The new CJI, Justice Surya Kant, faces no fewer challenges

Monday marked a significant milestone in the history of the Indian judiciary, as Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India at Rashtrapati Bhavan. President Draupadi Murmu administered the oath of office and secrecy. The presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, several Union Ministers, senior judges, and high-ranking officials at the ceremony underscored the profound and far-reaching significance of this change in the country's judicial leadership. From the moment the President announced his appointment on October 30th, it was clear that Surya Kant's tenure would be more stable and long-term than the usual rapid leadership changes, as he would lead the Supreme Court for approximately 15 months, a period not available to many recent Chief Justices. Consequently, the real possibility of resolving many pending issues in the judiciary could emerge during his tenure.

Justice Surya Kant's journey is a fascinating story. The story of a man who rose from humble beginnings to reach the highest judicial position in the country. This journey illustrates the crucial role talent and hard work can play in Indian democracy. Born in a small town in Haryana, Suryakant began practicing law at the age of 22. This was a time when legal practice offered neither immediate recognition nor financial stability. However, within just a year, he moved to Chandigarh and began practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Over the years, he distinguished himself from the crowd with his legal style, characterized by compelling arguments and exceptional reasoning. As a 38-year-old lawyer, he was appointed Advocate General of Haryana, a record in itself, as becoming the state's top legal advisor at such a young age was almost unprecedented at the time. His critics questioned his competence even at the time, but time prevailed in his favor, as just a few years later, in 2004, he was appointed a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. There he gained experience in constitutional and administrative matters and became the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2019, from where his journey to the Supreme Court began.

However, his rapid rise has been accompanied by controversies that have long challenged the question of transparency in India's judicial system. Reports by Caravan magazine and the Indian Express exposed serious allegations against him years ago, including allegations of undervaluation in a property transaction by a businessman in 2012, which allegedly allowed him to avoid tax liability worth crores, and allegations of bribery by a prisoner in 2017 to secure bail. The investigations and their results remain unclear, inevitably raising new questions about transparency in the judicial appointment process. Former Supreme Court judge Adarsh ​​Kumar Goel demanded an independent investigation into these matters in a letter to then-Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, but the actions taken are not publicly known. In 2019, the Bar Council of India declared these allegations baseless, but the fact that the investigation results were not made public at any level is significant from a transparency perspective. Against this backdrop, Suryakant's appointment not only raises questions about the court's competence and his personal qualifications, but also highlights the larger debate about the accountability of judicial institutions.

Over the past six years, Justice Suryakant's role in the Supreme Court has been extremely active and multifaceted. He has been involved in hearing numerous cases of major constitutional and public importance, having far-reaching impacts on the country's politics, society, and administrative structure. He was part of the bench in the case challenging the abrogation of Article 370, considered one of the most significant cases in India's constitutional history. He also played a decisive role in important issues such as the reconsideration of the sedition law, allegations related to Pegasus spying, the citizenship registration process in Assam, and the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University.

These major cases revealed an interesting blend of his judicial style: sometimes questioning the power of the state, while at other times demonstrating judicial restraint, avoiding excessive interference. For example, his highly controversial remarks in the Nupur Sharma case, where he granted her protection from arrest by transferring all FIRs to Delhi, were also made in his oral remarks, stating that her controversial remarks had created a climate of murder in the country. This comment became highly politically sensitive. While his supporters called it a question of religious harmony and social responsibility, critics called it a violation of judicial decorum. This controversy also became an example of the impact of oral remarks in the Indian judiciary.

Suryakant's approach to matters of freedom of expression appears balanced. Ordering comedian Samay Raina to apologize for comments allegedly hurting religious sentiments reveals an element of social responsibility in his approach, while granting immediate interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad after his arrest under the sedition law demonstrates another aspect of his judicial approach: one that believes in the protection of civil rights and the balance of state power.

One of his most notable decisions is the 2021 ruling in which he held that if an accused's trial under draconian laws like the UAPA is being unduly delayed, he or she should be granted bail. This decision not only illustrates judicial pragmatism but also demonstrates that justice depends not only on the rigor of the law, but also on the fairness and timeliness of the process. This decision has secured relief for many accused and is still being cited in numerous cases. This decision highlights a fundamental characteristic of Suryakant's judicial philosophy: an attempt to strike a balance based on historical context and current circumstances.

As Chief Justice, he now faces several serious and pending cases directly related to the political and social structure of the country. Petitions filed against the Citizenship Amendment Act have been pending in the court for years, and it is now expected that they will be heard expeditiously under his leadership. Similarly, petitions seeking to criminalize marital rape, the controversy surrounding the Election Commission's appointment process, questions raised about the stringency of the money laundering law, the issue of deportation of Rohingya refugees, and the demand to expand the Special Intensive Revision Model initiated in Bihar nationwide are among the issues currently under the Supreme Court's scrutiny. Not only are the legal interpretations in all these cases complex, but their social and political implications could also be profound.

It must also be understood that Justice Suryakant has become Chief Justice at a time when the Indian judiciary is struggling on many fronts. A heavy backlog of millions of cases, inactive constitutional benches, persistent tensions between the government and the judiciary over judicial appointments, and, above all, growing public concern about judicial transparency. Constitutional benches, which were active during Justice Chandrachud's tenure, have subsequently slowed down, but Surya Kant is now expected to prioritize cases of constitutional importance and speed up the judicial process.

Additionally, the increasing use of technology and the integration of artificial intelligence-based tools into India's judicial system are also emerging needs. Increasing the digital transparency of the case management system, fully automating the case listing process, and implementing a more scientific approach to monitoring pending cases are areas where Suryakant's leadership can bring about real change. There is also a growing debate in society regarding the transparency of the collegium system for the appointment of judges and the scrutiny system; Suryakant's role here will be crucial in how he guides this debate. 

Amidst all this, a major question is how Suryakant strengthens the institutional credibility of the judiciary during his tenure. Public trust is the most important asset of any judicial system. When the judiciary rises above the pressures of politics, administration, and the media and delivers balanced and fearless judgments, democracy is strengthened. Suryakant currently has this opportunity; if he wishes, he can shape the direction of the Indian judiciary in the coming years, making it more transparent, more accountable, and more humane.

Ultimately, Justice Suryakant's tenure is poised to write a significant chapter in Indian judicial history. His journey, his abilities, his criticisms, and his decisions will all determine the direction in which the Indian judiciary progresses in the years to come. It is hoped that he will not only reduce the backlog of cases but also bring the stability and continuity to the functioning of the courts that the country desperately needs. India's judicial structure is currently in a transitional phase, and Suryakant's leadership will determine the direction this transition will take: toward a more credible, more empowered, and more people-oriented judiciary, or toward a system that itself struggles with transparency and accountability. His tenure has begun. Challenges lie ahead. Time will tell how Justice Suryakant navigates these challenges and whether he can establish a distinct and memorable mark in the history of the Indian judiciary.