It is a profound moment when a nation’s Chief Justice reframes a foundational legal maxim. CJI Justice Surya Kant’s recent elaboration — that “justice delayed is justice destroyed” — is not mere rhetorical flourish. It is a stark, operational diagnosis of a systemic ailment and a clarion call for reform, centring on the pivotal role of India’s high courts.
Justice Kant’s insight, offered while honouring the legacy of Fali S. Nariman, one of India’s greatest lawyers, cuts to the heart of the judicial experience for ordinary citizens. For the small farmer facing dispossession or the student denied rightful admission, protracted litigation is not an inconvenience; it is an annulment of justice itself. By the time a final verdict arrives years later, the case is often already won or lost.
High courts as the first line of justice
In this landscape, the high court’s power to grant immediate relief — to stay an arbitrary executive order at the very first hearing — becomes “the only real access the citizen ever experiences”. This protective jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a procedural formality; it is an essential lifeline that preserves the status quo so that justice remains a tangible possibility, not a hollow promise.
This underscores Justice Kant’s powerful framing: while the Supreme Court has the final word, the high courts hold the most vital one. As the “primary sentinel” at the citizen’s doorstep, the high court translates the rule of law from a distant, Delhi-centric abstraction into a local, breathing reality. It is here that legal principles must bend to meet grassroots inequities.
Beyond litigation: faster alternatives
Crucially, Justice Kant also highlighted cheaper and more effective alternatives such as mediation and arbitration, which courts must actively promote to divert cases and deliver timely relief.
Technology and procedural innovation
To fulfil this sacred mandate, Justice Kant rightly argues that high courts must evolve. They must harness technology not as a temporary fix, as during the pandemic, but as a permanent tool for “justice equality”, bridging the digital divide and countering rights infringements by automated systems. This requires moving beyond viewing virtual hearings as an emergency measure and embracing them as an accessibility reality.
It also necessitates procedural innovation to close the gap between a recognised right and a deliverable remedy.
Strengthening the sentinels
The path forward is clear. Empowering high courts with adequate resources, encouraging procedural agility and leveraging technology for inclusion are imperatives. By ensuring that justice at this critical first appellate stage is swift, accessible and robust, we prevent its destruction.
Justice Kant has not merely defined a problem; he has illuminated the solution. The strength of our republic depends on heeding this call, actively fortifying these sentinels at our doors and ensuring equal justice for every citizen. Otherwise, justice delayed will become the rule — leading inexorably to justice denied and justice destroyed.
