NEW DELHI: Flagging the importance of timely intervention by courts in crucial matters, CJI Surya Kant said the difference between justice and injustice was not in the final judgement but in whether the court intervened when “intervention was most needed”.He underlined the need for the judiciary, particularly constitutional courts, to introspect to further improve their working and to make listing of cases “more transparent and predictable”.Speaking at the platinum jubilee celebration of Kerala HC, CJI Kant said constitutional justice in India did not begin and end in New Delhi and its strength lay in the robust network of 25 HCs spread across the country, each entrusted with the duty of protecting rights and upholding the rule of law.He said HCs were better placed to deal with citizens’ problems as they were closely connected with the everyday realities of people.“It is in this context that I wish to emphasise the extraordinary constitutional significance of Article 226. Its breadth is one of the greatest strengths of our judicial architecture. While Article 32 guarantees access to SC for enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 226 empowers HCs to issue appropriate writs and directions not only for fundamental rights but also for other legal rights. This wide constitutional canvas allows HCs to fashion meaningful remedies across diverse legal, statutory, administrative and contractual disputes. Equally important is their power to grant timely interim protection,” the CJI said.
He said there has been a growing tendency of litigants to approach SC requesting directions for urgent listing or early hearing of matters pending before HCs and asked whether the present process could be improved, including listing of cases.“SC has consistently respected the institutional autonomy of HCs, including their authority to regulate their own rosters. That position is rooted in respect for the constitutional status of these institutions. Yet, the frequency of such requests invites us to consider whether there is room to improve the responsiveness of our processes. We must ask ourselves: Can urgent matters be identified more effectively? Can listing procedures be made more transparent and predictable? Can technology assist in prioritising cases where delay may cause irreversible prejudice?...” he said.“These are not questions of institutional criticism but of collective responsibility,” the CJI added.