CJI Surya Kant on Timely Justice: Delay Destroys, It Does Not Merely Deny

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Mumbai, Saturday: January 24, 2026, Delivering the prestigious Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture organized by the Bombay Bar Association, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant issued a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s constitutional role.

“For a small farmer whose land is being seized or a student wrongly denied admission, justice delayed is not just justice denied; it is justice destroyed. The High Court’s ability to stay an executive action at the very first hearing is often the only real ‘access’ the citizen ever experiences.”

He declared that delay in judicial intervention does not merely deny justice but destroys it, cautioning that citizens often lose faith in courts when timely relief is absent.

The Critical Role of High Courts

CJI Surya Kant emphasized that for many citizens, the very first hearing in the High Courts determines whether justice is truly experienced.

“In India, liberty will never again be at the mercy of unchecked authority, for the High Courts remain ever-vigilant, ever-responsive, and ever the proud sentinels of our freedom.”

He underscored that liberty in India must never be left at the mercy of unchecked state power, provided High Courts remain vigilant, responsive, and accessible to ordinary citizens.

He described High Courts as occupying a “unique and critical position” in India’s constitutional framework.

“The High Court’s ability to stay an executive action at the very first hearing is often the only real ‘access’ the citizen ever experiences. It is the hallmark of the Court’s protective jurisdiction to intervene at the threshold, ensuring that the status quo is preserved so that justice is not defeated by the fait accompli of administrative haste.”

They serve as the most vital line of defence against illegal detention, administrative excess, and violations of dignity. Courts, he reminded, were designed to be vibrant constitutional forums where citizens could seek immediate and effective remedies—not merely appellate or revisional bodies.

Historical Context and Constitutional Design

Tracing this role to India’s colonial past, Justice Kant noted that under colonial rule, laws were instruments of control and civil liberties were deliberately suppressed.

“It was in the crucible of this experience that the framers of our Constitution forged the scaffolding of freedom. They had witnessed firsthand how unchecked authority corrodes the soul of a nation. The suppression of liberties through colonial legislation left an indelible lesson: Freedom without the means to enforce it is fragile, and rights without remedies are hollow.”

The framers of the Constitution, learning from this history, ensured that citizens would never again be left defenceless against the State.

He explained that Article 226 was conceived in this historical context to guarantee enforceable rights.

Drawing a distinction between Articles 32 and 226, he clarified that while Article 32 protects fundamental rights, Article 226 grants High Courts a wider reach—to correct any legal injury, enforce statutory duties, and restrain administrative excess.

“While the Supreme Court is often celebrated as the ‘Heart and Soul’ of the Constitution through Article 32, it is the High Courts that serve as its ubiquitous pulse.”

In his words, High Courts are the “true constitutional courts for citizens.”

The First Cry of Injustice

Justice Kant observed that it is often the High Courts that hear the first cry of injustice—whether in cases of illegal detention, threats to dignity, environmental harm, or administrative failure.

“In an era where a citizen’s rights are as likely to be infringed by an automated system or by burgeoning technology, our Courts must adapt accordingly. Access to justice in the 21st century is inextricably linked to technological parity. It is a well-known truism that advancement in technology is further deepening the economic divide between the haves and the have nots.”

This role has become more pronounced with the evolution of public interest litigation, which has enabled courts to hear the concerns of those silenced by poverty, illiteracy, or marginalisation.

He also referred to the power of High Courts to act Suo motu and issue interim directions.

This ability to fill gaps in justice, he said, has allowed courts to protect the environment, uphold the dignity of prisoners, and safeguard migrant workers during national crises.

Expanding Access to Justice

Justice Kant stressed that access to justice must extend beyond physical courtrooms. Virtual hearings, he argued, should no longer be seen as emergency measures but as integral to the judicial process, ensuring wider accessibility.

Recalling Fali Nariman’s criticism of verbose litigation, he urged the judiciary to pursue long-term systemic solutions rather than rely solely on short-term interventions.

He cautioned that while High Courts must strengthen their role, they must also avoid overreach. A disciplined bar and a focused bench, he said, are essential to sustaining judicial credibility.

Reflection on Nariman’s Legacy

Concluding his lecture, Justice Kant reflected on the legacy of Fali Nariman, one of India’s most respected jurists.

He praised Nariman’s lifelong commitment to constitutional values, judicial discipline, and clarity in advocacy, urging the legal fraternity to carry forward his ideals in strengthening the justice system.