Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court recently stated that judicial independence is facing a subtle but serious threat in the form of viral misinformation, sentiment-driven commentary and media trials..Justice Kant, who is in line to be the next Chief Justice of India, warned that transparency without corresponding judicial literacy is being weaponised in ways that undermine public trust and erode the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary.“Transparency can be weaponised—leading to misinterpretation rather than insight. 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.”.Speaking in San Francisco to an audience that included Indian diaspora members, technologists and policy observers, the judge acknowledged the transformative role of digital democracy in making the judiciary more accessible.In a speech titled 'Judicial Evolution in a Time of Transformation: Safeguarding Constitutionalism in the Digital Age', the judge detailed how hyper-connectivity has created a new digital constituency - vocal, impatient and often uninformed - whose engagement with law is shaped more by emotion than by understanding..“Courts are now subjected to trolling, misinformation and personal attacks simply for adhering to the rule of law,” he said, adding that this trend not just causes reputational damage, but also poses an institutional threat to constitutional democracy..Noting that the judiciary’s legitimacy flows from moral authority and public trust rather than coercive power, the judge said that this trust must be nurtured through transparency paired with judicial literacy. He proposed simplified judgment summaries, collaboration with educational institutions and digital dialogue forums to bridge the gap between legal reasoning and public perception.At the same time, he acknowledged the dual-edged nature of this openness. “Legal awareness without legal understanding can lead to a distortion of judicial messaging,” he noted, cautioning against selectively edited courtroom clips and sensationalist commentary that drown out constitutional reasoning..On technological reform, the judge lauded India’s rapid strides - from e-Courts to hybrid hearings - but reiterated that Artificial Intelligence must remain a tool, not a replacement for judicial discretion. “No algorithm can account for the mitigating circumstances of a convict or the fragile family background of a juvenile,” he said, asserting that human judgment, empathy and moral reasoning remain irreplaceable..He flagged inclusivity as a non-negotiable value in the digital transition. “Digital justice cannot become a privilege of the digitally literate,” he said, calling for equitable digital infrastructure, access to devices and local-language legal platforms, especially for women, rural litigants and vulnerable citizens..Turning to institutional reform, the judge said that judicial independence should not be confused with insulation. “Reform is not a sign of weakness, but maturity,” he said, urging introspection on pendency, infrastructure and consistency in precedent. "Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges; it is a safeguard for citizens.”.The judge also emphasised the concept of constitutional morality as a guiding ethos. Citing landmark judgments on privacy, gender rights and open prisons, he said Indian courts have gone beyond dispute resolution to shape the moral and democratic architecture of the country.However, he added that such influence must be exercised with restraint. “Judicial overreach, however well-intentioned, risks unsettling the delicate balance of powers,” he warned..He concluded with a call to reimagine courts not just as halls of law, but as institutions of hope: “Courts may render judgments, but justice is delivered only when those judgments touch the lives of real people in meaningful ways.”.[Read Speech]
