Justice Surya Kant was appointed the 53rd Chief Justice of India on Thursday, 30 October 2025. The Union Law Ministry’s Department of Justice issued the notification confirming that he will assume office on 24 November 2025, succeeding Justice Bhushan R. Gavai who demits office on 23 November 2025. At 63, Justice Kant is set to serve as CJI for nearly 16 months, until 9 February 2027.
A Vocal Advocate for Free Speech
Justice Surya Kant has frequently positioned himself as a staunch defender of free speech, particularly for the media. At a book launch event on 10 May 2024, he delivered a robust endorsement of the press’s role in a democracy.
“There cannot be any second opinion that the right to free speech needs to be zealously protected and we must take all measures to protect that right,” he stated. He acknowledged “direct or indirect efforts in different ways” to curtail this right but affirmed the system’s resilience.
Speaking specifically on journalists, he emphasized, “Particularly, for the journalists and media that rights need to remain protected, subject to whatever constitutional restrictions are there… Sometimes we may find that it qualifies as reasonable restriction but when it is found that in the name of reasonable restriction, the effort was to gag then that has been strongly disapproved by the courts.”
He framed free speech as integral to a “right to a dignified life” and warned that if the “fourth pillar (media) is weak, then the building [of democracy] will not be strong.”
But Nupur Sharma Is A Loose Tongue According To Justice Surya Kant
This strong defence of free speech stands in stark contrast to his bench’s oral observations during the hearing of a plea by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma in July 2022. Sharma had approached the Supreme Court seeking to club the multiple FIRs filed against her across the country for her alleged controversial remarks about Prophet Mohammed made during a television debate.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, did not grant her relief and instead subjected her to severe criticism. The court’s comments, though not part of the final written order, drew widespread attention for their tenor.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant famously remarked, “Her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire,” and held her responsible for the violent fallout that followed the controversy. He added, “She is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
This observation was seen by critics as placing the blame for subsequent nationwide riots and murders, including the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, on Sharma, rather than on the perpetrators of the violence.
Nupur Sharma Case
The controversy stemmed from a May 2022 television debate on the Gyanvapi dispute, where Sharma was a panelist alongside Taslim Ahmed Rehmani. During the heated exchange, Rehmani used derogatory language about Hindu deity Shiva, which provoked a sharp rebuttal from Sharma. She countered by questioning how he would react if she used similar language for Islam and the Prophet.
A selectively edited clip of Sharma’s response, which omitted Rehmani’s initial remarks, was later circulated online by alleged fact-checker and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, triggering an international outcry and allegations of blasphemy against her. Sharma’s comments, which referenced Islamic texts on the Prophet’s marriage, led to death threats and a wave of FIRs against her.
During the Supreme Court hearing, her senior advocate, Maninder Singh, repeatedly argued that Sharma was provoked by Rehmani’s comments and that she had already apologized for her remarks. The bench, however, did not comment on Rehmani’s role. Instead, the justices asked why Sharma had not apologised sooner and suggested she should approach the High Courts for relief.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh repeatedly pointed out before the bench that it was the other panellist, Taslim Ahmed Rehmani, who had first made the provocative remarks against Hindu beliefs. However, the judges chose not to comment on that aspect. Ironically, Justice Kant appeared to uphold the principle of “freedom of speech” when it came to Rehmani’s statements.
The harsh rebuke was interpreted by many as a signal that speaking against Islamist fundamentalism, even in a retaliatory context, could invite dire judicial consequences. Following the hearing, Sharma remained in a position where she faced continued threats to her life, with her public appearances severely limited.
(Source: OpIndia)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
