Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Tuesday said that in its quest to uphold the Constitution and the confidence of people of India, the Supreme Court has evolved immensely in the past 75 years, adapting to embrace the complexities of each era, while remaining rooted in the bedrock of constitutional values.
Speaking at the Ceremonial Bench organised to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee (75) years of inception of the Supreme Court, the CJI said the verdicts delivered in the past more than seven decades reflected not just a legal evolution, but the very pulse of the country.
Comparing the Apex Court’s journey to the rings of a mature tree that reflected its progress through different seasons, the CJI said that each decade of the Court’s jurisprudence served as a mirror to the nation’s challenges, giving way to a living and breathing institution, which upheld the values of accessibility and diversity in spirit and practice.
He further said that the main characteristic of the Supreme Court, which set it apart on the global stage, was its accessibility to the common man and it’s diversity.
Calling it a true people’s Court, CJI Khanna said the diversity of the country found representation at the highest level of the judiciary through judges coming from different regions of the nation.
The CJI further said that the Apex Court was currently facing three core challenges, which included case pendency, rising litigation costs and lack of integrity amongst lawyers.
Speaking about the 1950s, he said these were the Sunrise Years of the Supreme Court, which focused on the task of transforming a newly independent nation into embodying the values, the ethos and the morality of the Constitution.
He said the decade witnessed two landmark decisions, including Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (on reasonable restrictions on right to freedom of speech and expression) and Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh (right to life cannot be curtailed except as prescribed by the constitution).
Speaking about the second decade, he said during the 1960s, the Apex Court’s sanctioned strength was increased to 14. The years of anchorage and discovery witnessed much discussion around the interpretation of ‘law’ under Article 13.
The courts were tasked to interpret whether the expression “law” used in Article 13 included constitutional amendments. If it did, then whether the chapter on fundamental rights be rendered immune from amendment? This subsequently led to the landmark decision in the Kesavananda Bharti case, where the majority of the Supreme Court held that parliamentary amendments could not take away or abridge the basic features of the Constitution, he added.