New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Thursday, Dec 18, disapproved of what it termed an “urban-centric approach” to public interest litigation, refusing to entertain a plea seeking fresh and stricter standards for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles used for bottled water and other food items, remarking that such causes overlook the far more basic problems faced by large sections of the population.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, lamented that while “luxury” petitions frequently reach the apex court, the concerns of the poor and marginalised often remain unaddressed. Pointing to the stark reality that many parts of the country may still not have access to safe and potable drinking water, the bench questioned the propriety of invoking the court’s jurisdiction to seek judicial intervention on standards governing bottled water, which is largely consumed by the urban population.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by architect and environmentalist Sarang Yadwadkar, represented by senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, which raised concerns about antimony and synthetic chemical DEHP leaching into water and food from PET plastic packaging. Antimony, a metalloid used as a catalyst in the manufacture of PET plastic, and DEHP, a phthalate, can migrate into water or food, especially when plastic bottles are stored at higher temperatures, potentially posing health risks.
Shenoy argued that there were inadequate standards governing bottled water and plastic food packaging in India, and that this posed serious public health concerns. She relied on Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which lays down guiding principles for food safety, and contended that international standards and scientific evidence had not been adequately factored in by Indian regulators such as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
The bench, however, was unconvinced. “There is no potable water in many areas and here you have filed a petition for standards of bottled mineral water,” remarked the court, observing that bottled water is accessed primarily by urban consumers, while people in rural and remote areas continue to depend on groundwater, wells and other sources.
Describing the plea as reflective of an urban and metropolitan mindset, the bench said it would have been more appropriate had the petitioner approached the court with data on regions still deprived of basic drinking water facilities.
“These are all luxury litigations,” said the bench, taking exception to the petitioner’s reliance on Canadian, Australian and other foreign guidelines. With India’s population size and developmental challenges, the court said, it was not appropriate to press for standards drawn from developed countries without considering local realities.
“Let this country grow at its own pace. Wait for some more years,” observed the bench, adding that hardly anyone took up the cause of poor people before the court.
The CJI’s life reminds young lawyers that excellence comes not from privilege, but from preparation, perseverance and integrity
“Justice Surya Kant has also been an articulate public voice. He has described “democracy without dissent” as a contradiction and silence in the face of injustice as complicity. He has defended the collegium system as an imperfect but vital safeguard of judicial independence. Speaking at Microsoft’s global headquarters, he welcomed AI for legal research and drafting but insisted that empathy, moral reasoning and human judgment remain irreplaceable.”
By Ranbir Singh
With Justice Surya Kant assuming office as the 53rd Chief Justice of India, many of us in the legal fraternity feel a quiet but profound sense of satisfaction. The appointment of a judge from a modest, middle-class family in Hisar to the highest judicial office captures something essential about the Indian Constitution — its faith that talent and integrity can rise from any corner of the country.
For me, this moment is also deeply personal. As his former teacher, I have seen him first as a serious law student, then as a diligent young advocate, an exacting high court judge and finally as a widely respected judge of the Supreme Court of India. Across these different roles, what has remained constant is his humility, his discipline and his belief that the law exists above all for those who are in dire need of it.
Born in 1962 at Petwar village in Hisar district, Haryana, he graduated from Government Post-Graduate College, Hisar, in 1981 and earned his law degree from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (1984). He began practice in Hisar district courts, shifted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and built a formidable reputation in constitutional, service and civil matters. In 2000, he became the Advocate General of Haryana; in 2001, he was designated Senior Advocate. Elevation to the Punjab and Haryana High Court followed in 2004, and in 2018, he became the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court before joining the Supreme Court in May 2019.
His judicial record reveals a consistent concern for human dignity. In Jasvir Singh vs State of Punjab, while dismissing a particular plea, he recognized conjugal visits and, in suitable cases, procreation as part of Article 21 rights and directed the state to frame a policy on family visits as prison reform. Prisoners, in his view, remain rights-bearing citizens.
As the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, he managed environmental, land acquisition and hydropower disputes in a mountainous, largely rural state, while insisting on punctuality, thorough preparation and courteous hearing even to the youngest lawyers.
At the Supreme Court, he was part of the Bench (headed by then CJI NV Ramana) that, in 2022, effectively suspended the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A IPC) until the Union re-examines it and protected existing accused persons from fresh prosecution — an order that reaffirmed that dissent is the safety valve of democracy.
Justice Surya Kant has also been an articulate public voice. He has described “democracy without dissent” as a contradiction and silence in the face of injustice as complicity. He has defended the collegium system as an imperfect but vital safeguard of judicial independence. Speaking at Microsoft’s global headquarters, he welcomed AI for legal research and drafting but insisted that empathy, moral reasoning and human judgment remain irreplaceable.
As incoming CJI and ex-officio Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, he has already signaled two priorities: reducing pendency and promoting mediation and alternative dispute resolution. This is not mere docket-clearing; it reflects his long engagement with legal-aid movements and his conviction that many disputes are better resolved by restoring relationships than by protracted adversarial litigation.
From his tenure, we may reasonably expect a steadfast defense of judicial independence that neither obstructs legitimate governance nor abdicates the court’s role as constitutional sentinel; steady, practical reforms that strengthen case management, bolster district courts and harness technology to make justice less intimidating and more accessible; a compassionate yet balanced approach to the great social questions of our time — prisoners’ dignity, rights of the marginalized and vulnerable groups, gender equality and environmental protection — always aware that the hardest cases demand both heart and restraint; and a warmer, more structured partnership between the higher judiciary and legal academia through internships, research collaborations and shared deliberations that will enrich both the Bench and the classroom.
There will, of course, be challenges and disagreements along the way. That is natural for any Chief Justice who presides over a court where strong minds differ on questions of interpretation and principle. In fact, the health of our judiciary lies in precisely this culture of reasoned dissent, both within and outside the courtroom. Justice Surya Kant himself has not hesitated to take a distinct position where he felt constitutional fidelity demanded it and I hope that under his stewardship, the Supreme Court will remain a forum where competing views are debated with rigor and mutual respect.
From the point of view of legal education, Justice Surya Kant’s elevation also carries a symbolic message for young students, especially those who come from small towns and non-elite backgrounds. His life story tells them that excellence in the profession does not depend on lineage or privilege, but on preparation, perseverance and ethical commitment. In a time when public discourse around the judiciary is sometimes polarized, it is important to highlight such stories that quietly affirm the seriousness and integrity that still characterize much of Indian judging.
As someone who has spent a lifetime in building institutions such as the NALSAR University of Law and National Law University Delhi, I see Justice Surya Kant’s tenure as an opportunity to renew trust in the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the ordinary citizen. His clarity of thought, his rootedness in the realities of Indian society, and his openness to technology and comparative learning give me confidence that he will lead the court with wisdom and grace.
It is a proud day for Haryana, for his alma mater and for all those who believe that the Indian judiciary can continue to renew itself from within. I look forward, as many others do, to seeing how his vision for a more accessible, more compassionate and more efficient justice system unfolds in the years to come.
New Delhi (TIP): Chief Justice of India SA Bobde on Thursday, April 15, said the time had come when a woman should be the Chief Justice of India. He also said there was no need for a change of attitude of the Collegium to ensure greater representation of women in the judiciary.
A special bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant said, “Why higher judiciary. We think the time has come when a woman should be Chief Justice of India”.
The bench said, “We have the interest of women in mind. There is no attitudinal change in it. Hopefully, they (women) will be appointed”. SA Bobde also said several women lawyers turned down proposals to accept judgeship citing domestic responsibilities.
CJI SA Bobde said, “Chief Justices of High Courts have told me that there is a problem that when women lawyers are asked for appointment as judges, they often deny it saying that they have domestic responsibility or they have to take care of the studies of their children”.
However, the CJI’s comment invited a strong response from women in the bar. “There are many men who refuse judgeship because they have a successful practice and do not want to take a cut in their earnings. But has that stopped the collegium from seeking more men and making them judges?” The Indian Express quoted Bombay-based advocate Veena Gowda as saying.
The Delhi High Court Women Lawyers’ Forum also tweeted, “We are ready and more than happy to take this responsibility and serve the institution.”
Signup to our Newsletter!
Don’t miss out on all the happenings around the world
