Arendra Pratab Singh (APS): Your journey from Haryana to the post of chief justice of India is in itself a very inspiring story. How do you look at it today? It has become an inspiration for the youth.
Justice Surya Kant (JSK): I was born in a village in Hisar district, Haryana, to a very ordinary family. I did my schooling and matriculation in the village school, then graduated from Government College, Hisar. No one in my family had a legal background, yet I chose to study law and received my family’s support. I began practice at the Hisar District Court. After arguing a case that belonged to my senior, the district judge and senior advocates were impressed and encouraged me to move to the High Court. Within seven-eight months I shifted. Fortune favoured me and I established myself quickly, earning good cases and a name. At 38, I became Haryana’s youngest advocate general. At 40, I was appointed a High Court Judge. I resigned as AG at 9:00 AM at age 41.5, and took oath as Judge at 10:00 AM the same day. In 2018, I became a High Court chief justice, was elevated to the Supreme Court in May 2019, and took oath as chief justice of India in November 2025. To youth without a legal background, I say: Struggle, have faith. Success is not far.
APS: You took charge as CJI in November last year. What were your priorities at that time? It’s been about nine months now. What have been the major achievements so far, and what will be your priorities going forward?
JSK: My priority was not limited to administrative work. The biggest challenge is case pendency. We focused on case and docket management with a systematic plan. We identified sensitive and high-impact matters that were holding up thousands of cases and decided to hear those first. Accordingly, Constitution benches were formed and related matters were grouped to reduce pendency in the Supreme Court. Reforms have also been initiated at the High Court and district court levels, as district courts play a key role at the grassroots.
APS: Can we see more diversity in judicial appointments?
JSK: Yes. We ensure regional representation and special focus on women. Recently, after five years, a woman judge was appointed. For the first time, four women were simultaneously made chief justices of High Courts. Efforts to appoint more women in High Courts continue so that every section feels represented.
APS: Case pendency is a big challenge from the Supreme Court down to sessions courts. Is it time to bring in time-bound hearings?
JSK: Yes, pendency is a challenge. There has been improvement, but the public expectation is justified—every case should be decided within a fixed time frame. We have constituted a committee to set timelines. With government support, we have achieved good success. For heinous crimes, we have set up special courts to ensure that trials are completed within one year. We have also established family courts for matrimonial disputes and commercial courts for commercial matters. The reasons for pendency include delays in judicial appointments and the need to increase the strength of judges in district courts. We also do not want judges to decide cases mechanically. Technology should act as an aid to the judge, not as a replacement.
APS: Many people come directly to the Supreme Court. What is your view on this, since it increases pendency?
JSK: Some matters do affect the entire country. But most cases relate to a particular state or region and fall under a High Court’s jurisdiction. I have urged that in such cases, people should approach the High Court first. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court has a constitutional role, and under Article 226, High Courts have an even wider power. Our Constitution makers envisioned “justice at your doorstep” by placing a High Court in every state. If your constitutional, legal, civil or human rights are violated, approach your state High Court.
For a strong judicial system, matters meant for district courts should go there, those for High Courts should go there, and only special matters should come to the Supreme Court. Respecting this structure is essential.
APS: District courts are the first step. How can we make them stronger and better resourced?
JSK: Strong infrastructure in district courts is crucial. For the first time, I have set up a committee under a Supreme Court judge to scientifically assess infrastructure needs in every state, district, and sub-division. Based on its report, I will request the government to provide the required facilities. Mediation also begins at the district court level. As per the Civil Procedure Code, courts should refer parties to mediation, so we need proper mediation centres with separate rooms for confidential discussions. Since 70 percent of cases conclude at the district court level and only 30 percent reach High Courts or the Supreme Court, it is most important to serve these 70 percent—the common citizens seeking justice—effectively at this level.
APS: How can we make justice cheaper and more accessible for the common man?
JSK: There are three key steps to make justice cheaper, faster, and more accessible. First: technology. Cases can now be filed from anywhere, hearings can be watched online, and even district court lawyers can argue virtually. Litigants no longer need to travel to the city for every hearing, which has significantly reduced litigation costs. Second: free legal aid. Economically and socially weaker sections, senior citizens, women, and persons with disabilities are provided free legal aid. Both the central and state governments have allocated substantial budgets to the national and state legal services authorities for this. Third: young lawyers. Hundreds of young lawyers voluntarily offer pro bono services, which further reduces the cost of litigation. By strengthening these three pillars and setting timelines for disposal, we can ensure that justice is affordable, speedy, and less burdensome.
APS: You have focused a lot on mediation. How can we take it forward?
JSK: Mediation is very close to my heart. Its beauty lies in preserving brotherhood and social harmony. When parties settle through mediation, the resolution comes from the heart, not just on paper, and it prevents bitterness in society. Mediation also eliminates litigation costs. There is no appeal and no further argument—the matter concludes there. It is not limited to village or family disputes. Even between two business entities, mediation helps preserve their commercial relationship. Parliament has further strengthened it through the Mediation Act, 2023. With so many pending cases and the need for time-bound disposal, settlement through mediation provides us with major support.
APS: What is your view on live streaming of Supreme Court hearings and the misuse of oral observations on social media?
JSK: We are committed to transparency, which is why we started live streaming. However, it has been misused in some instances. Short clips are taken out of context, without background, and circulated to mislead. The Supreme Court Bar Association has itself filed a petition seeking regulatory steps for live streaming, and the matter is sub judice. Our intent is that live streaming should continue, but misuse—especially commercial misuse—must stop.
The remark you referred to was also misused. Things that were never said were attributed to it. This is very unfortunate, as it misleads the youth.
APS: What is your message to those who do this?
JSK: I urge everyone to respect the judicial process. Do not take remarks out of context or spread misinformation. Transparency is meant to strengthen faith in the judiciary, not to distort it. I appeal to them. They are an integral part of society and have responsibilities. Whether in the media, on social media, in print, or as citizens—we all have rights, but also legal, constitutional, and social responsibilities. We must remember these responsibilities and make every effort to maintain harmony in society.
APS: How do parallel trials on social media before a verdict affect the image of the judiciary?
JSK: There is a big difference between public opinion and a judicial decision. Public opinion is based on what is presented to people. The law requires evidence, and courts decide based on that evidence. The media plays a vital role in bringing issues to public notice, and that is a great service. But after that, the judiciary should be given time—time for proper investigation and time for the court to decide according to law. If you think a judgment is wrong, criticize it objectively. That is acceptable. But to decide in the evening who is guilty of an incident that happened in the morning is completely wrong.
APS: What is your message to the youth of India?
JSK: The youth are the nation’s greatest strength. The country’s hopes rest on them. Today’s law students are very different from those in my time. Admissions now happen through highly competitive exams. Only meritorious, hardworking, and committed students get in. After completing law, they will become judicial officers, practise in High Courts, and some will rise to become judges. The challenge today is to compete with those who hold fake degrees and lack professional ethics. Our youth must uphold professional ethics, ideals, and conduct, and earn their place on merit. When meritorious people are on both the Bar and the Bench, the face of the Indian judiciary will change completely. My message to the youth is: keep the judiciary in mind and serve the nation. This applies to every field—with hard work and merit, they can achieve great things for society and the country.
The post Justice In The Age Of The Viral Clip appeared first on India Legal.