“Justice Delayed Is Justice Destroyed”: CJI Surya Kant Reasserts the Constitutional Role of High Courts

Introduction

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has delivered a powerful reminder of the constitutional promise of timely justice, warning that delay does not merely deny justice but destroys it altogether. Speaking at the Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture, organised by the Bombay Bar Association, the Chief Justice underscored the pivotal role of High Courts under Article 226 in ensuring meaningful access to justice for ordinary citizens.

His remarks come at a time when mounting judicial arrears, procedural complexity, and geographical barriers continue to undermine the lived experience of constitutional rights.

---

Context of the Address: The Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture

The lecture, titled “The Sentinel on Qui Vive: Article 226 as the Guardian of Access to Justice”, was delivered in Mumbai and focused on the constitutional architecture that places High Courts as the first and most effective protectors of individual liberty.

Justice Surya Kant’s address was both reflective and reform-oriented, drawing from his judicial experience in constitutional courts, including his tenure at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and his current role at the apex of the judiciary.

---

“Justice Delayed Is Justice Destroyed”: Meaning and Constitutional Significance

The Chief Justice emphasised that for vulnerable citizens — such as small farmers facing land acquisition or students denied educational opportunities — delayed adjudication effectively nullifies constitutional remedies.

He observed that access to justice loses its meaning if relief arrives after years of litigation, reinforcing that delay erodes not just rights but public faith in the rule of law.

This observation aligns with long-standing constitutional jurisprudence recognising that speedy justice is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

---

Article 226: The High Courts as the First Constitutional Sentinel

Scope and Power of Article 226

Justice Surya Kant described Article 226 as both broad in reach and flexible in application, empowering High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority for enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose”.

Unlike Article 32, which is confined to fundamental rights, Article 226 provides wider remedial jurisdiction, making High Courts the most accessible constitutional forum for citizens.

Preventing Fait Accompli by the Executive

The Chief Justice highlighted the unique ability of High Courts to stay executive action at the very first hearing, thereby preventing irreversible harm caused by administrative haste.

Such threshold intervention, he said, is often the only real access to justice that citizens experience, especially in cases involving demolitions, service terminations, admissions, or coercive state action.

---

Article 32 vs Article 226: Complementary, Not Competing Jurisdictions

While reiterating that Article 32 makes the Supreme Court the “Heart and Soul” of the Constitution, Justice Surya Kant cautioned against over-romanticising apex court access.

He noted that the geographical and procedural distance of the Supreme Court often makes it an intimidating forum for common citizens. In contrast, High Courts act as the ubiquitous constitutional pulse, bridging the gap between constitutional ideals and everyday injustice.

This view reflects established judicial thought that Article 226 is not subordinate to Article 32, but complementary in protecting constitutional rights.

---

From Reactive to Supervisory Justice

The Chief Justice urged the judiciary to move beyond a purely reactive adjudicatory model and adopt a supervisory and problem-solving role.

Referring to his work on issues such as drug abuse during his tenure at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, he explained that lasting solutions require system-building, not just episodic judicial orders.

This approach resonates with evolving constitutional jurisprudence on continuing mandamus and structural remedies.

---

Technology, Digital Divide, and the Future of Access to Justice

Justice Surya Kant emphasised that access to justice in the 21st century is inseparable from technological parity.

He cautioned that citizens from remote areas — such as tribal regions in Gadchiroli or the Northeast — should not be forced to travel hundreds of kilometres to seek constitutional remedies.

Virtual Courts as a Constitutional Imperative

The Chief Justice described the future of Article 226 as a “court without walls”, urging High Courts to treat virtual hearings not as emergency arrangements but as permanent instruments of constitutional access.

This reflects a broader constitutional understanding that procedural innovation must serve substantive justice.

---

Role of Lawyers and Legal Services Institutions

Justice Surya Kant also placed responsibility on the Bar, cautioning lawyers against filing frivolous writ petitions that burden judicial time.

He stressed the need to strengthen Legal Services Authorities at state and district levels, transforming access to justice from a passive entitlement into an active, state-guaranteed service, particularly for marginalised communities.

---

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 226 – Power of High Courts

Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights, making it the cornerstone of accessible constitutional justice.

Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies

Guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Judicially expanded to include speedy justice, dignity, and meaningful access to legal remedies.

---

Key Judicial Precedents

• Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1979)
  Recognised speedy trial as an essential component of Article 21.

• L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997)
  Affirmed the central role of High Courts under Article 226 as part of the basic structure.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984)
  Expanded the court’s role in addressing systemic injustice through writ jurisdiction.

• State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh (1958)
  Established the wide and discretionary nature of Article 226 powers.

---

Conclusion

Justice Surya Kant’s lecture is a constitutional call to action. It reaffirms that High Courts are not merely appellate forums but living sentinels of liberty, closest to the citizen and most capable of preventing injustice before it becomes irreversible.

In an era of growing arrears, technological change, and administrative complexity, the message is clear: justice must be timely, accessible, and humane, or it risks losing its constitutional soul.