India’s Judicial Dilemma: CJI Surya Kant and the Convocation Conundrum

The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad has long been a respected institution for producing some of India’s finest legal minds. However, with its upcoming convocation ceremony, NALSAR finds itself at the center of a heated debate that raises uncomfortable questions about the judiciary’s own values and priorities.

The controversy centers around Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s proposed invitation as chief guest to deliver the convocation address. A group of students has written to the university administration, expressing their reservations about the choice, citing concerns over the CJI’s reported remarks during a recent hearing on alleged police excesses against protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

The CJI responded dismissively to an offer to show videos of the alleged police action, saying, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.” This attitude towards evidence and allegations of brutality has led students to question whether NALSAR’s values, such as a commitment to constitutional rights and access to justice, would be compromised by having the CJI receive their degrees.

The content of the remarks is troubling, but so too is the tone. The CJI told counsel, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time,” which can be seen as a reflection of a deeper issue within the judiciary: its willingness to prioritize expediency over thorough examination and justice.

This is not an isolated incident, nor is it a new development in India. Police brutality against marginalized communities has long been a challenge for the country. The CJI’s remarks are part of a broader trend where institutions of power tend to downplay or dismiss legitimate grievances.

The NALSAR students’ opposition to the CJI’s invitation is not just dissenting voices, but a symptom of a deeper crisis within India’s judiciary. As an institution that has traditionally been held in high esteem, the judiciary must now confront its own complicity in perpetuating systemic injustices.

The convocation ceremony marks a significant moment for NALSAR students, marking their transition from academic to professional life. It also presents an opportunity for the university to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the values it has instilled in its students.

If the CJI is invited as chief guest, it would send a message about the institution’s priorities and values. Would NALSAR be endorsing a culture of expediency over justice, or reaffirming its commitment to upholding constitutional rights? The implications extend beyond the university campus, raising questions about the judiciary’s ability to uphold the rule of law.

The ongoing debates around policing reforms and accountability in India are complex and multifaceted. However, as NALSAR students navigate their own transition into professional life, they must also confront the reality that institutions like the judiciary can sometimes fail them. The CJI’s proposed invitation is not just a personal affront but a reflection of a broader failure to address systemic injustices.

The convocation ceremony may seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but it represents a moment of truth for India’s judiciary and its institutions. Will NALSAR reaffirm its commitment to upholding constitutional rights, or will it succumb to expediency? The choice is not just about one university but about the values that underpin India’s justice system.

The fate of NALSAR’s convocation and the CJI’s proposed invitation hangs precariously in the balance. What happens next will have far-reaching implications for India’s judiciary, its institutions, and its people.