CJI Surya Kant Warns Against Attempts to Intimidate Judiciary Amid Debate Over Courtroom Remarks

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Thursday issued a firm reminder that members of the judiciary cannot be intimidated or pressured, expressing concern over what he described as an increasing trend of targeting judges for their routine courtroom observations.

The CJI’s remarks come amid criticism surrounding his recent comments in a case involving the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya immigrants. Addressing the issue during a hearing, he asserted that he would not be influenced by public outrage or by attempts to distort judicial observations.

“There are hypothetical situations in court… we make observations. But I am not someone who will take browbeating. Not so easy with me. As soon as the judge makes an observation, there are allegations made against him,” he said.

Bench Rejects Plea to Transfer Rape Trials

The comments were made while a Bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna’s request to transfer two rape trials to another Bengaluru judge. Revanna’s counsel argued that the trial court and even the Karnataka High Court had made adverse remarks against him.

The Bench rejected the plea, noting that such observations cannot serve as a basis to level accusations of bias against judicial officers. CJI Kant stressed that judges “cannot be held to ransom” and underscored the Supreme Court’s responsibility to safeguard the confidence and morale of the district judiciary.

Acknowledging the pressures of adjudication, the CJI added, “Sometimes we make errors, but we rectify them… We deal with such a large volume of cases and evidence.”

Controversy Over Remarks in Rohingya Case

CJI Kant has recently faced intense scrutiny after telling a petitioner that they appeared to expect a “red carpet” for immigrants and remarking that certain habeas corpus petitions concerning detained immigrants were “fanciful.” The comments were made during a hearing on a plea filed by activist Rita Manchanda, who raised concerns about missing Rohingya individuals.

The remarks triggered strong reactions from former judges, lawyers, and human rights activists. In an open letter dated December 5, former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A.P. Shah and others expressed deep concern over what they termed the CJI’s “unconscionable remarks,” cautioning that equating Rohingya refugees with illegal intruders risked dehumanising vulnerable communities. They reminded the CJI that his words carry a “cascading effect” throughout the judiciary.

Retired Judges Defend the Chief Justice

Days later, 44 retired judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts issued a counter-statement condemning what they described as a “motivated campaign” against the Chief Justice. While acknowledging the value of reasoned critique, they asserted that the public outrage had mischaracterised routine courtroom exchanges.

“The Chief Justice is being attacked for asking the most basic legal question: who, in law, has granted the status being claimed before the Court?” the statement said, emphasising that rights adjudication cannot proceed without addressing fundamental legal questions.

As the debate continues, the incident has reignited a broader national conversation on judicial accountability, public scrutiny, and the boundaries of courtroom discourse.