Justice Surya Kant’s Uneasy Ascent to India’s Top Judicial Post.
The conventional elevation of the senior-most Supreme Court judge to the high office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) typically occurs with little fanfare, affirming the principle of seniority that underpins the judicial hierarchy. However, the nomination of Justice Surya Kant—set to become the 53rd CJI—has reopened a chapter marked by a series of unsettling allegations and collegium controversies that predate his elevation to the apex court. As the country prepares for a new judicial administration, a critical examination of the path taken by the next potential head of the Indian judiciary becomes imperative.
The Spectre of Allegations: Property Dealings and ‘Misconduct’
Justice Surya Kant began his legal journey in 1984 in Hisar, Haryana, and swiftly rose through the ranks, becoming the Advocate General of the state in 2000 before his elevation to the bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2004. Yet, his judicial career has been intertwined with persistent allegations concerning his financial propriety and conduct, which reportedly remained uninvestigated before his ascension.
In 2012, a Chandigarh-based businessman publicly accused the then-sitting High Court judge of significant non-payment of dues related to property renovation and, more gravely, tax evasion on a substantial sum, allegedly through the undervaluation of property transactions. The businessman detailed four different real estate deals—two purchases and two sales for the judge between 2010 and 2011—where the stated value in the sale deeds was reportedly far less than the actual transacted amount. The remainder, he claimed, was paid in cash to evade stamp duty and income tax.
The accusations included:
* The sale of a farmhouse in Himachal Pradesh, where a stated price of 13 lakh was allegedly a fraction of the actual 2.32 crore value, with the balance paid in cash.
* The sale of a residential plot in Panchkula, where the sale deed showed 1.50 crore, but the actual price was claimed to be 3.10 crore.
* The purchase of a house in New Delhi’s Greater Kailash I locality, where the stated value of 1.50 crore was allegedly half of the actual 3.50 crore paid.
These properties, located in high-value neighbourhoods, appeared to be significantly undervalued on paper, with some calculated official circle rates at the time reportedly revealing a disparity of nearly double the registered price. The complainant further alleged that the judge was acting like a “property dealer” to maximise profits at the expense of stamp duty and income tax, and accused him of holding benami property.
A second set of allegations arose from a prisoner in Patiala jail, who in a complaint of serious misconduct, accused the judge of accepting bribes for granting bail in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) cases. The prisoner named the judge’s brother, nephew, and two lawyers as “touts” allegedly facilitating the corruption. The complainant listed eight specific bail orders granted between 2015 and 2017 to individuals caught with commercial quantities of narcotics, raising serious questions in the context of Punjab’s pervasive opioid crisis.
Crucially, the Supreme Court administration, despite receiving sworn affidavits and detailed submissions, reportedly did not order a formal investigation into either the property/tax evasion claims or the corruption allegations before his subsequent elevations.
The Collegium’s Choice: Seniority and Supersession
Justice Kant’s journey from a High Court judge to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and then to the Supreme Court was also marked by questions of judicial seniority and collegium dynamics.
In 2018, the Collegium recommended his appointment as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, a decision that involved superseding Justice AK Mittal, a judge senior to Justice Kant in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This supersession led to an explicit disagreement from a sitting Supreme Court judge, Justice AK Goel, who had served on the same High Court.
Justice Goel wrote a scathing letter to the then-CJI, opposing the elevation and referencing his own earlier opinion from March 2017.
In that prior opinion, Justice Goel had reportedly suggested obtaining independent valuation reports for the properties acquired by Justice Kant, noting that “no verification has so far been done from any independent source/expert valuers.” He also pointed out that the eight bail orders referenced in the prisoner’s complaint “prima facie, appear to be unusual and not sound in law.”
The internal machinations of the collegium, an opaque system for judicial appointments, came under scrutiny. Earlier proposals to elevate Justice Mittal were reportedly stalled, and the decision to elevate the junior Justice Kant instead was explained in the collegium minutes only by stating that he was considered “more suitable.” The delay in Justice Kant’s formal appointment to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice post—with the central government reportedly sitting on the file for nine months—only ended the very day a new CJI took office, suggesting a shift in institutional alignment.
The Future Administration and Institutional Integrity
Justice Kant was finally elevated to the Supreme Court bench in May 2019. His upcoming tenure as the CJI is expected to be approximately 15 months. The question of how allegations of financial impropriety and judicial misconduct—which were on the record of the Supreme Court files and highlighted by a consultee judge—were addressed, or rather, not addressed, remains a point of deep public and institutional concern.
The recurring theme is the collegium’s decision to proceed with the elevation despite serious, documented concerns raised by a fellow judge. The judiciary’s integrity rests on the public’s faith, and the tradition of the Chief Justice’s office demands that the occupant’s moral and financial conduct be beyond reproach.
While Justice Kant has been part of significant Supreme Court benches, contributing to landmark rulings, the unanswered questions surrounding his conduct in the High Court cast a long shadow over the transition of power.
The public deserves clarity, and the institution must demonstrate its commitment to thorough due diligence and accountability. The lack of an independent, transparent investigation into the initial complaints means that the next CJI will take office under the weight of these unaddressed claims, a challenge that goes to the heart of judicial probity and institutional self-governance.
As the Centre notifies his appointment—expected imminently—the nation must confront an uncomfortable truth. Justice Kant’s ascent isn’t merely personal; it’s a referendum on a collegium that elevates amid shadows, potentially priming the court for partisan tempests. Fifteen months is scant time to heal wounds, but ample to inflict new ones. The bar for the CJI isn’t brilliance alone—it’s unassailable integrity. On that score, Surya Kant falls short, leaving the temple of justice dimmer for it.
Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
