Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Sunday underlined that the constitutional promise of a timely trial is inseparably linked to the availability of adequate judicial infrastructure, warning that even the most sincere and well-intentioned justice delivery system will “collapse under logistical strain” if courts are too few and facilities too frail.
Delivering the keynote address at a symposium organised by the High Court Bar Association of Orissa, the CJI said that laws may be enacted, offences registered and even personal liberty curtailed, but citizens are ultimately left waiting for “the one thing that completes the promise of justice –– a timely trial that the infrastructure is simply too frail to deliver”.
Justice Kant stressed that judicial infrastructure must be viewed not as government expenditure but as a long-term investment in the Republic. “Courtrooms, staff, technology, and basic facilities are not luxuries; they are the skeleton of justice itself. When we strengthen them, we strengthen the Republic,” he said.
Pointing to successful examples already within the system, the CJI said specialised courts in family, commercial and criminal law had demonstrated that when dockets are intelligently structured, outcomes improve without compromising quality.
“It is my ardent appeal that these models must become the norm, not the exception,” he said, adding that the time had come to establish exclusive courts for time-bound trials in cases involving “cunning and complex crimes” with national and international ramifications.
{{/usCountry}}“It is my ardent appeal that these models must become the norm, not the exception,” he said, adding that the time had come to establish exclusive courts for time-bound trials in cases involving “cunning and complex crimes” with national and international ramifications.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Kant said the justice system could not function in isolation from the executive and legislature, likening institutional imbalance to a tricycle missing a wheel. Without harmony among the three branches, the rule of law itself faltered.
The CJI pointed out that since assuming office of the CJI on November 24, his foremost goal had been to ensure justice for the common citizen, rather than unveiling elaborate institutional blueprints. The true test of the judicial system, he said, lay not in theory but in how justice was experienced by ordinary people as to whether it was predictable, accessible and humane.
Recalling his years as a young lawyer in district and high courts, the CJI narrated the story of an elderly farmer waiting late into the afternoon for his case to be called out. When advised to leave, the farmer had replied that leaving early might signal surrender to the opposing side. “For him, delay was not a docket statistic. It was a quiet erosion of dignity,” Justice Kant said, describing how the cost of litigation often translated into a prolonged financial and emotional winter for litigants.
Invoking a local Odia proverb that warns how even the strongest cloth eventually tears when a small rip is left unattended, the CJI said dignity under Article 21 was compromised “through a thousand cuts” when justice became tardy or prohibitively expensive.
Addressing the chronic backlog of cases, Justice Kant said pendency must be understood as an interconnected ecosystem that affects every level of the judiciary, from trial courts to the Supreme Court.
Blockages at the top, he warned, only intensified pressure on courts below. He added the Supreme Court was actively working to dispose of long-pending categories of cases involving settled law or repetitive issues, so as to provide finality and remove the uncertainty that stalls thousands of trials across the country. While some might view this as docket management, he described it instead as “system stabilisation”, arguing that finality at the apex level instils confidence throughout the judicial hierarchy.
The CJI identified alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, as a strategy with immense immediate potential to reduce delays. However, he cautioned that mediation would only succeed if there was a cultural shift. Litigants, the CJI said, needed to understand that settlement was not surrender but strategy, government departments had to abandon their reflexive tendency to appeal every adverse order, and lawyers had to respect the idea of approaching the appropriate forum rather than indulging in forum shopping.
Turning to technology, the CJI struck a measured note, describing it as neither a miracle cure nor a menace. The pandemic, he said, had shown how virtual hearings, e-filing and digital access could keep courts functioning during a global shutdown by collapsing distance and democratising access.
At the same time, Justice Kant warned against naive optimism in an era of deepfakes and digital fraud, cautioning that reforms which excluded the poor, elderly or digitally unfamiliar amounted to regression rather than progress. Technology, he reiterated, must remain a servant of justice, amplifying human judgment rather than replacing it.
Concluding his address, the CJI called for a “virtuous cycle” in which reduced pendency builds trust, trust deepens respect for law, and respect ultimately reduces disputes. Drawing inspiration from Odisha’s history of collective endeavour, he likened the justice system to a chariot with four wheels –– the Bench, the Bar, the administration and the citizen, cautioning that the journey halts if even one refuses to move.