CJI asks why litigants rush to the Supreme Court for early hearings in High Court cases
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.
Published 2 November 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
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?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
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.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Judicial structure, writ jurisdiction and access to justice
- How to use this
Show that judicial protection of democracy and rights also runs through High Courts using Article 226, not only through the Supreme Court.
- The Kerala High Court banned smoking in public places in 1999, which the CJI called the first such order by a constitutional court worldwide.
- Article 226 lets High Courts issue writs for fundamental and other legal rights, wider than Article 32.
- In November 2026 the CJI said timely interim relief by High Courts can matter more than the final judgment.
Both concern how jurisdiction is shared among courts; L. Chandra Kumar, relevant to tribunals, also anchors the Article 226 discussion here.
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.
- Only for enforcing fundamental rights
- Is itself a fundamental right
- Cannot be refused merely because another remedy exists, though the Court often directs petitioners to the High Court
- For fundamental rights and any other legal right
- Discretionary remedy
- Can reach authorities within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction
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.
- 1Case filed in a High CourtA writ petition or appeal is pending before a High Court bench
- 2Listing delayedThe case is not listed, or interim relief is not taken up quickly
- 3Petition to the Supreme CourtThe litigant asks the Supreme Court to direct the High Court to hear it early
- 4Supreme Court's dilemmaIt respects the High Court's roster, yet delay may cause irreversible harm
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.
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
The remark links several syllabus areas: the writ powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts, judicial administration, pendency and access to justice. It is also a rare public signal from the CJI on the relationship between the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The core idea
Both courts can protect fundamental rights: the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the Supreme Court and the High Courts under the wider Article 226 writ jurisdiction. Which case is heard when is decided by each Chief Justice as Master of the roster. If High Court listing is slow, litigants turn to Delhi, which burdens the Supreme Court and favours those who can afford it. The Kerala High Court's own history is a reminder of what High Courts can do; see Kerala High Court.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 1 November 2026: CJI's speech at the Kerala High Court's 70th year celebrations in Kochi
- 25: High Courts in India, as the CJI noted
- 1887: Travancore High Court; 1949: Travancore-Cochin High Court; 1956: Kerala High Court
- 1999: Kerala High Court bans smoking in public places
- Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts): writ powers
Where to go next
- Article 32 and the Supreme Court: the right to move the Supreme Court for fundamental rights
- Article 226 writ jurisdiction: why High Courts have the wider writ power
- Master of the roster: who decides which bench hears which case
- Kerala High Court: a 70-year-old court with a much older lineage
Go deeper: Should the Supreme Court step in when High Courts are slow?
For restraint. High Courts are constitutional courts in their own right, not subordinate to the Supreme Court in their writ jurisdiction. The CJI noted that the Supreme Court has respected their control over rosters, which flows from each Chief Justice being the Master of the roster. If the Supreme Court routinely ordered early hearings, it would add to its own docket and weaken High Court autonomy. Seven judges in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that the writ powers under Article 32 and the Supreme Court and Article 226 writ jurisdiction are part of the basic structure; that status assumes both work well.
For intervention. Delay can make relief useless. The CJI himself said that timely interim relief can matter more than the final judgment, and that the distinction between justice and injustice often lies in whether a court acts at the critical moment. When a High Court does not list an urgent case, a citizen may have no other effective door.
The equity problem. Only litigants with money and lawyers in Delhi can use the Supreme Court route. The CJI said access to timely justice should not depend on the ability to travel to Delhi.
What could change. The CJI asked how urgent matters should be identified, how listing can be made transparent and predictable, and whether technology can flag cases where delay causes irreversible harm. He called the Supreme Court and High Courts "constitutional partners". The example of the Kerala High Court, whose 1999 public smoking ban he praised, shows High Courts can lead rather than follow.
Article 32 and the Supreme Court
The direct route to the Supreme Court for fundamental rights
In one line: Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and is itself a fundamental right.
What it says
The Supreme Court can issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, to enforce the rights in Part III. Dr B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. Parliament may empower other courts to exercise these powers, and the right can be suspended only as the Constitution provides, for example during an Emergency under Article 359.
Why it is in the news
Article 32 is a door for fundamental rights cases. The CJI's concern is different: litigants are using the Supreme Court to speed up cases already before High Courts, rather than for fresh rights claims.
Where to go next
Article 226 writ jurisdiction
Why the CJI called High Courts the natural first forum
In one line: Article 226 lets every High Court issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and "for any other purpose", which makes its writ power wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32.
Scope
A High Court can issue writs to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction, and also where the cause of action arises there. Unlike Article 32, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary, and it covers ordinary legal rights as well as fundamental rights. Article 227 adds a power of superintendence over courts and tribunals in the State.
Why it is in the news
CJI Surya Kant described the High Courts' wide powers under Article 226 and their ability to give timely interim relief as one of the strengths of India's judicial structure. He cited the Kerala High Court's 1999 ban on smoking in public places, rooted in the right to life under Article 21.
Where to go next
Master of the roster
Who decides when a case is heard
In one line: The Chief Justice of a court alone decides which bench hears which case and when, a power known as being the "master of the roster".
Where it comes from
In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court has the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate work. The principle was applied to the CJI in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2017) and reaffirmed in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018).
Why it is in the news
Because listing is controlled by each High Court's Chief Justice, the Supreme Court has traditionally avoided telling High Courts when to hear cases. The CJI said this respect should continue, but asked High Courts to make listing more transparent and predictable so litigants do not need to come to Delhi.
Where to go next
Kerala High Court
The court whose 70th year set the stage for the CJI's remarks
In one line: The Kerala High Court, at Kochi (Ernakulam), was set up in 1956 with the State of Kerala and marked its 70th year in 2026.
Lineage
The CJI traced its roots to the Travancore High Court (1887) and the Travancore-Cochin High Court (1949), formed when the two princely States merged. Its jurisdiction also covers the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Firsts
Justice Anna Chandy, who rose through the Kerala judiciary, became India's first woman High Court judge, and Justice M. Fathima Beevi, a former judge of this court, became the first woman judge of the Supreme Court. The CJI said the court was the first constitutional court in the world to prohibit smoking in public places, in 1999.
Why it is in the news
The platinum jubilee on 1 November 2026 was where the CJI raised the question of litigants rushing to the Supreme Court.
Where to go next
Take the 2 November 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers