Justice Surya Kant, a senior judge of the Supreme Court, has recently cautioned against judicial overreach, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a delicate balance of power between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. Speaking at the Asia Society Northern California in San Francisco, Justice Kant stressed that while judicial activism has a crucial role in upholding constitutional values and protecting the rights of citizens, it should not morph into judicial overreach, which could unsettle the foundations of a democratic society.

Justice Kant articulated that courts should not supplant the role of the legislature or override the will of the people. Instead, the judiciary should act as facilitators of democratic dialogue, strengthening participatory governance, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring that the rule of law prevails even in moments of political uncertainty. He added that true constitutional guardianship lies not in dominance but in restraint, an ethos that reaffirms the judiciary's legitimacy in a vibrant democracy.

These remarks come at a time when the Indian judiciary, like judiciaries worldwide, faces increasing scrutiny and is often perceived as intruding into the legislative domain. Justice Kant acknowledged that the judiciary has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach. He noted that in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains, with the court increasingly seeking to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies.

Addressing the challenges posed by the digital age, Justice Kant highlighted the impact of the internet and social media on judicial decisions. With judicial decisions instantly available to a global audience, he noted that this digital transparency brings both accountability and vulnerability. He cautioned that when judicial decisions are judged in the court of public opinion before they are understood in the court of law, the result is not civic empowerment but confusion, cynicism, and, ultimately, erosion of trust.

Justice Kant also emphasized the need for promoting judicial literacy and transparency. He argued that without judicial literacy, transparency can be weaponized, leading to misinterpretation rather than insight. When citizens understand the safeguards of due process, the role of precedent, and the limitations under which courts operate, they are better equipped to both respect judicial decisions and critically engage with them in constructive ways. He stressed that even as the judiciary opens its processes to greater understanding and dialogue, it must remain vigilant against the dangers posed by viral misinformation and disinformation.

Furthermore, Justice Kant defended the collegium system of appointing judges, calling it a crucial institutional safeguard that preserves the judiciary's autonomy. He acknowledged the sustained criticism regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria but pointed to recent efforts by the Supreme Court to enhance transparency and public confidence in the system. He stated that the collegium system significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.

In conclusion, Justice Surya Kant's address serves as a timely reminder of the importance of judicial restraint and the need for the judiciary to act within its constitutional boundaries. By cautioning against judicial overreach and emphasizing the importance of transparency, judicial literacy, and a balanced approach to judicial activism, Justice Kant has contributed to a crucial dialogue on the role of the judiciary in a modern democracy.