Justice CT Ravikumar, who retired as a Supreme Court judge on January 5 following a three-year tenure, on Wednesday underscored the primacy of merit in judicial appointments, dismissing the idea of reservation for marginalised communities in constitutional courts despite hailing from a Scheduled Caste background. In an interview, he also spoke to Utkarsh Anand about the evolving landscape of the judiciary, docket explosion, the role of AI, and the scrutiny brought about by social media. Edited excerpts:
Your journey from a modest background to the Supreme Court exemplifies resilience and determination. Do you believe the judiciary has enough mechanisms to ensure diversity on the bench, particularly representation from marginalised communities? My simple answer is that the judiciary does have this mechanism, and I believe it will continue to exist. If it weren’t so, I wouldn’t have been in this position. But people from marginalised communities must make themselves fit enough to come within the zone of consideration. Regardless of background and source of appointment, everyone elevated as a judge has to perform the same duties. Therefore, competence and qualification are paramount. It’s your responsibility to ensure that you are fit for the role, and it is then up to others to identify and elevate deserving individuals.
Coming from a Scheduled Caste community, what challenges did you face in ascending the judicial ladder?It was challenging, especially as a first-generation lawyer. Starting from Mavelikara (a small town in Kerala’s Alappuzha district) and transitioning to practice in the high court was not easy, particularly due to financial constraints and the lack of professional support. I had to build everything from scratch. My wife’s unwavering support was pivotal during difficult times. She stood by me as a pillar, sharing both pain and joy, and that made all the difference.
At your farewell event, you expressed gratitude to justice KG Balakrishnan, the first Chief Justice of India from a Scheduled Caste background. With justice Bhushan R Gavai set to become the second CJI India belonging to a marginalised community, how do you view this milestone?Representation is important, and milestones like these inspire greater diversity. However, if you ask whether there is adequate representation from marginalised communities, I may be constrained to say no. That said, I believe there is equal opportunity in the judiciary. The focus must remain on identifying talent and elevating deserving individuals, regardless of their background. Talented people exist across all communities. For instance, justice Balakrishnan, justice Gavai, and even myself are examples of how the judiciary has recognised and elevated capable individuals from marginalised communities. Diversity is the beauty of India, and it should also be the beauty of our judiciary, as it brings varied perspectives and enriches decision-making.
How can the judiciary create a more inclusive environment for individuals from marginalised backgrounds?This particular branch (judiciary) is about dispensing justice, and it cannot operate on a system of quotas or percentages. Competence must remain the deciding factor. However, diversity is crucial because it brings varied perspectives. A judge from a marginalised community, for example, brings lived experiences that can inform their understanding of cases. Such diversity enriches decision-making. While selecting judges, we should aim to choose the best from different categories. This ensures representation while maintaining high standards.
Your tenure at the Supreme Court saw landmark judgments in diverse areas of law. How did you approach balancing empathy and judicial restraint in cases involving sensitive social and personal issues?Every case is unique. Some require a strict application of the law, while others demand equity and compassion. Ultimately, judgments are for human beings, so a human approach is essential wherever possible. A judge should consider whether a grievance can be remedied in law without diluting it, and if equity and humanity can be applied, it should be done. That is what justice demands.
Public trust in the judiciary is crucial for its legitimacy. How do you think recent controversies and public perceptions have influenced this trust?I must begin with a caveat that I do not want to spark any controversy or criticise anyone. Public trust in the judiciary is indeed important. To retain this trust, judges must exhibit conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom, that is befitting of their office. Their behaviour should inspire confidence in the system and uphold the dignity of the institution.
When delivering judgments, judges must ensure that their reasoning is clearly articulated within the judgment itself. Once a judgment is pronounced, it enters the public domain, where it is open to scrutiny and criticism. However, judges should refrain from justifying their decisions outside the written judgment, as that can create confusion and undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
Criticism, when done constructively, plays a vital role in strengthening the system. It allows the judiciary to introspect and improve. However, people should remember that their right to freedom of expression, which allows them to critique judicial decisions, is protected by the same Constitution that the judiciary upholds. It is their duty to protect the system that safeguards their rights. Judges must also exercise immense caution and deliberation when laying down the law, as their decisions set precedents that will guide future cases.
What is the biggest challenge facing the judiciary today?Docket explosion is the most significant challenge. However, the sheer number of cases also reflects the public’s faith in the judiciary. People approach courts because they believe in the justice system. To address this, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be utilised more effectively. This would allow courts to focus on other critical matters and help ensure speedy justice, which is the ultimate goal. The large number of cases is certainly an impediment to speedy justice. We have to put our heads together to find a way.
What is your perspective on the role of artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making?AI is a tool created by humans, but it cannot replace human intelligence or the emotional aspects of decision-making. A judgment must have a human touch — compassion, empathy and an understanding of human emotions are essential. AI can assist in decision-making but cannot replicate the humanity required to deliver justice.
How has the rise of social media impacted the judiciary, particularly the scrutiny on judges and judgments?Social media scrutiny is part of a democratic system, but individuals expressing their views must also recognise that their right to free speech is safeguarded by the judiciary. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, which protects these rights. It’s a shared responsibility — the judiciary must safeguard rights, and the public must ensure the system’s integrity. If this balance is maintained, the institution will continue to thrive and protect citizens.
