The country will get a new Chief Justice on 24 November. President Draupadi Murmu has approved the recommendation to appoint Justice Surya Kant, the second senior most judge of the Supreme Court, to this post. On October 27, the current Chief Justice BR Gavai had recommended the name of Justice Kant as his successor to the Central Government.

Chief Justice Gavai is retiring on 23 November. In such a situation, Justice Kant will take oath of office on 24th November. His tenure will be till February 9, 2027 i.e. about 15 months. He will be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to come from Haryana.

Became Supreme Court judge in 2019

Justice Surya Kant was born on 10 February 1962 in Hisar, Haryana. Justice Surya Kant, coming from a middle-class family, became the Advocate General of Haryana in the year 2000. In 2004, he was appointed judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. In 2018, he became the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court and on 24 May 2019, he became the Judge of the Supreme Court.

liberal attitude in court

As a judge, Justice Surya Kant, who has more than two decades of experience, expresses his views vocally in the court. Along with this, he also gives full opportunity to all the lawyers to present their views. His attitude is particularly lenient towards the parties appearing in person in the court. He is often seen listening to their problems like a family member and suggesting solutions.

Notice not issued on insult to CJI

Recently, he showed generosity by refusing to issue a contempt notice to the lawyer who threw a shoe at Chief Justice BR Gavai. He said that the court does not want to give importance to that lawyer by taking further action against him.

Hearing of many big cases including Bihar SIR

He has heard many important cases in the Supreme Court. Even at this time, he is hearing many important cases including Bihar SIR (Voter List Revision), Shiv Sena election symbol dispute, expulsion of illegal infiltrators and digital arrest.

Also read:- Delhi Police opposed the bail of Delhi riots accused in the Supreme Court, said- ‘2020 riots in the country…’

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai has recommended the Central Government to appoint Justice Surya Kant as the next Chief Justice. Justice Surya Kant, the second most senior judge of the Supreme Court after the current CJI, can take charge as the 53rd CJI of the country on November 24.

CJI Gavai will retire on 23 November. According to sources, Justice Gavai, who took oath as the Chief Justice on May 14 this year, has recommended the name of Justice Surya Kant to the Union Law Ministry as the next Chief Justice. Justice Surya Kant’s tenure as CJI will be more than one year and two months. He will retire on 9 February 2027. Let us tell you that the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65 years.

CJI Gavai praised Justice Surya Kant
In his recommendation, CJI Gavai has described Justice Kant as suitable and capable to take charge in all aspects. He also said that both have similar social background, which is full of determination and struggle. Gavai said, “Like me, Justice Kant also comes from a section of the society that has seen struggle at every level of life, which makes me believe that he will be best suited to understand the pain and suffering of those who need the judiciary to protect their rights.”

Who is Justice Surya Kant
Born on 10 February 1962 in Hisar, Haryana, Justice Surya Kant’s rise to the highest position in the judiciary reflects his academic excellence and administrative skills. Justice Surya Kant, a Hisar graduate, obtained his law degree from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in 1984. He started his career from Hisar District Court before moving to Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1985.

He has expertise in constitutional, service and civil matters. ​​His legal understanding and balanced advocacy have given him the opportunity to represent many major public institutions, including universities, boards and banks. In the year 2000, at the age of just 38, he became the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. An achievement that made him one of the most prominent legal figures in the state. The next year he was given the status of senior advocate.

read this also

Cyclone Montha: Cyclonic storm Montha can wreak havoc, red alert in many states, know latest updates

Chief Justice (CJI) of India R. Gawai said on Friday (October 3) that the Indian judicial system is not operated by the rule of bulldozers, but from the rule of law. During an event in Mauritius, he mentioned his own decision to condemn Bulldozer Justice.

‘India does not run by law with bulldozers’

Highlighting the principle of rule of law and its widespread interpretation on behalf of the Supreme Court of India, CJI Gawai said, “This decision has given a clear message that the Indian judicial system is run not from the rule of bulldozers, but from the rule of law.”

Justice Gawai is on a three -day official visit to Mauritius. In the judgment given in the Bulldozer Justice case, the Supreme Court admitted that the demolition of the houses of the accused over alleged offenses bypasses legal processes, violates the rule of law and violates the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

CJI mentioned the historical decisions of the Supreme Court

He said that it was also believed that the executive could not play another role. Mauritius President Dharambir Gokhul, Prime Minister Naveen Chandra Ramgulam and Chief Justice Rehana Mungali Gulbul were also present on the occasion. In his address, the Chief Justice mentioned various historical decisions of the Supreme Court including the 1973 Keshavanand Bharti case.

Justice Gawai said that in the social sector, laws have been enacted to prevent historical injustice and marginalized communities have often resorted to the language of their rule and law to claim their rights.

Chief Justice mentioned triple talaq

He said, “In the political field, the rule of law serves as a standard of good governance and social progress, which is completely opposite to misrule and anarchy.” Referring to Mahatma Gandhi and BR Ambedkar’s contribution, he said that his foresight showed that the rule of law in India is not just a group of rules.

He mentioned recent notable decisions, including the decision to end the practice of triple talaq among Muslims. Justice Gawai also emphasized the importance of the decision in which the right to privacy is considered a fundamental right.

Also read: ‘Global South capacity to save millions of people and improve life in India’, Bill Gates praises India

There was a big turn in an important case in Madhya Pradesh High Court when Justice Vishal Mishra of Jalpur Bench separated himself from the hearing. This case is related to the complaint of illegal mining on a large scale. The judge said that BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak tried to contact the phone in this case, which could have affected judicial fairness. Therefore, he decided to separate himself from further hearing.

The controversy is related to the writ petition titled “Ashutosh Dixit vs. Economic Offenses Branch (EOW) and other”. Petitioner Ashutosh Dixit had lodged a complaint with the Economic Offenses Branch in Bhopal regarding illegal mining. They allege that there has been a large -scale mining scam in the state, but the investigating agency did not complete the investigation within the stipulated time. For this reason, he approached the High Court and demanded judicial intervention in the case.

What is the whole matter?

It is alleged that the family companies of BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak bought land worth about Rs 1000 crore from Bhopal, Jabalpur and Katni for only Rs 90 crore. Due to this deal, investors suffered heavy economic losses. After the case was exposed, the opposition called it a failure of the government and demanded a CBI inquiry.

Apart from this, these companies were also accused of illegal mining, due to which a fine of Rs 520 crore was imposed. In the state assembly, the government admitted that the recovery action is being taken. This case not only highlights economic irregularities but is also causing a stir in political corridors.

Sanjay Pathak contacted Justice Vishal Mishra with phone

BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak was not a party in this matter. He filed an application for intervention in the court. He said that he too should be given an opportunity to speak in this matter, but during the hearing on 1 September, Justice Mishra wrote in the order that Pathak tried to personally talk to him on the phone, which is against the judicial code of conduct.

Sanjay Pathak’s case will go to Chief Justice

Justice Vishal Mishra made it clear in his order that Sanjay Pathak has tried to call me to discuss this particular case, so I am not willing to hear this writ petition. Along with this, he directed to send the case to the Chief Justice so that it can be listed before another bench.

The case will be heard before the new bench

According to the information, now this matter will be heard before the new bench. Senior Advocate SR on behalf of the petitioner Tamarkar and advocate Ankit Chopra presented the arguments, while EOW’s side was placed by advocate Madhur Shukla. Advocate Anshuman Singh was present on behalf of MLA Sanjay Pathak.

Former Chief Justice, who has already made the Parliamentary Committee constituted on the Bill that provides for simultaneous elections, has already supported the constitutionalism of the concept of ‘one nation, one election’ (ONO), but has also given suggestions about various aspects of the bill, including the power given to the Election Commission.

Justice DY Chandrachud, who was the Chief Justice (CJI) of India, has rejected the opposition’s criticism in his opinion submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee that the simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections together is a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

This thing was not written in the constitution

He said that there is no talk of separating national and state elections anywhere in the Constitution. However, according to the opinion submitted to the Parliamentary Committee, he joined another former CJI Ranjan Gogoi in questioning the ‘comprehensive powers’ given ‘wide powers’ without setting any guidelines for the use of ‘discretion’ to the Election Commission in the proposed Constitutional Amendment Act.

Justice Chandrachud and another former CJI J. S. Khehar is going to appear before the committee headed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP PP Chaudhary on 11 July, so that members can interact with them on the provisions of the bill and know their views on their questions.

Questions raised on the widespread powers given to the Election Commission

Questioning the comprehensive powers given to the Election Commission in the Bill, Justice Chandrachud said, ‘Unlimited rights can enable the election body to reduce or extend the constitutionally compulsory 5 -year period of the tenure of the state assembly. Especially on the pretext that elections together with the Lok Sabha are not viable.

He said that the Constitution should define, paint and structures the circumstances under which ECI can use this power. Two former CJIs, Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ranjan Gogoi appeared before the committee in February and March respectively. Sources have said that during the conversation, Justice Gogoi said that he agrees with the concern of some members regarding the excessive power given to the Commission.

Elections should be held in order

Justice Lalit had suggested that elections should be conducted not simultaneously, but in order, as the tenure of the remaining assemblies aimed at making the election cycles synchronized could be legally challenged. However, the three former Chief Justice have not questioned the constitutionality of the concept of elections simultaneously.

Conspiracy to seduce voters

In his written opinion, Justice Chandrachud said that by holding elections simultaneously, there will be no violation of the voters’ right to choose the delegates and the bill ensures that voters are represented by their duly elected MPs or MLAs. The argument opposing to hold elections simultaneously is based on the fact that Indian voters are innocent and can be easily seduced.

Justice Chandrachud said, ‘The argument that gradual elections are part of the original structure of the Constitution (part of the principles of federalism or democracy) is not correct. The gradual time of elections cannot be considered as a specialty of the original constitution, it is a distant thing to be considered an irreversible feature.

Small parties threatened by holding elections simultaneously

Justice Chandrachud’s opinion is not devoid of caution about some characteristics of the Bill or the possible effects of it on it. He expressed concern that small or regional parties would be marginalized due to the dominance of national parties with better resources by holding elections together.

He said that this is an important policy aspect that needs to be paid to legislatively. To ensure equal opportunities among political parties, the rules that control electoral campaigns, especially spending on election campaign must be strengthened.

Party spends more money than fixed limit

Justice Chandrachud said that the maximum limit has been fixed on the amount to be spent by the candidate during the election campaign during the election campaign, but there is no such limit on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves during the election campaign. This difference in regulation goes in favor of parties with more financial resources in the electoral process.

Also read:- Do not pay attention to rumors! Election Commission said- no change in the process of voter list updation in Bihar

Cji br gavai on constitution: Chief Justice BR Gawai said on Wednesday (25 June 2025) that the Constitution of India is supreme and all three organs of democracy work under the Constitution. He said that some people say that Parliament is supreme, but in his opinion the Constitution is paramount. Justice Gawai, who took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice last month, was speaking at his reception in Amravati, his hometown in Amravati, East Maharashtra.

He said that there is always a discussion on which part of democracy is supreme – executive, legislature or judiciary. He said, “Although many people say and believe that Parliament is supreme, but according to me the Constitution of India is supreme. All three organs of democracy work under the Constitution. ”

‘Parliament has the power to amend’- CJI BI Gawai

Referring to the decision passed by the Supreme Court on the basis of the principle of ‘original structure’, Chief Justice Gavai said that Parliament has the power to amend, but it cannot change the original structure of the Constitution. He said that just by passing the order against the government, no judge becomes independent. He said, “The judge should always remember that it is our duty and we are the patron of the rights and constitutional values ​​and principles of the citizens. We do not only have power, but we have also been put on duty.

What will people say? In what relation did CJI say this

The Chief Justice said that no judge should be directed by what people will say about their decision or what they will feel. He said, “We have to think independently. What people will say, it cannot be a part of our decision making process. During his address, the Chief Justice cited some of his decisions. Referring to his decision against ‘bulldozer justice’, he said that the right to shelter is supreme.

Justice Abhay Oka on Supreme Court: Justice Abhay Oka has demanded a reform in the Supreme Court. They say that the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice centered and needs a change. Justice Abhay Oka was the last day as a judge on Friday (May 23, 2025). In his farewell speech, he also indicated that these changes can be made by Chief Justice BR Gavai.

Speaking at his farewell ceremony organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Oka said that the High Court works more democratically than the Supreme Court. He said, “High court works through committees, while the Supreme Court is focused on the Chief Justice. It needs a change. You will see this change with the new Chief Justice.”

‘Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna showed the path of transparency’

He added, “I am very happy that Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna (who retired on May 13) pushed us forward on the path of transparency. He took decisions by confidence of every judge of the Supreme Court. Justice Gawai’s blood has democratic values.” Justice Oka also said that the Supreme Court and the High Court have ignored the trial court.

He said, “We should also think about the trial court and the common man. There are many cases pending in our trial and district courts … Never call the trial court a subordinate court. It is against constitutional values ​​… It is a difficult task to punish someone after 20 years.”

Justice Abhay Oka remembered his journey like this

Recalling his judicial visit, Justice Oka said that many people had asked him how he felt after leaving the post. To this, he said, “The judges have the freedom to do justice and when you are not a judge, you do not get that freedom. After 21 years and 9 months and after being a judge of three constitutional courts, the post of the judge becomes life and life becomes the post of judge.”

‘Never given a disagreement decision’

He said, “When a successful lawyer becomes a judge, he says that he has to sacrifice. I do not accept it. When you join the judiciary, you do not get that income, but the work you get cannot be compared to the lawyer’s income. I have never given a disagreeable decision in my long innings as a judge.”

Also read: Delhi government withdrew 7 petitions from the Supreme Court, the previous AAP government filed cases due to dispute with the Center