Chief Justice of India (CJI)-designate Justice Surya Kant on Saturday described the push towards "swadeshi jurisprudence" as a natural step for a Court that, he said, has built a strong body of authoritative judgments over the past 75 years.
In a short interaction with media this evening at his residence, Justice Kant said that the path forward would be for the Supreme Court of India to deepen its own judicial philosophy.
"After 75 years of the Supreme Court delivering thousands of historical judgments, when our judgments are being cited by various other jurisdictions and when we have acquired wealth of judicial knowledge of our own right, why should we, while forming an opinion on any issue pertaining to our nation, look to the judgments of other countries? So that's why the necessity of having your own philosophy, your own jurisprudence is always there," Justice Kant said.
Justice Kant responded to a number of questions on vacancies, media criticism and the pressures often linked to the office of the Chief Justice.
He underlined that the office of CJI requires one to be detached from social media commentary. Justice Kant also said that his immediate priorities include moving ahead with long-pending Constitution Bench matters. He said that he is optimistic about tackling pendency.
Edited excerpts from the interaction follow:
Bar & Bench: When Chief Justice BR Gavai recently remarked about the Swadeshi breeze in Indian jurisprudence, you concurred with him. Why is there a need for it in the first place?
Justice Kant: After 75 years of the Supreme Court delivering thousands of historical judgments, when our judgments are being cited by various other jurisdictions and when we have acquired wealth of judicial knowledge of our own right, why should we, while forming any opinion on an issue pertaining to our nation, depend on looking to the judgments of other countries where the geographical conditions, local conditions, social conditions, political scenario, everything might be different. So that's why the necessity of having your own philosophy, your own jurisprudence is always there.
Bar & Bench: What kind of women representation will we see in the Supreme Court?
Justice Kant: I have not applied my mind. I will fill up all the vacancies.
Bar & Bench: How will PILs filed for publicity be dealt with?
Justice Kant: If there is a plea which has all-India impact, it will be heard. Whether small or big lawyer [appears], the case is taken up. We read the brief and make up tentative mind. But sometimes the lawyer’s argument saves a dismissal.
Bar & Bench: What is your plan to tackle case pendency?
Justice Kant: I am very optimistic. Even if there are 90,000 pending cases, it may be there, I am working on it. With one judgment recently, with Justice Dipankar Dutta, we gave a direction which will eventually dispose of 1,000 matters. If such directions are given, then the pendency can be tackled. My priority is also to set up the Constitution benches, especially the 7 and 9 judges' benches, for expeditious disposal. Filing of cases is a continuous process. I cannot bring down the pendency to zero; that cannot happen and should not happen. But the situation should be made manageable so that I should not think that 'oh my God, how there are so many thousands of cases pending'.
My priority is also to set up the Constitution benches, especially the 7 and 9 judges' benches, for expeditious disposal.Justice Surya Kant
Bar & Bench: How do you look at media reporting?
Justice Kant: We have two types of media in the country. One is very responsible; [they] see what the court has held and that critical reasoning is based on sound legal principles .. but there are some on social or unsocial media who make comments.
Bar & Bench: Is the CJI’s office under social media pressure?
Justice Kant: Judge or CJI cannot come and should not come [under pressure]. What else is required when you become a CJI. I have never been under pressure.... the only way is to ignore them.
Bar & Bench: How can pendency be avoided in tax matters?
Justice Kant: In tax matters, Government of India has a pragmatic approach. There was a Board circular. Let us have an optimistic approach. Government realised that for ₹5 crores tax litigation we should not fight. It is also about the revenue of the country. Some mechanism has to be developed to take a final view so that time is not wasted in a specific matter. There is an element of objectivity and subjectivity.