"Courts not isolated entities but parts of one Republic," CJI Kant calls for a Unified Judicial Policy

The Chief Justice of India has called for a Unified Judicial Policy, stating that it is not merely an administrative doctrine; but the architecture of constitutional confidence.

"It strengthens the idea that our courts are not isolated entities but parts of one Republic, driven by common values, delivering coherent justice. Technology is the medium, but judicial vision is the message. Our aim must remain constant — to enhance predictability, empathy, uniformity, access, and public faith", the CJI has said during his Keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer.

Beginning his address the CJI said, "History teaches us that change is inevitable, but transformation requires intent and imagination. Today, we reflect on how technology can advance the Rule of Law, strengthen institutions, and create pathways for justice that are efficient, inclusive, and predictable."

Highlighting how for decades, judicial functioning has reflected India’s vast diversity, but also its fragmentation, CJI Surya Kant said that different High Courts evolved their own practices, administrative priorities, and technological capacities, resulting in uneven experiences for litigants across the country. This variation is neither a criticism nor a surprise — it is the natural consequence of a plural and federal democracy, he added.

CJI emphasised the need for a Unified Judicial Policy, saying technology is the engine that will drive such convergence. "This unified approach calls for harmonising our procedural norms across jurisdictions, creating a shared digital architecture, ensuring a principled prioritisation of cases, developing coherent formats for judgments, enhancing clarity in judicial language, and enabling the intelligent grouping of matters that raise similar questions of law", Justice Kant has said.

He has remarked that another area where technology can deeply transform adjudication is in the “grouping of cases” involving “similar questions of law or fact”. Recalling a situation from several years ago where three benches of a High Court heard identical land acquisition appeals across two days, CJI said, "The outcomes differed, not because of the law but because of sequencing and assignment. What followed was confusion, multiplied appeals, and litigants were left uncertain about their rights. The experience illustrates that robust grouping practices are necessary to prevent such issues."

CJI has said that a unified judicial approach must also extend to how judges communicate outcomes. "This involves cultivating concise and focused reasoning, encouraging the use of clear and accessible language, adopting formats that present operative directions prominently, and consciously pruning excessive legal jargon that creates distance between justice and its stakeholders.", he said.

Adding that the concern is not theoretical, CJI Kant cited plight of several litigants where although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand. Moments like this remind us that justice, if unreadable or obscure, risks losing its meaning for the very people it seeks to serve, he said, adding that judges must remind themselves that uniformity in judicial expression is about ensuring that decisions are intelligible, reliable and capable of commanding public trust.

"Ultimately, the measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served. May we together build a judiciary that is modern in its tools, humane in its approach, and constitutional in its spirit", CJI said in conclusion.