Rule of Law Is Not Western in Origin: Hindistan Chief Justice Draws Attention to the Thousands of Years Old History of the Concept of 'Dharma'

Hindistan Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant rejected the widespread assumptions that the concepts of the rule of law and judicial independence are of Western origin or an imported material imposed on the global south in the post-colonial era. Delivering a keynote speech at a conference organized by Uluslararası IDEA in İsveç titled "Upholding the Rule of Law: Experiences from Hindistan and İsveç," Kant emphasized that these principles are actually ancient values deeply rooted in the Indian consciousness for thousands of years. In his speech, he stated that the concept of 'Dharma,' meaning the supremacy of a universal, ethical, and legal order established above personal or dynastic powers, is much older than modern Anglo-Saxon common law. To prove this point, the Chief Justice referred to a well-known story from the Mahabharata, one of the world's oldest epics. This discussion reveals that the Hindistan judicial system represents not only modern constitutional norms but also a deep-rooted cultural heritage.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, who delivered a highly significant message in terms of legal history and philosophy, cited an incident between King Prahlada, his son Virochana, and the sage Sudhanva in the Mahabharata as an example. According to this story, King Prahlada had to judge a life-or-death dispute concerning the life of his own son, setting aside his personal feelings to administer justice. Kant stated that this epic event proves how crucial the impartiality of judges was considered in Indian thought long before modern constitutional theories such as the separation of powers or institutional independence were formulated. It was emphasized that at moments when a judge distorts the truth, not only the individuals involved in the case, but also the moral order upon which the entire civil society is built, would collapse. In this context, it is noted that judges being completely insulated from political, personal, or dynastic pressures is an undeniable rule in the Indian tradition.

Also touching upon the modern structure of the Hindistan Constitution, the Chief Justice stated that legislative, executive, and judicial organs are entrusted with different responsibilities, and an independent judiciary serves as a shield against the other organs exceeding their constitutional limits. Kant underlined that judicial review is not only a constitutional power but also a mandatory constitutional duty, noting that courts cannot be passive spectators within the system. He expressed that the judiciary must be vigilant guardians protecting constitutional supremacy, ensuring that no exercise of public power can escape the discipline of the law. CJI added that when constitutional organs step outside their given roles, judicial review kicks in as a corrective mechanism, noting that the continuation of the rule of law depends on this delicate balance between these three powers. Thus, it is stated that the concept of the rule of law has become not just an abstract promise on paper, but a lived and undeniable reality for Hindistan citizens.

The Chief Justice's speech also extensively covered the fundamental contributions of the Hindistan Supreme Court to constitutional law. In particular, the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' was highlighted as one of the greatest achievements of the Hindistan judicial system. Thanks to this doctrine, which was shaped in the Kesavananda Bharati case, it was registered that the constitution has an unamendable core identity, which includes the separation of powers and cannot be destroyed even by any constitutional amendment. Additionally, citing the S.R. Bommai case as a reference, it was reminded that federalism and democracy were made part of the basic structure, and that an elected government cannot be dismissed without proving a majority in the assembly. The evolution of the Collegium system, where the appointment of judges is largely the responsibility of the judiciary itself, and issues such as the financial autonomy of judges were also detailed as mechanisms that would protect independence.

Finally, attention was drawn to the transformative role played by the Hindistan Supreme Court in delivering justice in favor of the public. It was stated that thanks to the relaxation of the locus standi to sue, which started with the S.P. Gupta case that expanded the right to a legal hearing, the door was opened for filing Public Interest Litigations (PIL) on behalf of disadvantaged groups. It was emphasized that the epistolary jurisdiction practice, where press reports or letters are accepted as petitions, also brought swift solutions to social problems. It was conveyed that many historic decisions, ranging from the right to a speedy trial to procedural processes, from human dignity to the right to livelihood, and including the abolition of forced labor, contributed to the universalization of justice. CJI Kant also stated that the court played a pioneering role in the protection of nature by developing environmental law principles such as absolute liability, the polluter pays principle, and the precautionary principle.