At a ceremonial bench session held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s first sitting, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna said each decade of the apex court’s jurisprudence serves as a mirror to the nation’s challenges.
He further said that the Indian Supreme Court is a “true people’s court”, which sets it apart on the global stage. Starting from the 1950s till present day, the CJI listed a number of significant judgments passed by the top court. “Like rings in a mature tree that reflect its journey through different seasons, these judgments reflect not just legal evolution, but our country’s very pulse,” added CJI Khanna.
Below is his full speech:
My esteemed brother and sister judges,
As we gather today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the first sitting of the Supreme Court of India, we stand—as on each historic occasion—at an intersection. An intersection that connects the history, the present, and the future. What began in 1950 as a successor to the Federal Court, has evolved into perhaps the world’s most vibrant and dynamic apex court, one that truly embodies the aspirations and diversity of 1.4 billion Indians.
What sets our Supreme Court apart on the global stage is its unique character as a true people’s court. The Court remains accessible to the common public, and in its diversity of the Judges in these courtrooms, the multitude of voices find representation at the highest level of our judiciary.
Each decade of our Court’s jurisprudence serves as a mirror to our nation’s challenges. Like rings in a mature tree that reflect its journey through different seasons, these judgments reflect not just legal evolution, but our country’s very pulse. What emerges is not an unmoving structure carved from sandstone, but rather a living, breathing institution. It has been responsive to the conscience of our democracy, adapting and evolving to embrace the complexities of each era while remaining rooted in the bedrock of constitutional values.
The First Decade – 1950s – The Sunrise Years
In 1950, when we adopted the Constitution, the three wings of government were assigned distinct responsibilities. The monumental task was to transform a newly independent nation into embodying the values, the ethos and the morality of our Constitution. In Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words:
“Constitutional morality has to be embodied in nation building, it has to be cultured in a nation like India where everything is newborn.”
To achieve this ideal, the Constitution bequeathed to the Supreme Court of India a wide and expansive jurisdiction. At its inaugural sitting, India’s first Chief Justice of India, Hiralal J. Kania, said that “the Supreme Court will declare and interpret the law of the land” but not in a “spirit of formal and barren legalism”.
One of the Court’s earliest decisions was Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, pronounced on the 26th May, 1950. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, it elucidates, is a right that could be restricted only under Article 19(2), which provide for certain reasonable restrictions. This Court observed in Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh:
“Liberty of the individual and the protection of his fundamental rights are the very essence of the democratic way of life adopted by the Constitution, and it is the privilege and the duty of this Court to uphold those rights. This Court would naturally refuse to circumscribe them or to curtail them except as provided by the Constitution itself.”
The Second Decade – 1960s – Years of Anchorage as well as Discovery
In 1960, the sanctioned strength of the Court was expanded to 14. The most significant judicial event in the 1960s turned on the interpretation of a single word – ‘law’ – in Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Article 13 provides that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are, to that extent of inconsistency, void. 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 would be rendered immune from amendment.
The discussion continued till the seventies, until settled in Kesavananda Bharti, where the majority of the thirteen Judges Bench held that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, however, such amendment powers cannot be exercised to abrogate or destroy the basic or fundamental features of the Constitution.
1970s and 1980s – Years of turbulence leading the way to social justice and equality jurisprudence
Acceptance of Public Interest Litigation diluted the principle of locus standi to actualise the right of access to justice for all citizens—importantly the most marginalized. Justice Krishna Iyer in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay reasoned that legal technicalities should not become “an added terror” for the underprivileged. Acknowledging India’s unique socio-economic constraints, this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, emphasized that it was necessary to democratize judicial remedies.
In Hussainara Khatoon, this Court dealt with the rights of undertrial prisoners highlighting the right to speedy trial and resulting in the release of more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners. Critical issues of juveniles in other prisoners were dealt with by this Court in Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar.
In Sunil Batra the Court highlighted prisoners’ rights and systematic issues in the administration of justice. In D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal, this Court observed that custodial violence strikes a blow at the rule of law. It issued several directions to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till suitable provisions were incorporated in the Cr.P.C.
In Joginder Kumar v State of UP, this Court emphasized that a police officer may have the power to arrest but an arrest should be made only after a reasonable satisfaction was reached as to the genuineness of the complaint; to the person’s involvement; and the need to arrest.
In Mithu v. State of Punjab, the mandatory death sentence under Section 303 of the IPC, was struck down as unconstitutional.
In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court established judicial review and free and fair elections were fundamental part of the Constitution beyond the reach of the amending power of the legislature.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, 14 bonded labour was categorized as incompatible with Article 21 which includes protection of health of workers, women and men, against abuse.
In the initial years, this Court had interpreted all fundamental rights as rights working in exclusive silos. This judicial attitude, however, underwent a significant change after the Emergency was imposed in 1975.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, this Court ruled that “the attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the Fundamental Rights.” Articles 14, 19 and 21 were not mutually exclusive and had to be read together and so the procedure affecting any of the rights had to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’.
1990s: Era of Consolidation & Expansion of Fundamental Rights
The 1990s ushered in an era where the Supreme Court not only remained vigilant in protecting individual rights but also stepped in to address legislative and executive gaps.
The Court adopted an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, reading them harmoniously with the directive principles for state policy. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 16 this Court held that the right to education naturally flowed from the right to life recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution. This led to the insertion of Article 21A in the Indian Constitution and the enactment of Right to Education Act in 2009.
This Court has also been a vanguard for protection and preservation of the environment. In its judgments, the Court has articulated the concepts of Sustainable Development and the Polluter Pays principle. It has also applied the public trust doctrine in several cases, highlighting that the public has a right to enjoy common resources, with the State being entrusted to guard and maintain these resources.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan this Court laid down a set of comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at work. The guidelines laid down in Vishaka eventually led to the enactment of a legislation, after considerable time, in 2013.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that affirmative action is not an exception, but a tool for guaranteeing equality of opportunity.
While the Constitution creates a strong centre, it also advocates a balanced federal structure. It is one of the basic features of our Constitution which cannot be abrogated by a constitutional amendment. This was the crux of what 9-Judges of this Court held in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.
S.R. Bommai also has implications for the secular fabric of India. The Court, inter alia, held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
2000s till today
The two decades of the twenty-first century stand as a testament to the Supreme Court’s evolving role in our constitutional framework. No other Apex Court worldwide navigates such an expansive domain – from personal liberty to environmental issues, from Intellectual Property Rights to privacy to the Right to Information.
The evolution began with strengthening electoral democracy by establishing voters’ right to information about candidates as an extension to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart and receive information.
The Court dismantled gender stereotypes in employment, rejecting outdated restrictions on women’s workplace participation.
Digital rights emerged as a new frontier of constitutional protection. The Court struck down vague restrictions on online speech, extending constitutional safeguards to digital spaces.
In socioeconomic justice, it broadened affirmative action to include economic criteria, recognizing diverse forms of disadvantage in modern society.
Apart from public law, this Court’s decisions have strengthened India’s economic landscape by injecting clarity, efficiency and fairness – be it the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code or the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. This Court has also strived to strengthen Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms.
The public understanding of justice has evolved from a pure legal construct to a living force that touches lives across the nation.
While the Court’s journey reflects remarkable evolution in rights and reach, three challenges demand our attention. First, the weight of arrears which continues to delay justice. Second, mounting costs of litigation threatens true accessibility. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally – justice cannot thrive where and when falsehood is practised. These challenges mark the next frontier in our pursuit for justice.
75 years after our constitutional journey began, the Supreme Court stands transformed, yet anchored in its foundational mission. This transformation reflects a deeper recognition—that justice must be both principled and practical. In doing so, it makes the constitutional promise of justice—social, economic, and political—a living reality for millions of Indians. Over the seven and a half decades, this Court has transformed the constitutional promise into a reality through its judgments.
Jai Hind!