In an emphatic address, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant underscored the importance of transparency and scrutiny within the judiciary, emphasizing it as a cornerstone for sustaining public confidence. Speaking at the 6th Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture Series, CJI Kant asserted that a robust constitutional democracy thrives on the constructive critique of judicial processes.
Judiciary Under Scrutiny: A Necessity
“The judiciary as an institution is not and cannot be above scrutiny,” CJI Kant stated. He underscored that fair and informed criticism plays a critical role in ensuring institutional accountability and fostering self-correction. This perspective, he argued, is integral to maintaining the judicial system’s credibility.
Public Confidence and Transparency
CJI Kant further elaborated on the interplay between transparency and public trust. “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,” he noted. This transparency, he suggested, was vital for courts that do not wield the “power of the purse” or “the power of the sword.”
Reform as a Continuous Process
Highlighting the imperative for ongoing reform, CJI Kant cautioned against complacency within institutions. “We, without any hesitation, acknowledge that reform must be the rule. No institution can survive and feel proud to be static,” he remarked. However, he also pointed out that some institutional issues might not be suitable for public discussion.
Public Trust: A Non-Negotiable Asset
CJI Kant stressed that public trust must be earned continuously through consistent judicial practice. “That trust is not something an institution can earn once and then simply rely on forever,” he stated, emphasizing that trust is built over time through repeated interactions with the justice system.
More Read
Transparency in Judicial Reasoning
The CJI also linked transparency to the clarity and accessibility of judicial reasoning. “A court that announces its verdict but keeps its reasoning to itself has not really been transparent,” he explained. He differentiated between public trust and public approval, emphasizing that courts earn trust not through popularity but through integrity and fairness in their judgments.
The event also featured insights from Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani, further enriching the discourse on judicial accountability and transparency.
