India's Judicial Pivot: The Surya Kant Effect

Introduction:

The elevation of Justice Surya Kant Sharma as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 24, 2025, marked a pivotal moment for the country's judiciary. Confronted with an overwhelming backlog of over 90,000 cases and a system often seen as favouring the privileged—along with allegations of a powerful "caucus" of advocates controlling case listings and bail practices—CJI Kant has acted swiftly. Although his tenure is just beginning, it has already been characterised by bold, long-overdue structural reforms focused on transparency, efficiency, and restoring public trust—achieving these with subtlety but significant impact. From immediately abolishing the arbitrary oral mention system to mandating prompt hearings for personal liberty issues, these reforms directly challenge the 'VIP culture' and procedural stagnation, aiming for a fairer, more predictable, and more accessible justice system. In essence, CJI Kant’s initiatives go well beyond ordinary administrative adjustments. They signify a fundamental shift in the Court’s operational approach, emphasising transparency, consistency, and efficiency—essential qualities for a justice system that effectively serves everyday citizens. This analysis critically explores these expansive reforms and examines how they are set to reshape the core of judicial delivery in India.

Dismantling the 'VIP Culture': Case Listing and Oral Mentions:

The most immediate and politically sensitive reform is the restructuring of the cause-list system and the virtual abolition of oral mentions for same-day listing.  This measure is a direct strike against the so-called "VIP culture" pioneered by the Senior Advocates caucus within the apex court.

The Systemic Flaw Addressed:

For years, the system of 'mentioning' cases—where a lawyer verbally pleads before the CJI's bench for an urgent hearing—was exploited. It created a two-tiered justice system:

The Elite Track: Highly influential and senior advocates of very few in number, often representing powerful clients, could secure a quick listing by using their proximity or status to jump the queue.

The Common Man's Track: The vast majority of lawyers and litigants, lacking the same leverage, had to wait months or even years for their cases to be listed through the standard process.

The problem was exacerbated by the alleged "bail cartel"— the same caucus of advocates reportedly capitalising on this listing loophole to secure quick bail for influential persons, thereby subverting due process and evading punishments.

Critical Impact and Consequences:

CJI Kant’s move, permitting oral mentions only for matters of extreme urgency (such as personal liberty or imminent execution), instantly curtails the discretionary power that fuelled the 'VIP culture.'

·   Restoring Public Trust: By making the listing system rule-bound and automatic, the perception of bias is reduced. The common citizen can now trust that their case is listed based on verifiable rules, not on who their advocate is or how influential their client might be.

· Predictability and Transparency: A structured cause-list brings certainty to the legal profession. Lawyers can better prepare their cases, and litigants can plan without the constant, draining uncertainty of when their matter will be heard.

·   Challenging the Oligarchy: This reform directly challenges the financial and political power that accrued to the 'caucus' of advocates who specialised in 'fixing' listings. It democratises access to the courtroom floor, a profound consequence for the Indian Bar.

The trade-off, however, is the initial loss of flexibility. The registry must now be hyper-efficient to ensure that genuinely urgent but non-liberty-related matters do not face unwarranted delays.

 

 

Expediting Justice: Bail and Old Cases:

CJI Kant's other administrative reforms focus squarely on the twin demons of the Indian justice system: delay and pendency.

Expedited Hearings for Fresh Bail Cases:

Mandating that fresh bail cases be listed and heard within two days of filing is a monumental step.

·   The Constitutional Imperative: This reform directly upholds the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. Detention without swift judicial scrutiny is one of the gravest failures of the system.

·   Relief for the Underprivileged: Bail matters disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised, who often cannot afford lengthy legal battles while incarcerated. This rapid listing ensures that justice, even at the interim stage, is not a luxury afforded only to the wealthy. It is a critical blow against the 'bail cartel' by rendering their specialised 'quick fix' services largely redundant.

No Adjournments for Old Cases:

The flat-out refusal to permit letters seeking adjournments for decades-old matters listed on 'Regular Hearing' days (Wednesdays and Thursdays) is perhaps the boldest administrative decision.

·        Tackling 'Adjournment Culture': The 'adjournment culture' is a notorious time-sink, often used as a deliberate tactic by parties to delay proceedings. By refusing written requests, the CJI forces accountability onto the Bar and the Bench alike.

· Clearing the Backlog: This move is central to addressing the alarming backlog of over 90,000 cases in the Supreme Court.  Old matters, if not heard, clog the system, leading to a phenomenon known as 'judicial drag,' where the sheer volume slows down even fresh cases. Expediting the disposal of long-pending cases will free up judicial time and set a powerful precedent for lower courts.

 

Constitutional Clarity and Consistency:

The CJI's intention to have at least one Constitution Bench functioning throughout the year is a strategy aimed at systemic de-pendency, not just administrative clearance.

·         Laying Down the Law: Constitution Benches (comprising five or more judges) are responsible for definitively interpreting the Constitution and other major statutes.  When a central legal question remains unanswered, similar cases pile up in lower courts, awaiting the Supreme Court’s definitive word. This is known as 'shadow pendency'.

·  Reducing Pendency at the Grassroots: By consistently and clearly laying down the law, the Supreme Court eliminates the legal ambiguity that drives a significant portion of litigation. This is arguably the most far-reaching consequence of his tenure, as it directly impacts the functioning and case burden of every lower court across India.

·  Achieving Judicial Symmetry: This aligns with the CJI’s expressed desire for courts to "speak with clarity and consistency," ensuring that judicial pronouncements are a "symphony" rather than "discordant sounds," thereby fostering predictability in judicial outcomes—a key pillar of the rule of law.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): The Game Changer:

Justice Kant’s strong belief in mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a "game changer" positions him as a modern judicial administrator who understands that the courtroom is not the only avenue for justice

Shifting the Pattern: The traditional system is adversarial, costly, and time-consuming. Mediation offers a win-win, faster, and more economical solution, particularly for civil and commercial disputes.

Government as a Model Litigant: The CJI’s push for government bodies to adopt mediation is vital, as the government is the largest litigant in India. If the government leads by resolving minor or routine disputes out of court, it would significantly lessen the overall burden on the judiciary.

Sustainability of Justice: ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a sustainable solution to the pendency crisis. It empowers citizens to resolve conflicts themselves and frees up court time for cases that genuinely require judicial adjudication, such as criminal and constitutional matters.

The Supreme Court of India continues to hear multiple challenges to the exercise, creating an evolving judicial landscape rather than delivering one sweeping judgment that conclusively upholds or rejects the process.

Key Aspects of the Court's Intervention:

ECI's Justification: The ECI defended the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) as a necessary exercise to "purify" the electoral roll, eliminate duplicate, dead, or shifted voters, and ensure every eligible citizen is enrolled.

Petitioners' Allegations: Opposition parties and NGOs have forcefully argued that the SIR is a "farcical exercise" and a "citizenship screening" in disguise, potentially leading to mass disenfranchisement, particularly for vulnerable populations. Concerns were raised over the required documents and the short time frame.

Court's Stance (So Far): The Supreme Court has primarily focused on ensuring transparency and inclusivity. It has:

Upheld the ECI's authority to conduct revisions, rejecting the unjust clamour of the opposition.

Directed the ECI to adopt inclusive measures, such as allowing online submissions for claims and objections and providing detailed information to political parties and the public about those excluded.

Questioned the ECI on specific procedural concerns, like the inclusion of a Bihar electoral roll extract as a document in other states' revisions, and reminded the ECI to consider local conditions.

In essence, the court's actions have been a forceful judicial oversight, compelling the ECI to adhere strictly to due process and constitutional mandates to safeguard the right to vote, while allowing the core revision exercise to proceed.

The Political Dimension: Infiltrators, Rohingya, and Muslims:

The final issue—the CJI's view on illegal infiltrators, especially the Rohingya and Muslims—transcends administrative reform and enters the realm of politically charged constitutional interpretation. While the provided text only mentions his view as an issue worth noting, his public pronouncements and rulings as a judge give the only critical basis for analysis.

Judicial Restraint vs. Constitutional Morality: As a judge, Justice Kant's decisions on citizenship, immigration, and minority rights have been closely watched.  Judges on the Supreme Court must balance national security concerns raised by the Executive with the constitutional principles of human rights, non-refoulement, and secularism.

The Rohingya Context: The Supreme Court has historically walked a tightrope regarding the deportation of the Rohingya community, acknowledging the government's sovereign right to deport illegal immigrants while also directing the state to adhere to basic humanitarian principles. A CJI’s view on this matter is significant because the CJI controls the roster, deciding which benches hear these sensitive cases.

The Constitutional Test: Any judicial stance on such matters, whether supporting the government's hard-line stance on 'infiltrators' or upholding international humanitarian law and minority rights, must ultimately pass the stringent test of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights guaranteed to all persons, including non-citizens at the expense of the state exchequer. His role is to ensure that national policy is executed within the bounds of law, preventing any action that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or ultra vires the Constitution.

 Conclusion: A New Era of Accountability:

CJI Surya Kant’s brief but impactful tenure signals a major shift in the administration of the Supreme Court.  His reforms are a courageous attempt to dismantle the entrenched privileges and procedural inefficiencies that have historically hampered justice. By eliminating the 'VIP lane' for case listing, fast-tracking personal liberty matters, and adopting a 'no adjournment' policy for old cases, he is repositioning the Supreme Court to serve as an accessible and efficient final court of appeal, rather than a forum for elite litigation.

The long-term success of his vision hinges on institutionalisation: whether the Bar and the subsequent Chief Justices will uphold these strict administrative standards and whether the consistent functioning of the Constitution Benches will truly stem the flow of litigation from lower courts. Justice Kant has effectively issued a wake-up call, demanding accountability and integrity by dismantling the postures from all stakeholders—the Bar, the Bench, and the Registry—reaffirming the foundational principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, promptly and without favour as our  Madam President publicly advocating for it..

Disclaimer: On 5th. October, I published a blog inspired by Mr Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Council, and other reports, to highlight the flaws in the Indian judiciary and emphasise the need for urgent reforms. As a septuagenarian blogger without formal legal training, many of my concerns have now been addressed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. His recent initiatives, discussed in this blog, could mark a pivotal point in India’s judicial development. As citizens, we should appreciate his efforts and hope future Chief Justices continue to push for meaningful change. Readers are encouraged to read the original blog from October 5 and other related reports. Readers may also once again like to see the blog of 25^th January, 2025 on Vande Mataram celebrating its 150^th anniversary.