Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Judicial leadership suffers when we pretend judges are perfect: CJI Surya Kant

February 14, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS2 (Judiciary Governance)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, delivering remarks at the 11th Biennial Meeting of Commonwealth Judicial Educators in New Delhi, stated that "judicial leadership does not suffer because judges are imperfect; it suffers when we pretend they are not."
  • He challenged the prevailing notion that judges emerge from appointment as fully formed and perfected figures, arguing that this pretence ultimately harms the institution.
  • The CJI advocated for a "Commonwealth Apex Body" that would structurally integrate the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, and the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association — without diluting their individual identities — to unify judicial education across member nations.
  • Judges from fourteen Commonwealth nations attended the conference, including representatives from Australia, Canada, Kenya, and Nigeria, with discussions spanning technology and AI engagement, environmental justice, integrity, judicial well-being, and the craft of judgment writing.
  • Invoking the Upanishadic principle that "true learning gives rise to humility," the CJI emphasised that respected judicial leaders have historically recognised the limits of their knowledge rather than projecting infallibility.

Static Topic Bridges

Judicial Accountability and Independence in India — Constitutional Framework

The Indian Constitution provides for an independent judiciary through several structural safeguards: security of tenure (Articles 124 and 217), fixed service conditions that cannot be varied to a judge's disadvantage after appointment, removal only through impeachment by Parliament, and financial charging of judges' salaries on the Consolidated Fund of India. However, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for mechanisms of judicial accountability short of removal, creating a gap that has been a subject of long-standing debate.

  • Article 124(4): Supreme Court judges can be removed only by the President on an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity
  • The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs the procedure for investigation into the conduct of a Supreme Court or High Court judge prior to removal — it provides for a three-member inquiry committee
  • Only one impeachment motion has ever been admitted in Parliament — against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — and it failed to secure the required majority in the Lok Sabha
  • The in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 (the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life") provides a non-statutory code of conduct for judges, but lacks enforcement teeth
  • The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 was introduced to create a mechanism for complaints against judges and a National Judicial Oversight Committee, but it lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha

Connection to this news: The CJI's remarks about the need for honest self-reflection and acknowledgment of judicial imperfection directly address the accountability gap. By advocating for continuous judicial education and growth, he implicitly supports a framework where accountability operates through institutional culture and training rather than solely through the extreme measure of impeachment.

The Collegium System and Judicial Appointments in India

The collegium system for judicial appointments evolved through three landmark Supreme Court judgments — the "Three Judges Cases." It is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution but has been established through judicial interpretation. Under the current system, the Chief Justice of India, along with the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, recommends appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

  • S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case, 1981): Held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments; CJI's opinion was not binding
  • Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case, 1993): Reversed the First Judges Case; established CJI's primacy and the collegium system
  • In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (Third Judges Case, 1998): Expanded the collegium from CJI + 2 to CJI + 4 senior-most judges
  • The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, was struck down by a 4:1 majority in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) as violating judicial independence, a basic structure of the Constitution
  • The 99th Amendment remains in the Constitution but is inoperative; Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C (inserted by the amendment) stand struck down

Connection to this news: The CJI's emphasis on judicial education and growth is significant in the context of the collegium system, which has faced criticism for opacity and lack of accountability in the selection process. A more transparent and growth-oriented judicial culture could address some criticisms of the collegium without requiring structural changes that the judiciary has resisted.

National Judicial Academy and In-Service Judicial Training

The National Judicial Academy (NJA), located in Bhopal, was conceived by the Supreme Court of India in the early 1990s and formally dedicated to the nation on September 5, 1992. It is the apex body for judicial education in India, providing in-service training and continuing legal education to judicial officers across the country. The Academy is managed by a Governing Council chaired by the CJI and functions as an independent society fully funded by the Government of India under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

  • Established: 1993, spread over a 63-acre campus overlooking Upper Lake in Bhopal
  • Governing Council: Chaired by CJI, includes two senior-most SC judges, Secretaries from the Departments of Law & Justice, Finance, and Legal Affairs
  • State-level counterparts: Each state has a State Judicial Academy (e.g., Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, Tripura Judicial Academy) that conducts training for subordinate judiciary
  • The Academy conducts programmes on judicial leadership, court management, technology adoption, and specialised areas like environmental law and cyber law
  • India has also entered into MoUs with neighbouring countries for sharing judicial training expertise

Connection to this news: The CJI's call for treating judicial education as a continuous process — rather than a one-time qualification — aligns directly with the NJA's mandate. His proposal for a Commonwealth Apex Body mirrors at the international level what the NJA does domestically: institutionalising the idea that judges must continually grow and adapt, rather than being considered "complete" upon appointment.

Key Facts & Data

  • 11th Biennial Meeting of Commonwealth Judicial Educators held in New Delhi, February 2026; 14 Commonwealth nations participated
  • Article 124(4): Removal of SC judges requires special majority in both Houses on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity
  • Only one judicial impeachment motion admitted in Indian Parliament: Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) — failed in Lok Sabha
  • Collegium system: CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges; established by Second Judges Case (1993), expanded by Third Judges Case (1998)
  • NJAC (99th Amendment, 2014) struck down in 2015 by 4:1 majority; Articles 124A, 124B, 124C remain in Constitution but are inoperative
  • National Judicial Academy: Established 1993 in Bhopal; Governing Council chaired by CJI; 63-acre campus
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs pre-impeachment investigation procedure for SC and HC judges