Justice delayed is not justice denied but justice destroyed: CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Saturday said that delay in judicial intervention does not merely deny justice but destroys it, warning that citizens often lose their only real protection when courts fail to act in time.

The CJI emphasised that for many citizens, particularly those facing executive action, the High Court’s ability to intervene at the very first hearing often determines whether justice is experienced at all.

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

Liberty in India would never again be left at the mercy of unchecked state power if High Courts remain vigilant, responsive and accessible to ordinary citizens, Justice Kant further remarked.

“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 added.

Justice Kant was delivering the Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture organised by the Bombay Bar Association.

He underlined that High Courts occupy a unique and critical position in India’s constitutional framework, acting as the first and most vital line of defence for citizens against illegal detention, administrative excess and violations of dignity.

"The High Court's power to grant interim relief under article 226) 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," he said.

He said High Courts were never meant to function merely as appellate or revisional courts or as stepping stones to the Supreme Court. Instead, they were designed to be vibrant constitutional courts where citizens could seek immediate and effective remedies.

Justice Kant traced this role to India’s colonial past, noting that under colonial rule, laws were instruments of control and civil liberties were deliberately denied. He said the framers of the Constitution learnt from this history and ensured that citizens would never again be left defenceless against the State.

He explained that Article 226 was conceived in this historical context to ensure that rights were not merely declared but enforceable.

“They realised that rights without remedies are hollow. When they sat to craft the Constitution of a free India, they resolved that never again would the citizen be left defenceless against the State,” he said.

The Chief Justice drew a clear distinction between Articles 32 and 226, explaining that while Article 32 protects fundamental rights, Article 226 gives High Courts a wider reach to correct any legal injury, enforce statutory duties and restrain administrative excess.

He described High Courts as the “true first constitutional court” for citizens.

“While the Supreme Court may have the final word, the High Court often has the most vital one. The High Court is the primary sentinel guarding the doorsteps of the ordinary citizen, ensuring that the rule of law is not a distant Delhi-centric concept but a local, breathing reality,” Justice Kant said.

Justice Kant emphasised 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 failure of administration.

He said this role became even more pronounced with the evolution of public interest litigation, which allowed courts to hear the concerns of those whose voices are muted by poverty, illiteracy or marginalisation.

“This was not just a procedural shift. It was a moral one,” he said.

Referring to the High Courts’ power to act suo motu and issue interim directions, Justice Kant said this ability to fill gaps in justice had allowed courts to protect the environment, ensure the dignity of prisoners and safeguard migrant workers during national crises.

Justice Kant said access to justice must now extend beyond physical courtrooms and that virtual hearings should no longer be seen as emergency measures.

“In an era when citizens’ rights are likely to be infringed by automated systems or burgeoning technologies, courts must adapt accordingly. Technology must be instead be harnessed towards ensuring judicial equality,” he said.

Recalling Fali Nariman’s criticism of verbose litigation, Justice Kant said simpler and more focused processes would improve access for ordinary citizens.

Drawing from his own judicial experience, including at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, he said long-term systemic solutions were more effective than short-term judicial interventions.

He cautioned that High Courts must strengthen their role without overextending themselves and stressed on the need for a disciplined Bar and a focused Bench.

Justice Kant concluded his address by reflecting on Nariman’s legacy. He described the eminent jurist as a lifelong custodian of constitutional morality who believed that the Constitution, like a river, is a living force requiring constant vigilance to keep its course true.

[Live Coverage]