Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Surya Kant has observed that after more than seven decades of uninterrupted constitutional adjudication, it was both logical and institutionally necessary for the Supreme Court to increasingly rely on an indigenous judicial philosophy rather than borrowing doctrines from foreign legal systems.
Justice Kant, who will take office as the 53rd Chief Justice of India on Monday, said during a media interaction that the Apex Court has now developed a self-sustaining corpus of constitutional precedent that should form the dominant foundation for future jurisprudential evolution.
He noted that the Supreme Court has delivered thousands of authoritative judgments since 1950 on every major area of constitutional law—from separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights to administrative law, due process, environmental governance, and electoral regulation.
These decisions were frequently cited by courts in other jurisdictions, confirming that Indian constitutional thought had come of age and possessed its own mature legal vocabulary, he noted.
The CJI-designate further said that after 75 years of constitutional functioning, when the Indian verdicts were being relied on internationally and when the country’s judiciary had developed a substantial wealth of legal doctrine tailored to Indian conditions, why should it continue to depend on foreign jurisprudence formulated against entirely different socio-political and historical contexts.
He explained that colonial-era frameworks—ranging from court procedures to legislative architecture—were meant to serve a governance model fundamentally different from a democratic and republican constitutional order. Thus, judicial reasoning must increasingly be grounded in Indian realities, constitutional morality, and lived social conditions.
He emphasised that indigenising Indian jurisprudence does not imply shutting out comparative learning. Rather, the goal is to ensure that foreign legal sources supplement Indian constitutional philosophy only where contextually appropriate. Justice Kant pointed out that countries across Asia and Africa often look to Indian doctrine as a reference point, and legal cooperation—including judicial training, institutional strengthening, and cross-jurisdictional academic engagement—continues to expand. He cited recent discussions in Kenya regarding the development of judicial academies inspired by India’s model.
Turning to institutional priorities, Justice Kant stated that the immediate challenge facing the Supreme Court remains judicial arrears. Nearly 90,000 matters are currently pending before the Court, many of which are held in abeyance because the legal issues involved require consideration by Constitution Benches of seven or nine judges. He indicated that constituting these larger benches and delivering long-pending constitutional rulings would unlock thousands of matters in High Courts and trial courts that are awaiting authoritative rulings on questions of law.
Citing a recent judgment he authored with Justice Dipankar Datta, which resulted in the disposal of approximately 1,000 connected matters, Justice Kant remarked that targeted and structured judicial interventions can significantly improve docket management if applied consistently. While acknowledging that pendency can never realistically reach zero in a jurisdiction where filings are continuous and expanding, he stressed that systemic backlog must be maintained at a level where the Court does not feel overwhelmed by its own administrative burden.
Justice Kant also addressed public interest litigation, clarifying that the Court adjudicates matters based on constitutional significance, public impact, and the issues raised—not the seniority or stature of counsel. Matters affecting rights, governance, national implications or all-India consequences, he said, would always receive judicial attention, regardless of who appears.
On the question of judicial independence and public commentary, Justice Kant underlined that the office of the Chief Justice must remain insulated from repercussions of media narratives, including commentary on social media. Courts, he said, are required to speak only through their judgments, and judges must maintain institutional strength by refusing to be drawn into public discourse. Responsibility, he added, lies in adjudicatory reasoning grounded in established legal principles rather than external reaction.
In matters relating to taxation, Justice Kant noted that the Union Government has adopted a pragmatic and policy-driven approach, including through board circulars discouraging litigation on modest revenue stakes. A structured mechanism, he said, could prevent avoidable consumption of judicial time in matters that do not require prolonged contestation.
Justice Kant’s elevation comes after his participation in several significant constitutional cases, including those concerning the abrogation of Article 370, the Pegasus surveillance matter, electoral roll revisions, and other landmark public law decisions. His call for a distinctly Indian jurisprudential identity marks a significant philosophical shift in India’s constitutional journey—one that seeks to harmonise local legal culture, contemporary governance challenges, and the accumulated doctrinal authority of the Supreme Court.
The post CJI-designate Surya Kant bats for swadeshi jurisprudence to guide future of Indian Constitution appeared first on India Legal.