Justice on Demand: Rethinking Our High Courts as Lifelines of Democracy

Imagine, for a moment, a hospital. Not just any hospital, but a sprawling, modern facility—the kind where you’d expect immediate, even urgent, attention for life-threatening emergencies. Now, picture our High Courts. Do they evoke the same sense of immediate, life-saving urgency?

Perhaps not always, you might say. But what if they did? This is precisely the compelling, deeply human vision put forth by Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant, who, with remarkable clarity, articulated his belief that High Courts must, absolutely must, begin to envision their institutional growth much like a modern hospital’s emergency services. And honestly, it’s a brilliant analogy.

Speaking at a recent event hosted by the Kerala High Court, Justice Kant wasn't just offering a suggestion; he was, in truth, painting a picture of what justice should look like for every citizen, particularly for those whose fundamental rights hang in the balance. For them, he argued, the High Court is often the last resort, the legal equivalent of that emergency room door.

Think about it. When your very freedoms are threatened, when bureaucratic delays or systemic failures jeopardize your core human dignity, shouldn’t the pathway to legal redress be as swift, as unencumbered, as the pathway to medical aid for a heart attack victim? Justice Kant believes so, and many would agree.

His argument isn’t merely about speed, however. Oh no, it's far more holistic. He's talking about a complete overhaul of institutional mindset, a profound shift towards proactiveness rather than mere reactiveness. This means investing not just in grand buildings, but in the unseen scaffolding of modern infrastructure—cutting-edge technology, yes, but also robust human resources, meticulously trained staff, and a culture that prioritizes the litigant above all else.

The paradox, as Justice Kant so eloquently pointed out, is striking. We hold fundamental rights as immediate and inalienable, yet the institutional mechanisms for enforcing them can, at times, feel anything but immediate. This chasm, this gap between principle and practice, is what he urges us to bridge. He wants courts to be more than just adjudicators; he wants them to be guardians, ever-vigilant and readily accessible.

And how do we get there? Technology, of course, plays a pivotal role. The era of dusty files and endless physical queues, frankly, must end. Justice Kant champions embracing e-filing, virtual courts, and digital record-keeping not as mere conveniences, but as essential tools for "future-proofing" the justice system. Imagine, if you will, the sheer efficiency, the transparency, and the accessibility this could bring!

It’s a vision that requires collective effort, you could say. It's not just judges, but also the unsung heroes—the judicial officers, the lawyers, the entire administrative staff—who must embrace this paradigm shift. Their commitment to continuous learning, to adopting new tools, and to fostering a litigant-centric approach will, in truth, determine the success of this grand experiment.

Justice Kant's address, then, wasn't just a speech; it was a rallying cry. A passionate plea for a justice system that is not only robust and fair but also compassionate, agile, and always, always there for its citizens, just like the best emergency services.