📌 Key Highlights
- The CJI added that he remains completely “unaffected” by criticism directed at him outside the courtroom. He said th…
- “I can see this trend now. Everyone starts commenting on matters that are pending before us and what we observe in the…
The CJI added that he remains completely “unaffected” by criticism directed at him outside the courtroom. He said that judicial questioning in court is meant to “elicit answers” and test competing arguments.
“I can see this trend now. Everyone starts commenting on matters that are pending before us and what we observe in the court. We ask questions in the court to elicit answers from both sides…there are times when we create hypothetical situations too for understanding an issue,” the CJI remarked during a hearing.
“But I am not affected by all this…on social media or otherwise. If anybody thinks, they can browbeat…they are wrong. I am a very tough person,” he added.
The Chief Justice’s assertion came as a bench headed by him, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, declined to entertain a plea by former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna seeking transfer of his sexual-assault case to another judge on allegations of bias. The bench said there was “nothing to substantiate” the charge against the sessions judge and underscored that the Supreme Court must keep the “confidence and morale of the district judiciary” high.
His comment on refugees came while hearing activist Rita Manchanda’s habeas corpus petition. CJI Kant, presiding a bench that again included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, had questioned whether courts and governments were expected to “roll out a red carpet” for illegal entrants when millions of Indian citizens still struggle for basic entitlements such as food, education, housing and medical care. The remarks went viral online, prompting two sharply divergent open letters over the past week.
In an open letter dated December 5, former judges, senior lawyers and academics criticised the CJI’s observations as “unconscionable” and “hostile to the dignity” of people fleeing persecution. Signed by former Delhi High Court chief justice AP Shah, justices K Chandru and Anjana Prakash, senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Colin Gonsalves, Mihir Desai, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Prashant Bhushan and several others, the letter said such rhetoric “threatens the foundational values of our Constitution” and risks undermining public faith in courts as “a refuge for the vulnerable”.
On December 9, however, a group of 44 retired judges of the Supreme Court and high courts issued a counter-statement titled “Disparagement of the Supreme Court is Unacceptable”, defending CJI Kant and condemning what they described as “a motivated campaign” to malign him.
The former judges said that critics had mischaracterised “a routine courtroom proceeding” as evidence of prejudice, when the Chief Justice had merely posed a fundamental legal question: who, in law, had granted the refugee status being claimed before the Court?
Affirming their “full confidence” in the Supreme Court and its leadership, the retired judges warned against attributing political motives to judicial inquiries and supported consideration of a court-monitored SIT into the illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreign nationals.
Among the signatories of this letter were former Supreme Court judges Anil Dave and Hemant Gupta, former chief justice of Rajasthan High Court Anil Deo Singh, and former chief justice of J&K and Delhi High Court BC Patel.
