Justice Surya Kant: Key Judgments And Notable Cases Handled By The Incoming Chief Justice Of India

After CJI BR Gavai demits office on November 23, Justice Surya Kant will take over as the 53rd Chief Justice of India. The judge will hold the office till February 9, 2027, on which date he is due to retire.

For the unversed, Justice Kant hails from Hisar, Haryana and he would be the first person from the state to hold the CJI office. He was a designated senior advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the youngest lawyer (38) to be appointed by State of Haryana as an Advocate General. His judicial career began in January, 2004, when he became a permanent judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Fourteen years on, in October, 2018, Justice Kant became the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court and a year later, was elevated to the Supreme Court.

This article recapitulates some of the key judgments and observations made by Justice Kant during his tenure as a judge at the Supreme Court, which can reasonably be seen as indicators of his vision and motivations. It also sheds light on certain crucial matters which remain on the judge's docket, as he assumes office of the CJI. 

Pegasus spyware probe (Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India)

In 2021, Justice Kant was part of a 3-judge bench which ordered constitution of an independent expert committee to look into the allegations of widespread and targeted surveillance of politicians, journalists, activists etc. using the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli company NSO. In its judgment, the bench held that indiscriminate spying of citizens cannot be allowed except in accordance with law. This is an important concern for the freedom of the press, which is a vital pillar of the democracy, it said. 

While acknowledging that the Union of India can decline information when issues of national security are involved, the bench also stated that mere invocation of "national security" cannot render the Court a mute spectator. Subsequently, a sealed cover report was filed by the independent committee, which found malware in 5 of the 29 devices submitted to it. However, it was unclear whether the malware was in fact Pegasus. In April this year, Justice Kant expressed that there is nothing inherently wrong with a country possessing spyware for security purposes; the real concern lies in against whom it is used. "We cannot compromise or sacrifice the security of the nation", the judge emphasized.

Sedition law kept in abeyance (SG Vombatkere v. Union of India)

In 2022, Justice Kant was part of a 3-judge bench which passed a historic order for keeping the colonial sedition law (encapsulated in Section 124A IPC) in abeyance till it was reconsidered by the Union. In an interim order, the bench held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section 124A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice to be caused to the accused, it said.

"We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124 A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over", the bench ordered. It also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and in jail could approach the concerned courts for bail. 

Abrogation of Article 370 (In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution of India)

In 2023, Justice Kant was part of the Constitution Bench which upheld the validity of Union Government's 2019 decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution. This judgment held that the State of J&K had no internal sovereignty and the concurrence of the State Government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the State of J&K. It was also observed that Article 370 was a temporary provision. Further, the bench upheld carving out of Ladakh as a Union Territory.

Farmers' Protests

In 2024, Justice Surya Kant led the bench that dealt with the issue of Shambhu Border blockade by protesting farmers (Ref: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh). The P&H High Court had ordered Haryana government to unblock the border, which was closed to prevent movement of farmers from Punjab to Haryana. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, Justice Kant emphasized on the need to infuse confidence in farmers and his intervention led to the constitution of a Committee to negotiate with the farmers.

While hearing in the case was going on, Justice Kant's bench agreed to a suggestion that the border needed to be opened, at least for access to emergent services across the states.

The judge also refused to stay a High Court order which directed judicial probe into the death of a protesting farmer, observing that the same would ensure a fair investigation of the allegations against Haryana police. This farmer was claimed to have lost his life due to a bullet fired by Haryana police.

When the farmers refused to interact with the Court-appointed Committee and the governments, Justice Kant's bench opened doors for them to directly agitate their issues before the Court. The judge also dealt with contempt proceedings against the Punjab government over not shifting farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal (who was on a fast-unto-death) to a hospital. He reprimanded the state for a non-reconciliatory attitude, as it failed to impress upon Dallewal that he could continue to protest with the help of medical aid, without breaking his fast. Concerned about Dallewal's health, the judge also requested farmers to not act under peer pressure and called on them to take account of the health of their leader. It was emphasized that Dallewal needed to be healthy in order to be able to agitate the cause of masses.

In 2025, a breakthrough in the impasse between the farmers and the governments came, when the former agreed to hold talks with the Union government and Dallewal accepted medical aid. Later, the Court was informed that Dallewal had ended his fast and the protesting farmers had been removed from the state borders.

Minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal)

In 2024, Justice Kant was part of the 7-judge Bench which, while dealing with the issue of minority status of AMU, overruled by a 4:3 majority the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union Of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.

Justice Kant partially dissented from the majority view (authored by ex-CJI Dr DY Chandrachud), saying Azeez Basha only needed to be modified and clarified, not overruled. The judge further observed that educational institutions under Article 30(1) include universities and minority institutions, to get Article 30 protection, must satisfy the conjunctive tests of "established" and "administered" by a minority.

Whether AMU is a minority institution was viewed by Justice Kant as a mixed question of law and fact, left to be decided by the regular bench. The judge further observed that the legislative intent behind a statute incorporating a university or institution would be necessary to decide its minority status.

Upholding of Section 6A of Citizenship Act (In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955)

In 2024, Justice Kant was also part of the Constitution Bench which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (recognizing the Assam Accord). The judge authored the majority judgment for himself and 2 other judges, holding that Section 6A did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

For context, Section 6A conferred citizenship to those who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam from January 1, 1966, until 24 March 1971 upon completion of ten years from the date of detection as a foreigner. In his judgment, Justice Kant applied both the tests of Article 14 (reasonable classification and manifest arbitrariness), highlighted humanitarian concerns and historical reasons, and concluded that the equality clause was not contravened.

Elections and politics

Pursuant to a rift in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Justice Kant dealt with Sharad Pawar group's petition challenging the Election Commission's decision to officially recognize Ajit Pawar group as the real NCP and allot the party symbol 'clock' to them.

In 2024, a bench led by the judge directed Ajit Pawar faction to make a public declaration that the use of the 'clock' symbol by it (for the ensuing Lok Sabha and the Maharashtra Assembly Elections) was sub-judice and subject to the outcome of the challenge made by the Sharad Pawar group to ECI's decision. The bench further directed that the Sharad Pawar group would be entitled to use the name 'NCP-Sharad Chandra Pawar' and 'man blowing turrah (trumpet)' symbol for Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections.

The same year, Justice Kant's bench disposed of a PIL seeking application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to political parties by asking the petitioner to first approach ECI.

In 2025, a bench led by the judge ordered holding of local body elections in Maharashtra, which were stalled since 2022 due to litigation relating to implementation of reservation for OBCs. It was directed that the elections be held as per OBC reservation which existed prior to submission of the Banthia Commission report in July 2022. A day after this, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) requested Justice Kant to urgently hear its petition challenging ECI's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and grant them the 'bow and arrow' election symbol. The matter was listed on November 12.

Further, Justice Kant's bench is set to consider a plea for direction to the Election Commission to frame rules for registration and regulation of political parties, in order to curb the menace of corruption and black money use in politics. In another case, seeking a ban on convicted persons from creating political parties/giving party tickets, the judge has expressed a view that merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right (for instance, voting), they cannot ipso facto be deprived of their constitutional right (to form political party).

Reservation for women lawyers in Bar Councils/Associations

In 2024, a bench led by Justice Kant passed a significant order (Ref: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi) directing reservation of 3 posts for women lawyers in the then upcoming Delhi High Court Bar Association elections. In addition, for the district bar associations, it was directed that the post of Treasurer plus 30% of other Executive Committee posts shall stand reserved for women lawyers (including those already reserved for women). The reservations were directed on an experimental basis. During the hearing of the case, Justice Kant lamented that there had not been even a single woman President of the Bar since 1962.

Subsequently, the bench extended the benefit of reservation to women lawyers in the NGT Delhi Bar Association, Tax Bar Association, Sales Tax Bar Association, Gujarat High Court and District Bar Associations, and Advocates' Association, Bengaluru (AAB). In the context of AAB, it even invoked Article 142 power to direct creation of additional posts for accommodating those who had already filed nominations by the time the order for reservation was passed.

While Justice Kant secured women's representation by directing reservation of posts in Bar bodies, he has been vocal about women performing exceptionally well in the legal field, particularly the judiciary, on their own merit. In a case seeking uniform and gender-sensitive policy for allotment of professional chambers/cabins to women advocates, though notice was issued, the judge questioned why women need "reservation" for chamber allotments when they fare well on merit in every field.

Crackdown on 'builder-banks nexus' in Delhi-NCR and NOIDA authorities

In 2025, a bench led by Justice Kant passed a significant order directing registration of preliminary enquiries on the issue of exorbitant payment of land acquisition compensation and the alleged collusion between NOIDA officers and land-owners (Ref: Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh). The development came after a Special Investigation Team (SIT) report flagged various shortcomings in the functioning of NOIDA authority. The bench also restrained project development in NOIDA without prior Environmental Impact Assessment and approval of the report by the Court's green bench.

In another case (Ref: Himanshu Singh v. Union of India), Justice Kant's bench formed a view that certain real estate companies, and banks which sanctioned loans to them for their projects in the National Capital Region, had taken poor homebuyers to ransom. Considering grievances of the homebuyers/borrowers, it directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct preliminary enquiries into the "unholy nexus". Following up on the direction and starting with Supertech Ltd., CBI prima facie found commission of cognizable offenses and registered regular cases.

Prior to that, in July, 2024, Justice Kant's bench also safeguarded homebuyers by passing an interim order, making it clear that no action, including in terms of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (check-bounce), shall be entertained on behalf of Banks/Financial Institutions or Builders/Developers against homebuyers.

India's Got Latent row and call for regulation of social media content

In 2025, Justice Kant's bench dealt with cases involving YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (Beer Biceps), Ashish Chanchlani and others, who were booked over controversial remarks made during an episode of comedian Samay Raina's show-India's Got Latent. The judge granted interim protection from arrest to Allahabadia, but severely berated him for the language he used and described it as "dirty" and "perverted". "The words which you have used, parents will feel shamed. Sisters and daughters will feel ashamed. Entire society will feel shamed. It shows a perverted mind," the judge commented on Allahabadia's remarks.

In the wake of this controversy, Justice Kant even expressed an intention to do something to regulate obscene content on YouTube and other social media. The judge noted that there was a "vacuum" in the regulation of such content and asked the Union Government about its views. Subsequently, he expressed displeasure at jokes said to have been made by 5 comedians, including Samay Raina, on persons with disabilities. Taking a strict view, the judge summoned the comedians to Court and later asked them to publish public apologies on their respective platforms/social media handles. It was also orally said that Article 19 rights cannot supersede Article 21 rights, and there should be penal consequences under the IT Act which are proportionate to the harm caused.

Notably, while granting interim protection to Allahabadia, Justice Kant's bench even restrained him from airing shows. Later, the curb was lifted subject to the YouTuber's undertaking that his own shows will maintain the standards of decency and morality, so that viewers of any age group can watch.

Suo motu case on digital arrest scams (In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents)

In 2025, a bench led by Justice Kant took suo motu cognizance of rising cases of “digital arrest” scams, where fraudsters impersonate law enforcement agencies or judicial authorities to extort money from citizens, particularly senior citizens. The action followed a complaint from a 73-year-old woman from Ambala, Haryana, who alleged that scammers used forged Supreme Court orders to confine her in a so-called “digital arrest” and extort more than Rs.1 crore.

Taking up the issue suo motu, the bench observed that "forgery of documents and the criminal misuse of the name, seal and judicial authority of this court or High Court is a matter of grave concern". It further said that coordinated efforts between the central and state police are required to unearth the full extent of the enterprise involving forging judicial documents, extortion/robbery of innocent people, most importantly, the senior citizens. Recently, notice was issued in the case to all States/UTs, while hinting that investigation may be handed over to CBI.

PMLA review & consequences of discharge in predicate offense

A 3-judge bench led by Justice Kant is in seisin of the review petitions (Ref: Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement) filed against 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. After issuance of notice in 2022 by ex-CJI NV Ramana-led bench, the matter was listed before Justice Kant in August, 2024.

It got adjourned from time to time until a brief hearing in May, 2025, when the Union Government told the Court that the review hearing cannot go beyond the two specific issues which were orally flagged by the bench which issued notice. In July, the bench led by Justice Kant decided that it will first hear ED's objections to maintainability of the review petitions.

In another case (Ref: Niket Kansal v. Union of India), Justice Kant is set to consider the issue as to whether discharge in the predicate/scheduled offence would automatically invalidate proceedings initiated under PMLA.

Emphasis on timebound trials in heinous cases and designated courts

In 2025, a bench led by Justice Kant emphasized the need to have dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act. The bench orally warned the Union that if Special Courts with requisite infrastructure for expeditious trial in NIA cases are not set-up, Courts will be left with no option but to release undertrials on bail. "For how long suspects can be kept in indefinite custody?", it asked.

In another case, Justice Kant called on the Union and Delhi government to consider establishment of fast-track courts which can deal with gangster-related cases on a day-to-day basis. This was after the Court was informed that there are 288 trials pending in the national capital courts pertaining to such cases. Speaking of the 'chilling effect' that a time-bound adjudication can have on such criminals, Justice Kant said,

"If we can conceptualize the earlier concept of fast-track courts, only for the purpose of eliminating these matters from pendency…if you have dedicated adjudicatory mechanism for these cases, it will have very good chilling effect, people will be very happy, Courts won't be compelled to release them on bail and inviting repeated offenses, trial will be expedited, message will go."

Later, the judge again stressed on the need for dedicated courts to enable exclusive trial of cases under special statutes, suggesting that there be an increase in cadre strength of judicial officers instead of earmarking of cases within existing strength as the latter would increase the burden on other courts. As a result, the Union has assured to hold a high-level meeting for exploring a proposal to set up of exclusive courts to deal with trials in special statute cases.

Appointment of Information Commissioners, Election Commissioners & Tribunal Vacancies

Justice Kant has also been presiding over matters where issues relating to appointments of Information Commissioners and Election Commissioners are involved.

In the Election Commissioners' matter (Ref: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India), challenge has been raised to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023, which dropped the CJI from panel appointing ECs. Notably, the Court had agreed to hear the matter before the appointment of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and posted it to February 12. However, the case got adjourned to February 19. On February 17, Gyanesh Kumar was elevated as the Chief Election Commissioner. After his appointment, the petitioners urged the Court to hear the matter on priority, saying appointments were being made in violation of the Court's Anoop Baranwal judgment. It was also pointed out that last 3 appointments were made in the same routine manner. But the bench observed that stay of operation of the Act was declined in March 2024. The matter is now listed for hearing on November 11.

In the Information Commissioners' case (Ref: Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India), Justice Kant's bench is dealing with concerns regarding delays and lack of transparency in appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions set up under the RTI Act. Besides the post of Chief Information Commissioner, 8 out of 10 information commissioner posts are stated to be lying vacant. It has further been pointed out that the State Information Commission of Jharkhand is defunct since May, 2020. In one of the hearings, while deprecating the continuing vacancies and stressing that all sanctioned posts need to be filled, Justice Kant said, "what is the use of creating an institution if it does not have persons to perform the duties?" Recently, the Union was given time to complete the CIC appointments process, while refusing to direct disclosure of shortlisted names of candidates.

The judge is also in seisin of a case (Ref: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India) pertaining to vacancies in Tribunals across the country and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, where he suggested setting up of Circuit Benches for the AFT to facilitate ease of access to justice. A further suggestion given was regarding advance selection process for Tribunal members, as dates when members would demit office are known.

SIT probe into Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad's post on 'Operation Sindoor' (Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana)

In 2025, Justice Kant was the senior judge presiding over the case of Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was booked by Haryana police over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'. Mahmudabad was granted interim bail by Justice Kant's bench, but at the same time, the investigation was not stayed. Instead, the Haryana DGP was ordered to constitute a Special Investigation Team to "holistically understand" and report back on Mahmudabad's social media posts.

This course of action was followed by seizure of Mahmudabad's digital devices and the police's questioning of his foreign travel for the last 10 years. Ultimately, Justice Kant's bench pulled up the SIT, emphasizing that the scope of its mandate was limited to the social media posts. Noting that Mahmudabad had cooperated and surrendered his devices, the Court further ordered that he shall not be summoned again. "You don't need him, you need a dictionary", Justice Kant told the SIT. Eventually, the Haryana Police filed closure report in one of the FIRs and a chargesheet in the other. Recently, the Court quashed the FIR in which closure report was filed and restrained the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the chargesheet in the other.

Call for performance evaluation of High Court judges

Justice Kant has not been one to shy from calling out High Court judges on dissatisfactory performances. In one of the cases, which brought forth the issue of reserved judgments in criminal matters not being pronounced for years by the Jharkhand High Court, the judge passed significant orders which ultimately resulted in release of the pending decisions as well as the prisoners (in some cases). Dealing with this matter, Justice Kant even expressed an inclination to examine "performance output" of High Court judges and questioned certain High Court judges' practice of rising for tea/coffee breaks, while commenting that if the judges only take lunch breaks, there would be better performance and results.

Subsequently, the judge reiterated the need for guidelines on the performance evaluation of High Court judges, saying that legitimate expectations of the public must be met by the judiciary. Justice Kant also said that judges need to have a "self-management system" so that files do not pile up, causing anxiety and leading to adjournments. It was further commented that adjourning cases after hearing them sends a very dangerous and demoralizing message.

Later, speaking at an event, Justice Kant expressed disappointment with the work commitment of some High Court judges. The judge said that while some High Court judges are headstrong in their commitment and carry heavy burdens as torchbearers of justice, there are others whose performance is "deeply disappointing". "To those whose dedication falls short, I have a simple request—before you rest your head on your pillow each night, ask yourself one question: How much public money was spent on me today? Have I repaid society for the trust placed in me?" the judge remarked.

Presidential Reference on Timelines for Bills' Assent

In 2025, Justice Kant was part of the Constitution Bench which dealt with the reference made by President of India raising questions related to timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution. Judgment in this matter stands reserved. During the hearing of the case, the bench remarked that the 2-judge decision in Tamil Nadu Governor case might have been passed to "handle an egregious situation" created by the Governor keeping the Bills passed by State Legislative Assembly pending for a long time.

Justice Kant in particular asked the Union that if Bills were pending before the Governor since 2020 (as told to the Court in TN Governor case), and as per the Union the 2-judge bench went wrong in its decision, what was a constitutionally permissible option for a constitutional court to deal with the issue. The judge also expressed that if withholding simpliciter is exercised by the Governor, it makes the option of granting assent and reserving it for the President "defunct". It was added that the Governor exercises wide powers and an embargo, which is not there, should not be read in.

Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India)

In 2025, Justice Kant's bench came upon one of the most contentious cases of the year - the Bihar SIR matter. To ensure transparency in the voter list revision process, it directed ECI to publish the names of 65 lakh voters excluded from the draft rolls on Bihar CEO's website as well as websites of the District Electoral Officers, along with the reasons for their exclusion. The information was to be displayed in EPIC-searchable format.

Later, the bench directed ECI to allow these 65 lakhs excluded voters to submit applications for inclusion through online mode along with their Aadhaar card. Subsequently, it passed another significant order, directing that Aadhaar card be treated by ECI as the "12th document" for proof of identity while considering inclusion in the revised voters list. It was clarified that Aadhaar shall not be a proof of citizenship and that ECI officials would be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of Aadhaar cards produced by voters.

Indian Army and Permanent Commission for Women

On multiple occasions, Justice Kant has exhibited deep respect and gratitude for the Indian Armed Forces. He has also been dealing with a batch of matters seeking permanent commission for officers in the Indian Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.

In 2025, a bench led by Justice Kant halted the release of in-service women officers of the Indian Army. The hearing witnessed the judge laud efforts of the Indian Army, while underlining that the then prevailing situation (reference to India-Pak tensions following the Pahalgam Terror Attack) called for each citizen to stand by the Army and uplift its morale. In response to a submission that the Army has a pyramidical structure and thus requires young officers, Justice Kant said, "You (Union) need a blend of both. Experienced officers also...young blood needs to be trained, guided...most important thing, development of mental temperament...when you go to height of 60000 or so...officers are standing there without bothering about anything...there, one feels proud. All of us feel very little before them. That how much they are doing for us."

Later, it was clarified that the stay order would cover all such officers whose cases are pending before the Supreme Court, High Courts or the Armed Forces Tribunals. Justice Kant also stayed the release of a woman Indian Air Force Wing Commander, who reportedly participated in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot, and assailed denial of Permanent Commission.

On Rohingyas, refugees and illegal immigrants

Justice Kant has also come upon cases relating to deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. As such, the judge is set to consider the following issues: (i) whether Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees; if so, what protection emanates from right they are entitled to? (ii) if Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether Govt of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law? (iii) even if Rohingyas have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions? and (iv) whether Rohingyas who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided basic amenities like sanitation, drinking water, education, etc. (in conformity with Article 21)?

In 2025, a bench led by Justice Kant was informed that some refugees with United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) cards, including women and children, were arrested by police authorities and deported to Myanmar. However, no interim order was passed, based on the government's assurance that it is bound by a Supreme Court order to deport only in accordance with law. "if they (Rohingyas) have a right to stay here, that should be acknowledged, and if they don't have a right to stay here, then they (government) will follow the procedure and deport as per law", said Justice Kant.

In another public interest litigation seeking government benefits and school admissions for Rohingya refugees, Justice Kant's bench said that education shall be provided to all children without discrimination, but first the status of residence of the Rohingya families needed to be ascertained. Subsequently, this matter was disposed of noting an order passed in another case and stating that the Court wants Rohingya children to approach schools for admission first.

Recently, Justice Kant deprecated a United Nations agency's issuance of Refugee Cards to immigrants in India. "They have opened a showroom here and are issuing certificates", the judge said.

Condemnation of advocate's shoe-hurling at CJI Gavai

In 2025, Justice Kant also came upon the case involving Advocate Rakesh Kishore, the lawyer who attempted to throw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai over his remarks in the Vishnu Idol case. Dealing with a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking contempt action against Kishore, Justice Kant said that the act of shoe-throwing constituted serious and grave criminal contempt.

At the same time however, the judge suggested that it would be better to let the issue die its natural death, especially considering that the CJI himself had pardoned the lawyer and shown magnanimity. It was also stated that since the CJI did not pursue contempt action, the contempt of Court on the face of it met an end. On the aspect of social media posts glorifying the incident, Justice Kant indicated that the Court can explore a John Doe order and preventive guidelines.

Artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies

Justice Kant has also spoken about the need to ensure equitable balance between opportunities offered by Artificial Intelligence and ethical challenges it poses. In the context of rise of AI's utility in traffic management and transport, the judge has stressed on the need for regulatory frameworks to address sustainability concerns and counter the evil of cyber attacks and privacy violations.

In 2025, while delivering the RC Lahoti Memorial Lecture at Manav Rachna University, Justice Kant opined that technology can never replace the human element in the justice delivery system as the heart of justice will always remain human. At another event, voicing similar sentiment, the judge said that as courts and lawyers increasingly rely on artificial intelligence, data analytics, and digital systems, they must remember that “the essence of our calling lies not in data or algorithms, but in conscience and compassion".

Dealing with a bitcoin extortion case, Justice Kant highlighted that a grey area exists in the regulation of bitcoin/cryptocurrency and the existing laws are "completely obsolete". During earlier hearings of the case as well, the judge's bench underlined importance of regulating cryptocurrencies, while commenting that it would be unwise to impose a blanket ban. It infact equated unregulated bitcoin trading to hawala transactions and expressed that lack of clear regulatory mechanism has enhanced possibility of misuse.

Closing Remarks

The above analysis would show that Justice Surya Kant held a significant judicial docket during his tenure as a Judge at the Supreme Court. Some of these crucial cases will carry forward to his bench when he presides as the Chief Justice of India.

Those frequenting his Court would agree that on more occasions than one, the judge resolved crucial disputes by way of consent orders and mutual agreements. Seldom did a party have to go from his court with a feeling that they were not given proper hearing opportunity. Despite his heavy docket, he exhibited a unique tendency to give patient hearings - even to litigants in person - and encouraged young lawyers to argue cases even if they remained hesitant.

Outside courtroom, Justice Kant also emphasized from time to time the importance of independence of judiciary, ensured free legal aid for prisoners, and spoke on the advantages of meditation over litigation.

With issues like prolonged trials and access to justice for the marginalized being close to his heart, suffice it to say that Justice Kant's tenure as CJI would surely be a notable one and it would be interesting to see what legacy he leaves behind.

The author is a Supreme Court correspondent at LiveLaw. She can be reached at debby@livelaw.in.