Key Points
Justice Surya Kant is set to become the next Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025.
While CJI Gavai has officially recommended and praised his elavation, his career has been marred with controversy.
He has been accused of corruption, illegal property dealing, and casteism. Despite these complaints, he was elevated through the judicial system without any inquiry.
On Monday, 27 October 2025, CJI BR Gavai recommended Justice Surya Kant as his successor – the 53rd Chief Justice of India. Kant is expected to take office on 24 November 2025 for a tenure of 14 months, before retiring in February 2027. “Justice Kant is suited and competent in all aspects to take the helm,” Gavai said.
But this opinion is not shared by all. In 2018, months before being appointed to the Supreme Court, Kant was being considered for the post of Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. Justice AK Goel of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to then CJI Dipak Mishra voicing his dissent on the matter.
“I am in respectful disagreement with the proposal,” Goel said, citing complaints of corruption and casteism raised against Kant. In 2012, Kant was accused of participating in illegal property dealings. In 2017, he was suspected of accepting bribes to grant bail in eight narcotics cases. The same year, Goel had written to the Supreme Court about allegations raised against Kant for “corruption and casteism ... in selection of subordinate Judicial Officers.” Amidst these complaints, controversies also surrounded his appointment across positions.
“As per my assessment,” Goel opined in 2018, “Justice Surya Kant is not suitable for appointment as Chief Justice till thorough enquiry is conducted.”
Kant was born in Hisar, Haryana in 1962. After completing his LLB in 1984, he started his career as a litigator in Hisar District Court. In 1985, he began practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and was eventually appointed as Advocate General of Haryana in 2000. In 2004, he was elevated to a judge at the High Court.
Kant held his position for 13 years before he was appointed as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2018. In 2017, he was considered for the top position at Delhi High Court, but conventions and earlier complaints kept his appointment in abeyance. It is at this time that the Supreme Court approached Justice Goel to give an appraisal of Kant for the position and Goel put forth his reservations.
Kant’s elevation in Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2018 was also contentious. Unlike earlier, the collegium in charge of this appointment flouted convention and placed Kant ahead of the more senior Justice Mittal. Part of the collegium was Ranjan Gogoi – future CJI and a close colleague of Kant. Gogoi apparently showed disdain for appointing Mittal to the position. According to The Caravan, Gogoi and Kant had grown close when Gogoi was appointed to the same high court. In its recommendation, the collegium mentioned considering “all relevant factors” when considering the appointment, while simultaneously flouting convention, failing to conduct an independent inquiry, and ignoring recommendations.
It also failed to consult Justice Goel, who himself had practiced in Punjab and Haryana High Court for a long time, for an appraisal of his colleague, as had been done the year earlier. But Goel wrote to the CJI anyway, dissenting against the decision.
The collegium submitted its recommendation to the Centre anyway and for nine months it remained in limbo. Then, on 3 October 2018, Kant was notified as the next Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court – the same day Ranjan Gogoi became Chief Justice of India.
Almost eight months later, in May 2019, Kant was elevated to the Supreme Court, putting him on track to become CJI. Part of the collegium that made the recommendation was Ranjan Gogoi.
See Also: Justice Surya Kant to Be India’s Next Chief Justice: CJI Gavai Makes Formal Recommendation
In 2012, Satish Kumar Jain, a real estate agent from Chandigarh, wrote a letter to then-CJI SH Kapadia alleging that Justice Kant had engaged in tax evasion and several property scams. After the initial complaint, Jain submitted an affidavit to the court detailing all the allegations.
Jain stated that Kant had refused to pay him ₹19 lakh for renovations undertaken by him across three of Kant’s properties. In the affidavit, he stated that Kant paid him ₹6 lakh after his initial complaint.
Jain further drew attention to the judge’s alleged illegal property dealings. He said that he had bought and sold two properties each on Kant’s behalf. Referring to one of the sales, Jain said the judge had asked him to “dispose of a benami property.”
The sale deeds for each of the properties stated a lower valuation of the property than the actual amount. The hidden transaction, he claimed, was carried out with cash in order to evade taxes and stamp duty. Jain put the value of the payments avoided at ₹7.63 crore.
“The Honb’le Judge is acting like a property dealer and ensuring maximisation of profits,” Jain asserted, “even at the expense of stamp duty evasion and holding benami property.”
In 2017, Surjit Singh, a prisoner from Punjab, accused Kant of accepting bribes in exchange for granting bail. In an official complaint, Singh alleged that Kant had accepted money in eight narcotics cases between October 2015 and February 2017, granting bail to the accused in exchange. He claimed that two lawyers, along with Kant’s brother and nephew, had acted as middlemen for the transactions.
That same year, Justice Goel wrote a letter to the CJI, giving his opinion on the allegations raised against Kant. In the letter, he reviewed the judgements, concluding that they “prima facie [meaning appearing true at first glance], appear to be unusual and not sound in law.” He suggests an inquiry into assets acquired by Kant since his elevation.
He went on to address the earlier complaints registered by Jain, along with another complaint against Kant raised by an advocate in 2013. He concluded by mentioning a final complaint against the judge, which “relates to corruption and casteism.”
In his letter, Goel mentioned a complaint against Kant alleging “corruption and casteism in selection of subordinate Judicial Officers.” He does not disclose details, but references the complaint kept in confidential Supreme Court files.
In the letter, Goel suggested inquiries into the allegations along with an evaluation of Kant’s assets, but none of his recommendations came to fruition.
In 2018, dissenting against the collegium’s elevation of Justice Kant, Goel wrote a second letter to the CJI. “As per my assessment,” he said, “Justice Surya Kant is not suitable for appointment as Chief Justice [of Himachal Pradesh High Court] till thorough enquiry is conducted, as I have already opined.”
Despite official complaints being registered with the Supreme Court since 2012, no investigation was conducted into the matter. Even after the 2017 complaint there was no inquiry. And a year later, despite these allegations, conventions, and a dissenting judge, Justice Kant was positioned as Chief Justice of a High Court with no reasonable explanation. And less than a year later, he was elevated further to the Supreme Court.
And even now, as Kant is poised to become the next CJI, these questions remain, unaddressed and more relevant than ever. [Rh]
Suggested Reading: