Collegium Mechanism Serves To Substantially Preserve Judiciary's Autonomy : Justice Surya Kant

During his visit to Sri Lanka, Justice Surya Kant, Judge of the Supreme Court, on Thursday said that India presents a compelling illustration of the substantive application of the doctrine of Separation of Powers, citing the judiciary's control over appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts as an illustrious example.

Delivering a lecture titled “The Living Constitution: How the Indian Judiciary Shapes and Safeguards Constitutionalism” at the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Justice Kant observed that the existing mechanism - the collegium system- served to substantially preserve the Judiciary's autonomy.

India presents a compelling illustration of the substantive application of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. A prominent example lies in the judiciary's dominance over appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The existing mechanism serves to substantially preserve the Judiciary's autonomy, both inside the court room as well as outside of it in relation to administrative functionality.

He highlighted that the framers of the Constitution embedded within its structure an "intricate web of safeguards" to preserve judicial independence.  "Provisions governing salaries and privileges, as well as transfers and appointments of the District Judiciary, were carefully insulated through stringent constitutional checks — protections that no other organ of the State may encroach upon," he pointed out.

Justice Kant said that the enduring commitment to independence enables the Indian Judiciary to do more than simply resolve disputes or defend constitutional boundaries. "It allows courts to actively shape the democratic imagination of a society and to function as architects of democratic life," he added.

Recalling the philosophy of the Constitution's framers, Justice Kant said that India's democratic structure was built on “functional harmony” among the three organs of the State rather than rigid separation. He referred to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment as a milestone that transformed the judiciary from a mere interpreter of the Constitution into its guardian by affirming that Parliament cannot alter its basic structure.

He termed the Separation of Powers and Judicial Review as the most "sacred elements" of the Basic structure.

Justice Kant also elaborated on the pivotal role of judicial review as the “heartbeat of constitutional democracy.” Articles 32 and 226, he said, empower citizens to seek remedies directly from the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensuring that no act of governance remains beyond judicial scrutiny.

The expansive power of judicial review is a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy, affirming that legality and constitutionality are fundamental preconditions to the exercise of public power.

Describing the Indian Constitution as a “living document,” Justice Kant noted that the judiciary has expanded its scope through interpretation to address emerging rights such as privacy, digital freedom, and environmental protection. He cited landmark judgments that recognized rights to education, livelihood, health, and a pollution-free environment as reflections of the judiciary's transformative role.

A whole host of other such rights have emerged as a result of expansive judicial interpretation, including the right to speedy trial, the right to free legal aid in a criminal trial and even the right to die with dignity. Certain decisions, such as J.P. Unnikrishnan, which declared the right to education a fundamental right, have even spurred positive legislative action.

He further emphasized the need to give “voice to the voiceless victims” within the justice system and highlighted the judiciary's moral and intellectual strength. “Its power is not coercive—it is moral and intellectual. It derives not from the force of arms but from the force of reason,” he remarked.

"The judiciary's legitimacy rests on the trust of the people — a trust earned through fairness, restraint, and courage in moments of crisis," he said.

Justice Kant mentioned his judgments in Tata Steel Limited v. Atma Tube Products(as a judge of P&H High Court), which expanded the rights of victims in criminal justice system, which was reaffirmed in the Lakhimpur Kheri case. He also cited his recent judgment ordering probe into Assam fake encounter killings.

"These interventions reflect an Indian theory of judicial responsibility—one that goes beyond the adversarial model, and seeks to embody constitutional compassion. Yet they also invite questions: How far can courts go in shaping policy? Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice? The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it," he said.

Concluding his address, Justice Kant underlined the shared constitutional ethos between India and Sri Lanka. “Both our nations have wrestled with the same questions—how to reconcile democracy with stability, rights with duties, and law with justice. The Judiciary's answer has been to act not as a rival to the Legislature or Executive, but as their conscience keeper,” he said.

He expressed hope that continued dialogue between the judiciaries of both countries would strengthen the ideals of justice, liberty, and dignity that underpin constitutional democracies.