# CJI asks why litigants rush to the Supreme Court for early hearings in High Court cases

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-11-02/cji-hc-early-hearing-rush/
Date: 2 November 2026 (2026-11-02)
Source: The Hindu, Page 12
UPSC papers: GS2
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** At the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee on 1 November 2026, CJI Surya Kant asked High Courts to reflect on why litigants approach the Supreme Court just to get their cases heard early.

Speaking at the platinum jubilee celebrations of the Kerala High Court in Kochi on 1 November 2026, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant pointed to a growing trend of litigants seeking Supreme Court directions for urgent listing or early hearing of cases pending in High Courts. He said the Supreme Court has traditionally respected the High Courts' authority over their own rosters, but the trend merits reflection on how to make the judicial process more responsive. Access to timely justice, he said, should not depend on a litigant's ability to travel to Delhi.

The CJI raised three questions: how urgent matters should be identified, how listing procedures can be made transparent and predictable, and whether technology can help prioritise cases where delay could cause irreversible harm. He stressed that High Courts are the natural first forum for constitutional remedies. Under Article 226 they can issue writs for fundamental rights and other legal rights, a wider power than the Supreme Court's under Article 32. He said timely interim relief can matter more than the final judgment, and that "judicial independence and judicial efficiency were not competing virtues".

He called the Supreme Court and the 25 High Courts "constitutional partners" rather than competing forums, and said he was speaking of shared responsibility, not criticism. The Kerala High Court was formed in 1956 with the State and traces its roots to the Travancore High Court (1887) and the Travancore-Cochin High Court (1949). The CJI cited its 1999 order banning smoking in public places, which he described as the first such order by any constitutional court in the world, and its record on women in the legal profession.

## Prelims facts

- CJI Surya Kant flagged a growing trend of litigants asking the Supreme Court to order early hearings in High Court cases.
- He said the Supreme Court respects High Courts' control over their rosters but listing must become transparent and predictable.
- Article 226 gives High Courts writ power for fundamental and other legal rights, wider than Article 32.
- The Kerala High Court, formed in 1956, traces its roots to the Travancore High Court (1887).

## Quick recall

- **Where and when did CJI Surya Kant raise the issue of litigants rushing to the Supreme Court for early hearings?** At the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee in Kochi, 1 November 2026.
- **Which Article gives High Courts writ jurisdiction?** Article 226.
- **Which Article gives High Courts superintendence over courts and tribunals in their territory?** Article 227.
- **Who called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution?** Dr B.R. Ambedkar.
- **Which case held the High Court Chief Justice to be master of the roster?** State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998).
- **Which case held judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 part of the basic structure?** L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).
- **Predecessor courts of the Kerala High Court?** Travancore High Court (1887) and Travancore-Cochin High Court (1949).
- **Who was India's first woman Supreme Court judge, and from which High Court?** Justice M. Fathima Beevi, a former judge of the Kerala High Court.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to the writ jurisdiction of courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. A High Court can issue writs under Article 226 for the enforcement of rights other than fundamental rights.
2. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.
3. The Chief Justice of a High Court alone decides the allocation of cases to benches of that court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3. Statement 1 is correct: Article 226 allows writs "for any other purpose". Statement 2 is correct: Article 32 is in Part III. Statement 3 is correct: State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) held the Chief Justice is master of the roster.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2014, GS2: Starting from inventing the 'basic structure' doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly pro active role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q111-starting-inventing-basic-structure-doctrine-judiciary-has/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Show that judicial protection of democracy and rights also runs through High Courts using Article 226, not only through the Supreme Court.
- UPSC Mains 2018, GS2: How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q288-far-do-you-agree-view-tribunals-curtail/)

## Mains practice question

"Access to timely justice should not depend on the ability to travel to Delhi." In the light of this remark by the Chief Justice of India, discuss the role of High Courts under Article 226 and suggest measures to improve their responsiveness. (250 words)

### Model answer

On 1 November 2026, CJI Surya Kant flagged a growing trend of litigants approaching the Supreme Court merely to secure early hearings of cases pending in High Courts, and called High Courts the natural first forum for constitutional remedies.

## Role of High Courts under Article 226
- **Wider writ power:** writs for fundamental rights and "for any other purpose", unlike Article 32, which covers only fundamental rights.
- **Proximity:** 25 High Courts are closer to local conditions and to litigants than the Supreme Court in Delhi.
- **Interim relief:** quick stays and directions can matter more than the final verdict.
- **Basic structure:** L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 part of the basic structure.
- **Rights innovation:** the Kerala High Court banned smoking in public places in 1999, drawing on Article 21.

## Why litigants still go to Delhi
- Slow or unpredictable listing in High Courts, even for urgent matters.
- Chief Justices control rosters (Prakash Chand, 1998), so litigants have no other lever.
- This burdens the Supreme Court and favours those who can afford Delhi litigation.

## Measures
- **Clear urgency criteria** and published listing rules, as the CJI suggested.
- **Technology:** automated flagging of matters where delay causes irreversible harm.
- **Filling judicial vacancies** and strengthening registry staff.
- **Supreme Court restraint**, sending such pleas back with time-bound requests rather than direct orders.
- **Data transparency** on pendency and listing through the National Judicial Data Grid.

## Conclusion
As the CJI put it, judicial independence and judicial efficiency are not competing virtues; responsive High Courts are the surest way to bring justice closer to citizens.

## The basics

## Why this matters
On 1 November 2026, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant used the platinum jubilee of the Kerala High Court to raise a structural question: why do litigants with cases pending in High Courts come to the Supreme Court only to ask for an early hearing? The answer touches Articles 32 and 226, the roster power of Chief Justices and access to justice, all staple UPSC themes.

## Two doors to constitutional remedies
The Constitution gives citizens two doors. Article 32 lets a person move the Supreme Court directly to enforce fundamental rights; the right to do so is itself a fundamental right. Article 226 lets every High Court issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and also "for any other purpose", that is, any legal right. So the High Court's writ power is wider in scope.

## What the CJI said
The CJI noted a growing trend of litigants seeking Supreme Court directions for urgent listing or early hearing of matters pending before High Courts. The Supreme Court has respected the High Courts' control over their own rosters, he said, but the trend calls for reflection on responsiveness. Access to timely justice, he said, should not depend on a litigant's ability to travel to Delhi.

## Questions he raised
He asked how urgent matters should be identified, how listing can become transparent and predictable, and whether technology can help prioritise cases where delay causes irreversible harm. He framed this as shared responsibility, saying "judicial independence and judicial efficiency were not competing virtues".

## The Kerala connection
The Kerala High Court came into being in 1956 with the State, but traces its lineage to the Travancore High Court (1887) and the Travancore-Cochin High Court (1949). The CJI cited its 1999 order banning smoking in public places as a pioneering use of Article 226 writ jurisdiction. See also Master of the roster and Article 32 and the Supreme Court.

## Sources

- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/11/02/kerala-high-court-70-years-cji-article-226-timely-justice/
- https://thecsrjournal.in/chief-justice-surya-kant-calls-for-review-of-urgent-case-listing-procedures-amid-concerns-over-judicial-process-responsiveness-during-kerala-high-court-platinum-jubilee-celebrations
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/kerala-high-court-turns-70-cji-surya-kant-hails-progressive-high-courts-contributions
- https://law.careers360.com/articles/clat-2027-daily-current-affairs-2nd-november