms could go a long way in restoring credibility, trust, and moral authority to India’s justice delivery system.
Justice delayed may be justice denied—but justice inaccessible, or justice misused, is equally corrosive. The course correction has begun.
No comments:
Post a Comment