SC, HCs not competing destinations for justice: CJI

The CJI’s phrase means that the Supreme Court and High Courts serve justice together. They are not rival institutions trying to attract people or cases. High Courts should be trusted as the first forum for constitutional remedies, while the Supreme Court and High Courts carry complementary responsibilities.

The point is especially important under Article 226. High Courts can respond to fundamental and other legal rights violations. They also understand local grievances, regional circumstances and the practical effects of government action. This local connection can make constitutional protection more accessible.

The CJI said constitutional justice does not begin and end in New Delhi. It depends on a network of 25 High Courts across India. Strengthening public confidence in those courts would support earlier intervention and make the wider system of constitutional justice work more effectively.

Article 226 is the constitutional provision the CJI highlighted as central to the High Courts’ role. It empowers these courts to issue directions for enforcing fundamental rights and other legal rights. That makes High Courts an important first forum when a person needs protection against unlawful or harmful action.

The power works through judicial directions. A High Court can examine the rights-related complaint and order appropriate action within its constitutional role. The article stresses that this protection matters most when the court intervenes at the moment intervention is needed, rather than only after harm has continued.

Article 226 therefore connects constitutional rights with practical access to justice. The CJI linked this role to the local knowledge of High Courts. They understand regional communities, local grievances and the real consequences of governmental action, making their intervention especially significant.

India has 25 High Courts in the network through which constitutional justice is delivered. The CJI used this figure to challenge the idea that constitutional justice begins and ends in New Delhi. The Supreme Court and the High Courts together form the country’s constitutional justice structure.

High Courts make that structure locally grounded. According to the CJI, they understand the language of local grievances, the circumstances of regional communities and the practical consequences of governmental action. Those features help them respond to rights concerns in the places where people experience them.

The figure also explains why public confidence in High Courts matters. If people see them as strong first forums for constitutional remedies, the broader system can intervene closer to the source of a dispute. The CJI presented the 25 High Courts as constitutional partners with responsibilities that complement those of the Supreme Court.

Timely interim relief can protect a person’s rights during the period before a final judgment. It may stop a continuing rights problem from worsening or provide immediate protection while the court examines the full dispute. The key benefit is that the person does not have to wait for the case’s final outcome before receiving help.

The CJI framed this as a central difference between justice and injustice. In his words, the difference lies not in the final judgment alone, but in whether the court intervenes when intervention is most needed. Interim relief therefore gives practical force to constitutional protection at a crucial moment.

The article does not identify a specific interim order from this speech. It presents the principle as a reason to strengthen High Courts and public confidence in them. Earlier intervention can make legal rights meaningful in real situations, rather than merely recognising them after the immediate problem has passed.

A High Court may be the natural first choice because Article 226 directly empowers it to issue directions enforcing fundamental and other legal rights. The CJI said High Courts should be seen as the first forum for constitutional remedies. This makes them an important place to seek prompt protection when rights are threatened.

Their local perspective is another reason. High Courts understand the language of local grievances, the circumstances of regional communities and the practical consequences of governmental action. That knowledge can help them assess how a constitutional or legal problem affects people in a particular state or region.

The CJI did not describe the courts as competing destinations. He presented them as constitutional partners with complementary roles. Approaching a High Court first therefore supports the structure he endorsed: rights protection close to the affected community, within a national system that also includes the Supreme Court.

The Kerala High Court’s 1999 order prohibited public smoking. The CJI recalled it as an example of the court using constitutional reasoning to protect people from a harmful public practice. Its significance lay in identifying the right to breathe smoke-free air as part of the protection recognised under Article 21.

Article 21 was the legal connection. By treating smoke-free air as part of that right, the court linked everyday conditions in public spaces with constitutional protection. The order therefore did more than address smoking as a social or regulatory issue. It recognised a right-based interest in the air people breathe.

The CJI cited the decision while praising the Kerala High Court’s constitutional role. It showed how a High Court can respond to a regional public concern and give it constitutional meaning. The example supports his broader argument that High Courts are vital first forums for protecting rights.

Constitutional remedies give people a way to ask courts for protection when government action infringes fundamental or other legal rights. Judicial review is the process through which courts examine whether such action stays within constitutional limits. Together, they turn rights into protections that people can actively enforce.

The article identifies Article 226 as the key High Court mechanism. It allows High Courts to issue directions for enforcing rights. The Kerala High Court’s 1999 order prohibiting public smoking illustrates how a court can connect an everyday public concern with Article 21’s protection of the right to breathe smoke-free air.

The CJI said timely intervention is crucial. A remedy that arrives only after the harm has run its course may provide less practical protection than an order made when intervention is needed. He therefore emphasised strong High Courts, local understanding and public confidence in the first forum for constitutional remedies.