Court protecting rights only for those who can litigate not fulfilling constitutional function: CJI

CJI: Court Protects Rights Only for Those Who Can Litigate

Court protecting rights only for those – Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has raised concerns about the judiciary’s ability to fulfill its constitutional role by safeguarding rights for all citizens, not just those who can afford to litigate. In a recent address, he emphasized that the court’s focus on protecting rights for those with financial means has weakened its core function in a democratic society. “The judiciary must not only serve as a protector of rights but also ensure equitable justice for every individual, regardless of their economic status,” he stated, highlighting the need for a more inclusive approach to legal representation.

The Judiciary’s Constitutional Duty

During his visit to Queen Mary University of London, Justice Kant engaged in a dialogue with students and legal professionals, discussing the evolving role of the judiciary in modern governance. The event, hosted by the Centre for Commercial Law, prompted critical questions about how courts balance accessibility with the enforcement of constitutional principles. While the judiciary is constitutionally mandated to act as the guardian of fundamental rights, Justice Kant argued that this mission is compromised when the legal system fails to address systemic inequities in access to justice.

“Public trust in the judiciary isn’t given automatically—it’s earned through transparency, fairness, and the ability to correct mistakes.”

This insight underscored his belief that the court’s constitutional function is not merely about adjudicating cases but about ensuring that justice is a lived experience for all. He pointed out that when rights are protected only for those who can litigate, the judiciary risks becoming an instrument of privilege rather than a bastion of equality.

Reforming the Legal System

Justice Kant stressed that the judiciary must adapt to the changing needs of society, particularly in addressing disparities in legal access. He suggested that the current system often prioritizes high-profile cases, leaving marginalized communities with limited recourse. “A uniform national judicial policy is essential to ensure predictability and coherence,” he said, adding that such a policy would help maintain public confidence in the legal system. This statement ties back to his central argument: that the court’s role should extend beyond procedural fairness to substantive equity.

“Judicial strength lies in openness to learning and adaptation.”

He further explained that the judiciary must remain flexible to accommodate the diverse challenges faced by different segments of society. By integrating technology and streamlining legal processes, Justice Kant envisioned a system where the court’s protection of rights is not contingent on a person’s financial capability, thereby fulfilling its constitutional mandate more effectively.

In addition to accessibility, the CJI highlighted the importance of accountability. He argued that the judiciary must be equally responsive to the needs of the people it serves, ensuring that its decisions reflect the broader constitutional values of justice and liberty. “The court’s power to protect rights must be matched by its commitment to serving the public interest,” he said, calling for a reexamination of how legal resources are allocated and utilized in the country.

“Justice must be accessible enough to make its protection meaningful.”

This idea was central to his remarks, as he questioned whether the current legal framework truly embodies the principle of equal justice. He used the example of a court that only defends rights for those who can litigate, arguing that such a system fails to address the constitutional duty of protecting the rights of the less privileged. “When the court becomes a tool for the few, it loses its role as a guardian for all,” he remarked, urging legal reforms to bridge this gap.

Justice Kant’s comments reflect a broader debate within the legal community about the judiciary’s effectiveness in delivering justice. While the court remains the final arbiter against governmental overreach, its ability to do so is undermined by systemic barriers. The focus keyword, “Court protecting rights only for those who can litigate,” reappears in his discussions, reinforcing the argument that the legal system must prioritize fairness over selectivity. By addressing these issues, the judiciary can restore its reputation as a true constitutional institution that serves every citizen, not just a privileged minority.