Justice Surya Kant: India's New CJI Vows to Clear Pendency of Cases But What About Constitutional Challenges?

With the tenure of the current Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai concluding, the mantle has passed on to Justice Surya Kant. His ascent to the apex judicial office comes at a critical juncture for the Indian judiciary, marked by a formidable backlog of cases and seminal constitutional questions. Justice Kant's tenure as the 53rd CJI would last 14 months, during which time he is expected to face many of these constitutional questions and challenges.While taking up the new role at a ceremony on Monday, Kant outlined a strong reform agenda, reiterating the high pendency of cases in the Supreme Court, and vowed to make the fast-tracking of cases and speedy delivery of justice his key priority. With nearly 90,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, the new CJI said that he aims to streamline judicial resources, improve filing practices in lower courts, and fast-track long-pending matters. He also ephasised discipline, technology integration, and mediation-first approaches, adding that his leadership will be guided by a “farmer’s patience and a poet’s empathy.”Kant was born on 10 February 1962 to a middle-class family and began his legal career as a litigator in Haryana’s Hisar district in 1984. He will be the first person from Haryana to hold the office of Chief Justice. He was appointed the Advocate General (AG) of the state in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2000—a post he held for four years and was the youngest lawyer to become an AG till he was elevated to judgeship. Kant's judicial career began in January 2004 when he became the permanent judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and later in October 2018, he became the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, following which he was elevated to the Supreme Court.From Bulldozer Verdicts to Green Crackers, How Will CJI Gavai Be Remembered?Justice Kant’s imminent ascent to the CJI's office presents a paradox. While his career is decorated with landmark interventions—like putting the colonial sedition law in abeyance to ordering transparency in the Pegasus spyware scandal—a central question remains: Will his tenure as CJI be defined by bold jurisprudence or by the administrative conservatism that has often characterised his office?His record suggests a judge capable of checking executive overreach, as seen when his bench stated the state cannot use national security as a "bugbear" to evade scrutiny. Yet, the history of the CJI's role, with its immense administrative burden, has a tendency to temper judicial audacity, raising doubts about whether Justice Kant’s progressive rulings will be the norm or the exception during his leadership.A closer examination of his judgments reveals a jurist who balances constitutional principles with a pragmatic view of state authority.On the one hand, he has championed gender justice by reserving one-third of seats for women in bar associations and reinstating an illegally removed woman sarpanch. Yet, on the other hand, his bench upheld the strategic Char Dham project and the One Rank One Pension policy, often deferring to the government's stance on matters of national security and policy. This same pragmatism is evident in his cautious approach to free speech, where he has asserted that it is "not a licence to flout societal norms" and has called for guidelines to regulate online content, positions that critics argue could chill expressive freedoms.The true test of his chief justiceship will be the formidable docket of pending Constitutional crises he will inherit.He has already been part of benches handling the abrogation of Article 370 and the presidential reference on Governors' powers—judgments with profound federal ramifications that are still awaited. Furthermore, he will have to navigate other simmering issues like the challenge to the Electoral Bonds scheme post its striking down, and petitions concerning gender parity in the armed forces. How he prioritises these cases as the 'master of the roster' will be as critical as the judgments themselves, defining his impact on India’s constitutional trajectory.Ultimately, Justice Kant’s legacy will be determined by how he resolves the inherent tension of his new role. Will he be the administrative chief, focused on managing the staggering backlog of cases, or will he be the judicial visionary, using his authority to decisively settle the nation’s most contentious legal debates? His past demonstrates a capacity for both restraint and courage.Supreme Court’s 'Say Sorry' Orders For Comedians Put Free Speech on Trial Justice Kant has contributed to numerous landmark judgments during his tenure as a Supreme Court judge. The following cases represent some of the most significant rulings in which he was involved (in order of their ocurrence): 1) Pegasus Spyware ProbeIn 2021, Justice Kant was part of a three-judge bench that ordered the constitution of an independent expert committee to investigate the use of Pegasus spyware for surveillance. The bench held that indiscriminate spying on citizens cannot be allowed and that the mere invocation of "national security" cannot render the Court a mute spectator.In a later hearing in April 2024, Justice Kant clarified that there is nothing inherently wrong with a country possessing spyware for security purposes, but the concern lies in against whom it is used, emphasising that, "We cannot compromise or sacrifice the security of the nation."2) Sedition Law Kept in AbeyanceIn 2022, Justice Kant was part of the bench that passed a historic interim order effectively pausing the colonial sedition law (Section 124A IPC). The bench directed that all pending trials and proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance and expressed the hope that the Centre and State Governments would refrain from registering any new FIRs under this provision while it was under reconsideration by the government.3) Abrogation of Article 370 In 2023, Justice Kant was part of the Constitution Bench that unanimously upheld the validity of the Union Government's 2019 decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370. The judgment held that Article 370 was a temporary provision, that the state of J&K had no internal sovereignty, and concurrence of the state government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution.4) Farmers' ProtestsIn 2024, Justice Kant led the bench handling the Shambhu Border blockade during the farmers' protests. His intervention led to the constitution of a negotiation committee. He emphasised infusing confidence in farmers, agreed to open the border for emergent services, and refused to stay a High Court order for a judicial probe into a farmer's death. He also reprimanded the Punjab government for its non-reconciliatory attitude in a contempt proceeding concerning farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal's health, ultimately leading to a breakthrough in the impasse in 2025.5) Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim UniversityIn 2024, Justice Kant was part of the 7-judge Bench that overruled the 1967 S. Azeez Basha judgment. He authored a partial dissent, arguing that Azeez Basha only needed modification and clarification, not overruling. He observed that for an institution to claim minority status under Article 30(1), it must satisfy the conjunctive tests of being both "established" and "administered" by a minority, and that the question for AMU was a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by a regular bench.6) Upholding of Section 6A of Citizenship Act In 2024, Justice Kant authored the majority judgment for the Constitution Bench that upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (which incorporates the Assam Accord). Applying the tests of reasonable classification and manifest arbitrariness, he held that the provision did not violate Article 14, highlighting humanitarian concerns and historical reasons behind the law.7) Elections and Political Party RegulationsJustice Kant's bench has handled several election-related matters in the recent past. It disposed of a PIL seeking application of the POSH Act to political parties by asking the petitioner to first approach the Election Commission of India (ECI). In 2025, it ordered the holding of local body elections in Maharashtra. His bench is also set to consider a plea for rules to regulate political parties to curb corruption and a case seeking a ban on convicted persons creating parties. In the latter, he expressed that statutory disqualification (like from voting) does not ipso facto deprive a person of their constitutional right to form a political party. With the current debates about vote fraud and questions raised over the ECI's role, Kant's attitude toward elections may reveal itself as crucial, espeically with the country slotted for key Assembly elections next year including in West Bengal.8) Reservation for Women Lawyers in Bar Associations In 2024, Kant's bench passed a significant order directing the reservation of seats for women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations. The reservations were directed on an experimental basis. During hearings, he lamented the absence of a woman President of the Bar since 1962. The bench later extended this reservation to other bar associations across the country.9) The India's Got Latent Row & Mahmudabad BailDealing with cases involving YouTubers like Ranveer Allahabadia over controversial remarks, Justice Kant granted interim protection but severely berated the language used by the comedians on the show 'India's Got Latent', describing it as "dirty" and "perverted." He expressed an intention to regulate obscene content on social media, noting a "vacuum" in regulation. His bench also summoned comedians for jokes on persons with disabilities, directing them to publish public apologies and stating that Article 19 rights cannot supersede Article 21 rights.It was also Justice Kant's bench that granted interim bail to Asoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad following his arrest over a social media post in wake of Operation Sindoor. The bail was given even through the bench ordered the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to "holistically understand" his social media. The bench later pulled up the SIT for exceeding its mandate, famously remarking, "You don't need him, you need a dictionary." The Court eventually quashed one FIR against Mahmudabad and restrained the magistrate from taking cognisance of the chargesheet in another.10) SIR of Bihar's Electoral Rolls (Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI)In this contentious 2025 case, Justice Kant's bench passed several significant orders to ensure transparency in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar voter lists ahead of the recently concluded Assembly polls in the state. It directed the ECI to publish the names and reasons for the exclusion of 65 lakh voters online. It further directed the ECI to allow online applications for inclusion and to treat the Aadhaar card as a valid document for proof of identity (though not of citizenship) for this purpose.From Delhi to Times Square: The Anti-Dalit Campaign to Humiliate CJI GavaiA discernible pattern in recent years has been the shift in a judge's focus upon assuming the office of the CJI. The role, being primarily administrative as the 'master of the roster' and head of the judiciary, often overshadows the judicial output of the judges.There have been many instances where the judge before becoming the Chief Justice, has been pro-liberty, and passed various important judgments but when it comes to take responsibility of the chair, the act to balancing comes into picture. Justice UU Lalit and Justice Sanjiv Khanna (former Chief Justices), had a short, crisp but impactful tenure, unlike those who had years but yet ended up with obiter dictum, and not ratio.Justice Kant steps into the role of CJI with the reputation of being a workhorse and a pragmatic judge. His legacy, however, will be shaped by how he balances the immense administrative load of the office with the urgent need for substantive judicial leadership.The legal community including young lawyers at the bar and the nation will be watching closely to see if Kant uses his position as 'master of the roster' to fast-track these foundational cases. And whether his jurisprudence— which he famously terms it as ‘swadeshi jurisprudence’—as CJI will lean towards judicial deference or assertive constitutional protection, especially on contentious issues like free speech and personal liberty. The challenge before him is not just to manage the court, but to lead it.(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)

BECOME A MEMBER

Surya Kant Becomes CJI: Will ‘Swadeshi Jurisprudence’ Redefine the Court?

Will Justice Surya Kant's tenure as CJI be defined by bold jurisprudence or administrative conservatism?

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Supreme Court Chief Justice of India Pegasus