Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said the judiciary cannot place itself beyond public scrutiny and must remain open to criticism, stressing that accountability is essential for maintaining confidence in the institution. He said judges wield considerable constitutional authority and therefore cannot expect their decisions or the functioning of courts to remain immune from examination and debate.
Speaking at an event on Tuesday, the CJI underlined that criticism of judicial institutions has an important place in a constitutional democracy and should not automatically be treated as an attack on the judiciary. Courts derive their legitimacy not merely from constitutional authority but also from public confidence, making transparency and accountability essential to preserving the credibility of the justice delivery system.
Scrutiny strengthens courts
CJI Surya Kant said scrutiny could contribute to strengthening institutions by identifying shortcomings and encouraging improvement. The judiciary, like other institutions exercising public power, must be prepared to answer questions about its functioning. Constructive criticism, he indicated, could act as an important corrective mechanism rather than something judges should instinctively resist.
At the same time, the Chief Justice drew a distinction between legitimate criticism and attacks intended simply to undermine the institution. Criticism, he said, should be informed, responsible and based on facts. The freedom to question judgments and judicial functioning carries a corresponding responsibility to ensure that public debate does not descend into misinformation or unfounded allegations against judges.
Accountability and independence
The remarks also addressed the delicate relationship between judicial independence and accountability. Independence protects judges from political, executive or other external pressure while deciding cases, but it does not mean that the institution should function without scrutiny. Accountability and independence, therefore, need not be competing principles and can instead reinforce each other when exercised within the constitutional framework.
The CJI’s observations assume significance amid continuing public debate over judicial appointments, transparency, pendency, access to justice and the functioning of constitutional courts. Judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts are increasingly discussed not only within the legal community but also across television, digital platforms and social media, considerably widening public engagement with the judiciary.
Public trust essential
The Chief Justice emphasised the importance of preserving institutional credibility in an environment where courts are routinely called upon to decide questions with major social, political and economic consequences. Public confidence, in such circumstances, depends not on insulating judges from criticism but on demonstrating that the institution is capable of examining itself and responding to legitimate concerns.
His remarks reinforce a fundamental democratic principle: constitutional institutions become stronger when their authority is accompanied by accountability. For the judiciary, protecting independence remains indispensable, but independence cannot be interpreted as immunity from questioning. Reasoned criticism of judgments, procedures and institutional shortcomings remains an essential part of democratic discourse, provided it respects the distinction between holding courts accountable and seeking to erode their authority through misinformation or intimidation.