Collegium system embedded within Constitutional framework; preserves judiciary’s autonomy: Justice Surya Kant

The collegium system of judicial appointments remains central to maintaining the independence of the Indian judiciary and to preserving the balance between the three branches of government, Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant said on Wednesday.

Indian judiciary, he said, stands as a clear example of how the doctrine of separation of powers operates in practice.

“A prominent example lies in the judiciary’s dominance over appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The existing mechanism serves to substantially preserve the judiciary’s autonomy, both inside the courtroom as well as outside of it in relation to administrative functionality,” Justice Kant stated.

He further said that the framework of Collegium was not a later invention but part of the original Constitutional design.

“The framers embedded within the judicial structure protections that no other organ of the State may encroach upon,” he noted, referring to constitutional safeguards on the salaries, privileges and transfers of judges.

He was speaking on the topic “The Living Constitution: How the Indian Judiciary Shapes and Safeguards Constitutionalism” at an event held at the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka,

The event was also attended by Sri Lankan Chief Justice P Padman Surasena and other judges.

In his speech, Justice Kant underscored that the judiciary’s role extends beyond deciding disputes.

“This enduring commitment to independence enables the Indian judiciary to do more than simply resolve disputes or defend constitutional boundaries. It allows courts to function as architects of democratic life,” he said.

He also observed that the judiciary’s strength is rooted in public trust rather than in coercive power.

“The judiciary’s legitimacy rests on the trust of the people, a trust earned through fairness, restraint, and courage in moments of crisis,” he opined.

Quoting Justice HR Khanna, he added,

“If the Indian Constitution is our heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, no less are we, the people of India, the trustees and custodians of the values which pulsate within its provisions.”

Justice Kant also described judicial review as the “heartbeat” of India’s constitutional democracy.

In this regard, he highlighted Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution and said these provisions form the twin pillars of constitutional enforcement.

“Judicial review is not merely a procedural safeguard. It is a structural commitment to accountability, legality, and the supremacy of constitutional norms,” he said.

He cited several landmark judgments including Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India to highlight how the courts have expanded the meaning of fundamental rights and given life to the idea of a living Constitution.

Justice Surya Kant also recalled instances from his judicial career that dealt with the protection of human rights and the rights of victims. He referred to a case involving alleged encounter deaths in Assam in which the Court directed free legal aid through the District Legal Services Authorities.

He also mentioned his judgments in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Atma Tube Products and in the Lakhimpur Kheri case wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed that victims of a crime have the right to challenge an acquittal and that the same is not restricted to the State.

“The victim, being the de facto sufferer of the crime, cannot remain a mute spectator to the process that determines their own cause,” he said.

Justice Surya Kant also reflected on the shared constitutional values between India and Sri Lanka.

“The judiciary’s answer in both contexts has been to act not as a rival to the legislature or executive, but as their conscience keeper,” he said.

Survival of constitutional democracy depends on collective vigilance, he said in conclusion.