Future Of High Court Depends On Its Ability To Act As Proactive Custodian Of Constitution: CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said that the future of High Courts lies in their ability to act as proactive custodians of the Constitution, remain alert to systemic failures of governance and work towards transforming access to justice from a mere right into a State-guaranteed service.

“The future of the High Court depends on its ability to act as a pro-active custodian of Constitution. It must not only wait for a knock on the its door but it also must remain alert to systemic failures to the rule of law. The goal must be to transfer the access to justice from a right to a State guaranteed service”, he said.

The CJI further said Article 226 of the Constitution is the lifeline of constitutional justice and affirms that the State remains subject to the rule of law. He identified the power to grant interim relief as one of the most critical yet often overlooked aspects of Article 226. Emphasising that justice delayed is justice destroyed, he said the ability of High Courts to stay executive action at the very first hearing is often the only real protection available to citizens.

"Justice delayed is not justice denied it is justice destroyed. The HCs ability to stay an executive action in the very first hearing is often the only real access the citizens ever experiences. It is the hallmark of the constitutional courts protective jurisdiction u/a 226 to intervene at the threshold and ensuring status quo is preserved."

The Chief Justice was delivering the Fali Nariman Lecture organised by the Bombay Bar Association in Mumbai. His address was on the theme “Role of High Courts and Wide Discretionary Powers under Article 226.”

He said the Constitution does not merely distribute power but also distributes remedies against misuse of power. Article 226, he said, was conceived to ensure that citizens are never left defenceless against the State and that the majesty of law is never far from the common person.

Highlighting the distinction between Articles 32 and 226, he said while Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, Article 226 derives its expansive reach from the phrase “for any other purpose”.

He described this inclusion as a deliberate constitutional choice that empowers High Courts to correct legal injuries, enforce statutory duties and restrain arbitrary administrative action.

“There is a subtle and profound distinction which makes High Courts the first constitutional court for the citizens. While Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself, Article 226 by contrast is a journalist with a power of a titan, the inclusion of the phrase "For any other purpose" in Art 226 was a masterstroke by the makers of the Constitution. It ensures that the High Court's reach is not confined but it extends to correction of any legal injury, the enforcement of statutory duties and the containment of administrative caprice”, he said.

Describing High Courts as the primary sentinels of constitutional governance, the Chief Justice said they ensure that the rule of law is not a distant, Delhi-centric concept.

This role, he said, is reflected in how High Courts apply the doctrine of alternate remedy. While the law generally expects litigants to exhaust other remedies, the discretion of the High Court operates as a safety valve, he highlighted.

The Chief Justice highlighted the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 allows High Courts to hear the first grievance of a citizen. This decentralised constitutional power, he said, preserves the federal balance.

“This extraordinary jurisdiction is what makes the High Courts the sentinel, the court which hears the first cry of the child, whether it is an illegal detention, right to live a dignified life, mandate to the administration. Article 226 ensures that the majesty of law is never more than a few miles away from the common man. It is this decentralised strength that maintains the federal balance of our republic. And it proves that while the Supreme Court may have a final word but the High Court often has the most vital one.”

On matters filed directly before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice said he often questions why litigants bypass High Courts despite the availability of an effective constitutional remedy under Article 226. He cautioned against creating the impression that only those who are affluent can enforce their perceived rights under Article 32.

“I had to sometimes observe that let's not give an impression that those who are affluent and can afford can have the privilege of enforcement of their perceived rights through Article 32. If Article 226 is armour of the citizens then access to justice is a promise that this armour available to all not to some privileged and luxurious few. It is a substantive assurance that law will speak to your grievance with empathy and effectiveness”, he emphasised, adding that High Courts are central to the democratisation of justice.

He also pointed out that the geographical and procedural distance of the Supreme Court can be intimidating for ordinary citizens. In this context, he said, High Courts play a crucial role in bridging the gap between the letter of the law and the lived realities of people.

Highlighting other facets of Article 226, the Chief Justice said the power of High Courts to take suo motu cognisance enables them to respond to injustice even in the absence of formal petitions.

He highlighted that High Courts have also used Article 226 to address legislative vacuums by issuing temporary directions to protect the environment, ensure the dignity of prisoners and secure the rights of migrant workers during national crises.

The Chief Justice said High Courts must also evolve their practices to remain effective. He stressed the need for procedural innovation, including streamlined adjudication for clear-cut writ matters.

Referring to the concept of continuing mandamus, he said this judicial innovation allows courts to monitor compliance over time instead of issuing one-time directions. He recalled using this approach during his tenure at the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the issue of creating a drug-free Punjab.

He also spoke about the challenges posed by technology-driven governance and automated decision-making. He said technology must be harnessed to ensure equality and access to justice, and that digital reforms must focus on accessibility and affordability rather than remain limited to virtual hearings as an emergency measure.

Concluding, the Chief Justice likened the Constitution to a river born from hope, sacrifice and vision. He said that over seven decades, this river has deepened and widened, continuing to nourish India's democratic framework as it flows through challenges and progress.

“India's Constitution is like a mighty river, bore from the confidence of hope, sacrifice and vision. It begins as a pure spring in the mountains of freedom, weaving its way through valleys of challenges and plains of progress. In the early years, the river of our Constitution was still finding its course, cutting through the fresh soil of a young democracy. Over seven decades, the river of our Constitution has deepened, widened and nourished the land of India”, the CJI said.