Bar forms an inseparable pillar of the justice delivery system and cannot be detached from the courts, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Sunday, challenging the perception that dispensing justice rests solely with judges.Addressing a gathering of lawyers and judicial officers, the Chief Justice underscored that courts and advocates function in tandem, and that public faith in the judiciary depends as much on the conduct and preparedness of the Bar as on the decisions of the Bench. He described the belief that justice is delivered exclusively by judges as a “myth”, arguing that the quality of advocacy, ethical standards and assistance rendered to courts shape outcomes in fundamental ways.
Justice Surya Kant, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019 after serving as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and earlier as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has spoken on several occasions about institutional integrity and access to justice. His remarks come at a time when the judiciary is grappling with mounting case backlogs, rising litigation in constitutional courts and growing public scrutiny of the legal system’s efficiency.
India’s judicial system remains one of the largest in the world, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by 25 High Courts and thousands of subordinate courts. Data placed before Parliament have shown that total pending cases across all courts run into tens of millions, with a significant proportion concentrated in district courts. Legal scholars and former judges have long argued that addressing pendency requires a multi-pronged approach, including judicial appointments, procedural reform and greater cooperation from the Bar.
The Chief Justice’s comments highlight the professional responsibility of advocates in this context. Senior lawyers point out that effective case management, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments and adherence to ethical norms can substantially reduce delays. Bar associations across the country have also been urged to discourage strike calls that disrupt court functioning, a matter on which the Supreme Court has previously taken a firm view, holding that lawyers’ strikes impede access to justice.
Justice Surya Kant’s emphasis on shared responsibility aligns with earlier judicial pronouncements that define the legal profession as a noble calling rather than a commercial enterprise. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that advocates are officers of the court and owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the justice system. In disciplinary matters, courts have stressed that professional misconduct erodes public confidence and undermines the rule of law.
The Chief Justice’s remarks also resonate against the backdrop of debates on judicial reforms. Over the past decade, successive Chief Justices have advocated digitisation of court records, virtual hearings and the use of technology to streamline processes. During the Covid-19 pandemic, courts across the country shifted to hybrid and virtual modes, ensuring continuity of proceedings. Many of these measures remain in place, but their effectiveness depends heavily on cooperation between judges and lawyers.
Legal academics observe that the adversarial system, inherited from the common law tradition, relies on the premise that truth and justice emerge from well-prepared arguments presented by opposing counsel before an impartial judge. In such a framework, the role of the Bar is foundational. Weak advocacy or procedural misuse can distort outcomes, while high standards of legal argumentation assist courts in developing coherent jurisprudence.
Justice Surya Kant has also been part of benches dealing with constitutional challenges, criminal appeals and matters concerning civil liberties. His judicial record reflects engagement with issues ranging from electoral reforms to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Observers note that the credibility of such decisions often hinges on the quality of submissions made by counsel, particularly in cases involving complex questions of law.
The judiciary’s relationship with the Bar has not always been free of tension. Disputes over judicial appointments under the collegium system, concerns about transparency and occasional confrontations between lawyers and judges have tested institutional comity. However, leaders of both institutions have repeatedly called for mutual respect and dialogue to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.
Justice Surya Kant’s articulation of the Bar’s central role may also be seen as a reminder to younger members of the profession about ethical discipline and courtroom decorum. Law schools and continuing legal education programmes have expanded in number, yet concerns persist about uneven standards of training. Senior advocates have argued that mentorship within the profession and stricter enforcement of professional norms are essential to maintain credibility.