By Inderjit Badhwar
There was a time when a courtroom was, quite literally, a room. What was said inside it travelled outward through judgments, legal reporting and, eventually, public discussion. Today, a courtroom can be watched live on a mobile phone, clipped within seconds and circulated to millions before the hearing itself has concluded.
That transformation has brought remarkable transparency to the judicial process. It has also created a new vulnerability: the loss of context.
That is what makes our cover conversation with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, first carried by Doordarshan, particularly timely.
The interview ranges widely—from the CJI’s extraordinary journey from an ordinary family in a Haryana village to the country’s highest judicial office, to the enormous challenges confronting India’s justice system. But beneath the many subjects discussed is one central concern: how do we make justice both more accessible and more trusted without compromising the process by which justice is delivered?
The answer begins with pendency.
For ordinary citizens, justice delayed is not an abstract statistic. A pending case can mean years of uncertainty over property, family, employment, business, liberty or constitutional rights. The CJI’s emphasis on systematic case management and on identifying matters whose resolution can unlock thousands of connected cases is therefore significant.
But perhaps more significant is his insistence that reform cannot be confined to the Supreme Court.
The district judiciary is where most Indians encounter the justice system. Its buildings, infrastructure, judicial strength and support systems, therefore, matter enormously. The CJI’s emphasis on scientifically assessing infrastructure requirements across states, districts and sub-divisions points towards a more grounded conception of judicial reform—one that begins not at the apex, but at the base.
His emphasis on mediation is part of the same philosophy. Not every dispute needs to end with one party winning and another losing. In family and community disputes especially, a settlement can preserve relationships that an adversarial judgment may leave permanently damaged. In commercial disputes, preserving the relationship between business partners can sometimes be as important as resolving the immediate disagreement.
The interview also highlights another important dimension of reform: affordability.
Technology has the potential to reduce the physical and financial distance between citizens and courts. E-filing, virtual hearings and online access can spare litigants repeated journeys. Legal aid can help ensure that poverty does not become a barrier to justice. And the willingness of young lawyers to provide pro bono assistance adds another layer of accessibility.
Yet, technology presents a paradox.
The same digital revolution that can make justice more accessible can also distort it. Live-streaming was introduced to make judicial proceedings more transparent. But when a few seconds of a hearing are extracted from a much longer exchange and circulated without context, transparency can become distortion.
This is the point at which the CJI’s appeal deserves particular attention.
The judiciary is not beyond criticism. Nor should it be. A healthy democracy requires judgments to be questioned, analysed and criticised. Judges and courts are institutions of public power, and public scrutiny is an essential part of democratic accountability.
But criticism of a judgment is fundamentally different from attributing to a judge something that was never said, or presenting an interim oral observation as though it were a final judicial finding.
The distinction matters because a court does not decide a case on the basis of what is most popular at a particular moment. It decides on evidence, law and reason.
That brings us to what may be the most important warning in this interview: the danger of parallel trials on social media.
A society is entitled to debate an allegation. The media is entitled—and indeed obliged—to investigate matters of public importance. Citizens are entitled to express opinions. But none of these should be confused with a judicial determination of guilt.
The temptation to decide a case within hours of an incident is especially dangerous because it replaces due process with immediacy. Once a public verdict has been formed, even a subsequent judicial finding based on evidence may struggle to compete with the first impression.
This is not an argument for shielding courts from scrutiny. It is an argument for understanding what courts actually do.
The CJI’s comments on judicial diversity are equally relevant to the legitimacy of the institution. A judiciary that reflects the geographical and social breadth of the country can strengthen the public’s sense that the justice system belongs to everyone. His emphasis on increasing the representation of women on the Bench is an important part of that conversation.
And finally, there is the personal dimension.
The CJI’s own journey is a powerful reminder that institutions can provide avenues of extraordinary mobility. He came from a family with no legal background, began practice in a district court and eventually reached the Supreme Court and its highest office.
His message to young people is, therefore, more than ceremonial encouragement. It comes from personal experience: struggle, have faith, work hard and maintain professional ethics.
That last element may be the most important.
The future of the judiciary will not be determined only by new courtrooms, new technology or new procedures. It will also depend on the quality and integrity of the people who occupy the Bar and the Bench.
India’s judicial system stands at an important crossroads. It must become faster without becoming mechanical, more transparent without becoming vulnerable to distortion, more technologically enabled without surrendering human judgment, and more accessible without allowing the hierarchy of courts to be overwhelmed.
Above all, it must retain public trust.
And public trust cannot be built through viral clips or instant verdicts. It is built slowly—through fair hearings, reasoned judgments, accessible courts, professional integrity and the knowledge that every person who enters a courtroom will be heard according to law. That is the larger message emerging from our cover conversation with Chief Justice Surya Kant.
In an age of instant opinion, justice still needs time, evidence and context.
The post When Justice Goes Viral appeared first on India Legal.