Supreme Court Judge Justice Surya Kant on Saturday strongly defended the collegium system of judicial appointments, saying, “Despite its flaws, it acts as an important institutional security … protects the autonomy of the judiciary.”
Justice Kant said that at Seattle University at Seattle University “The Quit Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue,”, Justice Kant said that the collegium “limited the intervention by the executive and the Legislature, which could preserve the autonomy of the judiciary and otherwise the other impaired judges can be preserved.”
He admitted that this system is “subject to continuous criticism – especially about the ambiguity of its intentional procedures and lack of publicly clear criteria – but is a sign of increasing commitment to enhance transparency and public confidence in recent efforts by the Supreme Court.”
Referring to the active judicial interventions that pursue constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, “How far can the courts go to shape the policy?” And “Judicial creativity is a quality or a vice president?”
“Answer, I believe, lies in intentions and integrity. When the courts act to empower powerless, are based in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not leave democracy – they deepen it,” he said.
Justice Kant admitted that the judiciary “has not been impregnable for criticism that many times it violates the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overache” and said that “In recent years, the select domain has led to a clear change towards more and more institutional self-restraints. The court has sought to be attached to other branches. It is the most sustainable. Used with the spirit of-when the court is seen as an almighty intermediary but as a co-traveler in the Democratic journey, is based in constitutional values. “
He described the judiciary as a “watchdog of constitutional morality” and said that it has played an important role in shaping the moral spine of this very democracy. “
The story continues below this advertisement
Recalling the challenges of the past, Justice Kant saw that “the Indian judiciary, also, detects the duration of intensive testing and change. Especially during the Emergency, the court struggled with serious challenges for its freedom and many times, demonstrated the honor of harassment for executive power. However, this phase of the institutional holder gave the way for a native judicial consciousness.”
He said that “the relationship of the judiciary developing with its freedom is very heartfelt that the huge, pluralistic democracy of India continues to work with a significant harmony. It is not only the existence of judicial freedom, but with the degree and coincidence of that freedom – the landscape.”
On the role of courts in democracy, he said, “There is constitutional democracy … a system where prominence is investigated, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed on the altar of popularity,” and in such a system, courts cannot serve as a mere referee. “
He insisted, “In a democracy as a huge and diversity as India, this happens only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visually, that it can not only remain the last word, but also in our collective democratic journey, there may be a reliable voice among many people in our collective democratic journey.”
The story continues below this advertisement
“The judiciary cannot be the most visible hand in the state, it cannot command the battalion or shaped budget, but it makes a task more difficult: it keeps the promise of justice alive. In India, in India, this task is often thanks, sometimes victorious, and always necessary.
Earlier, during the Washington State Supreme Court’s visit to the temple of justice in the Olympia on 3 June, Justice Kant highlighted the defense of the SC of free speech rights, given that “the right-sensorship and public order could not trump the right to free expression of the public order,”, “,” these are only legal forecasting. “Neutrality, but complexity.”
Drawing similarities between Indian and American judiciary, he said, “In both countries, the judiciary has pushed behind the temptation to suppress dissatisfaction under the constant misleading and misleading perceptions that the executive can catch … both our systems were designed to rely on the visually power, but to control it.”
On June 6, in a firecusside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters, Justice Kant touched the emergence of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said that “he was strongly convinced that any of the AI thoughts should be directed by a deep moral compass. To shape more than innovation of future demands – it asks an unwavering follow for the founding values. Transparency for human dignity, equity, responsibility and respect should not be after honor, but all technologies should not be comforted.”
The story continues below this advertisement
He warned that “Technology, if left uncontrolled, can reflect and strengthen social inequalities. AI is not a right technique and it probably can never change the human element that the entire Rollsian principle of justice rests,” and added, “technology must be subject to our high commitments, fairness, equity, and human dignity.”
,
