Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday (September 14, 2026) invoked the Supreme Court’s intervention in the NCERT Class 8 textbook row, where the court had objected to references to ‘judicial corruption’, to emphasise that “institutions do not stay clean by being shielded from scrutiny.”

The court had initially ordered the textbook to be withdrawn en masse. It had termed the textual depiction of the judiciary as “reckless, irresponsible, motivated, contemptuous” with an intention to instill bias in the “impressionable minds” of young school children. The Bench, which was headed by the CJI, had made stern remarks that “heads must roll”.

Earlier in September, however, the court closed the suo motu proceedings after the chapter was replaced with an updated curriculum. It had further recalled harsher earlier findings against individual academicians.

Delivering the 6th Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture on ‘Justice seen to be done: Transparency and public trust as pillars of the legal system’ on Monday, the CJI said the suo motu proceedings concerning the NCERT textbook had been an “occasion to consider the relationship between legitimate criticism and public confidence in the institution”.

Chief Justice Kant referred to excerpts from the court order, like “the judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism”, as “fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning” is “a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy”, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction.

The CJI said that an institution cannot remain by shirking scrutiny and criticism, but by repeatedly surviving exposure. A court cannot seek the confidence of the public by placing itself beyond scrutiny; it must remain willing to be examined, questioned and, where necessary, criticised, the Chief Justice said.

On the adage that ‘justice must be seen to be done’, the CJI said a judicial decision must not only be right, but must look right, especially to the people who had to live with it. He said the judiciary must not work for public approval, but its actions must garner public trust.

“A court does not earn trust by being liked, or by handing out the outcomes people wanted. It earns trust when the people who lost, who wanted an entirely different result, still walk away believing that the process which decided against them was a fair one. That is a far harder thing to earn than approval, and far more valuable,” Chief Justice Kant said.

The top judge said transparency, for a court, was not simply a matter of open doors and public hearings.

“It means that the reasoning behind a decision, and not merely its result, can be examined by anyone who cares to look, including the very people the decision goes against. A court that announces its verdicts but keeps its reasoning to itself has not really been transparent, whatever else it may have done,” Chief Justice Kant said.

The CJI described public trust as the only coin the judiciary has ever truly held.

“That trust is not something any institution can earn once and then, simply rely on forever. It has to be renewed continuously, and it is shaped far more by the accumulated, ordinary experience people have of a system, case after case, than by any single moment or judgment. The work of earning it is, in that sense, never really finished,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Sunday (August 16, 2026) urged the national law universities to move beyond merely responding to technological change and instead take the lead in determining how technology should reshape the legal system with justice, fairness and human judgment remaining at its core.

Addressing the Vice Chancellors’ Conclave 2.0 at National Law University, Jodhpur, the CJI said that the legal profession can no longer remain a late adopter of technology and rejected an outright prohibition of tools like generative AI in legal education.

“Academic integrity and the responsible use of artificial intelligence must become important components of curriculum and pedagogy. Change of this nature does not wait for institutional comfort,” the CJI said.

The conclave was on the theme “Legal Technology and its Roadmap: Positioning Law as a Leader in Legal Technology”.

The CJI said that technology was already reshaping the legal ecosystem, from drafting contracts and conducting due diligence to legal research, evidence management and dispute resolution.

He said that law schools have to become the first line of response to this transformation.

The CJI said that graduates would increasingly work with tools capable of reading thousands of precedents within seconds, identifying legal and regulatory risks and supporting courts and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

However, he said, familiarity with technology alone would not be sufficient.

“A graduate who understands only the output of a technological tool would remain dependent on it, while one trained to question assumptions, verify conclusions and exercise independent judgment could use technology without surrendering responsibility,” he said.

The CJI also addressed the growing debate over the use of generative AI in legal education.

While acknowledging legitimate concerns that students could become dependent on AI, lose the ability to construct arguments independently or mistake convincing-looking answers for accurate ones, he rejected an outright prohibition on such tools.

He advocated their transparent and supervised use in classrooms so that students learn both their capabilities and limitations.

The CJI said that institutions that resist inevitable technological change risk losing their opportunity to shape it. He said that legal education should not stop at adaptation because adaptation merely responds to change after it has occurred.

“Instead, law universities should anticipate technological developments, shape their direction and ensure that technology evolves in service of law and its underlying values,” the CJI said.

For this, he stressed collaboration among National Law Universities and called for serious research on algorithmic accountability, data protection, digital access to justice and the changing relationship between technology and dispute resolution.

“Let technology make legal institutions and services more capable, but let our values determine the direction in which that capability is used,” he said, adding that innovation should make justice faster but never make it less fair.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) took strong exception to an allegation that its Registry had misplaced a case file relating to a plea challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, observing that such “inefficiency” warranted an inquiry.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana made the observation after advocate Shubhi Shivani Ahmed informed the court that the file relating to an appeal against an April 27, 2026 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting her client’s anticipatory bail plea had allegedly been misplaced by the administrative wing of the apex court.

“The special leave petition was filed on June 8. However, it has not been registered by the Registry to date,” she submitted. Ms. Ahmed further informed the Bench that she had written to the concerned Registrar seeking clarification but had received no response.

The Chief Justice observed that the allegation could not be brushed aside and would have to be thoroughly examined.

“It is a very serious matter if the Registry has misplaced the file. If our Registry is misplacing files in urgent matters, do you think I will simply direct the matter to be listed? I must do something more. Please give me the details. I would like to look into this inefficiency, what is the reason behind it and who is responsible for it,” he said.

The Chief Justice also asked Ms. Ahmed to have the advocate-on-record (AoR) who had filed the petition lodge a formal complaint and furnish the relevant details of the incident.

“Ask your AoR to submit a complaint to me today. I am available. He or she may submit it in chambers or at my residence. Give me the case details,” he said.

Repeated instances

This is not the first time CJI Kant has voiced concern over the functioning of the Registry.

In May, he delivered a sharp rebuke to the administrative wing, terming the conduct of its officials “nasty” and remarking that some appeared to think of themselves as a “super Chief Justice of India”. The remarks came after he questioned how Registry officials had concluded that the Bench had not issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and other respondents in a matter before it.

In March, the Chief Justice had also raised concerns over the Registry’s functioning after a public interest litigation (PIL) was listed for hearing more than a year after it was last taken up in February 2025. He had then sought a report from the Registrar on the delay.

The Chief Justice has on earlier occasions indicated that “reforms” are required in the functioning of the Registry and observed that he would be “failing in his duty” if he did not undertake such reforms during his tenure.

“The Registry officials think they are here for 20 years… and we are all in the transit stage while they are permanent. They think the Registry should function the way they want,” he had remarked in February.

The Supreme Court Registry functions under Article 146 of the Constitution and operates under the overall supervision of the Secretary General, who reports to the CJI. The Registry is responsible for the administration of court records, listing of cases, and compliance with procedural requirements. It comprises a hierarchy of officers, including registrars, additional registrars, deputy registrars, and branch officers.

49 organisations, collectives and 553 environmentalists, academics, and citizens on Friday (May 22, 2026) wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, demanding that the Supreme Court withdraw oral remarks made by the CJI on May 11. 

The letter sought the withdrawal of the remarks so that it does not cast doubt on the “legitimacy of bona fide” environmental Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or on the Constitutional role of affected communities and citizens in seeking enforcement of environmental law. 

During the hearing of a case on May 11, the CJI made an oral observation: “You show us a single project in this country where these alleged environmentalists and activists say, ‘We welcome this project. “Country is progressing well, we welcome this project’. Everything you drag to the court.” 

Citing this and other comments made by the CJI during the hearing, the letter said, “We find the aforementioned comments highly objectionable and disturbing. These comments were not made in the context of the case being heard by the Court, but on the overall right of citizens to protect the environment and question illegal decisions and irregularities.” 

“With utmost respect, it must be stated plainly: such framing is factually inaccurate, constitutionally troubling, and potentially dangerous. It risks portraying citizens who seek lawful scrutiny of environmental decision-making as a suspect constituency, rather than as participants in a constitutional democracy performing both a right and a duty,” it said. 

The letter said that the CJI’s remarks also risk producing a “chilling effect” well beyond this single case, as the National Green Tribunal, High Courts, appraisal bodies, and administrators take their cues from the Supreme Court.

“We demand that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all other courts in India treat local communities and citizens approaching the judiciary in public interest litigation matters as rights-bearing participants in environmental decision-making rather than as obstacles to it,” the letter said. 

The letter said that a responsible democracy does not ask citizens to choose between development and the environment. “It asks whether development has been planned lawfully, appraised honestly, and designed intelligently enough to holistically protect and benefit all life, livelihoods, and ecological security. When it has not been, it provides citizens with legal remedies. The Supreme Court of India exists, in part, to ensure those remedies are available and effective,” it said. 

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Thursday (December 11, 2025) led the Supreme Court in according a ceremonial welcome to his Sri Lankan counterpart Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, who is currently on an official visit to India.

Justice Surasena, who assumed office as the 49th Chief Justice of Sri Lanka on July 27, shared the Bench with the CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during a special sitting. Justice Surasena was accompanied by a delegation of nine judges of the Sri Lankan top court.

Welcoming the visiting dignitaries, CJI Kant said the Indian judiciary was honoured to host the Sri Lankan Chief Justice and his delegation.

“We hope that your visit to India has been quite meaningful and very constructive in terms of the dialogue exchanges. Our countries have close emotional bonds in terms of culture and sentiments,” the CJI said.

Justice Surasena, responding warmly, said it was “indeed a great pleasure” for him and the accompanying judges to visit India.

“India is our closest neighbour, the bond between the two countries was persistent from the time of rulers, kings,” he said.

Underlining that the ties between the two nations date back over 2,500 years, Justice Surasena said Emperor Ashoka sailed from Bengal to Sri Lanka and references to Sri Lanka appear in ancient Indian epics such as the Ramayana, “dating back to an era even before cities came into existence”.

He shared that the Sri Lankan delegation participated in the Supreme Court Bar Association’s Constitution Day celebrations on November 26.

“We take great pride and pleasure in being here,” he added.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani extended his greetings to the delegation, noting that the two nations were united by a “common spiritual and cultural heritage”.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “We share the same civilisation and culture.” CJI Kant informed the Court that the Sri Lankan delegation spent three days at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal under the guidance of Justice Aniruddha Bose.

“Today they are at the Supreme Court, and tomorrow (December 13) they will visit the Delhi High Court,” the CJI said.

Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh recalled the contribution of renowned Sri Lankan jurist C.G. Weeramantry to the judiciary.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association President Vipin Nair said India has always welcomed its visitors and that the presence of the Chief Justices of two democracies together was a significant moment.