Chief Justice of India Appointment: Appeal Submitted to President of India for Transparent Review

Chief Justice of India Appointment: Appeal Submitted to President of India for Transparent Review

Editor’s Note: The following is the full text of an appeal sent by journalist and social activist Rakesh Raman to the President of India on October 26, 2025, regarding the proposed appointment of Justice Surya Kant as Chief Justice of India. The appeal cites findings from the India Judicial Research Report 2025 (IJRR 2025).

UPDATE October 27, 2025. This appeal has been archived for public access on global research repository Zenodo.

🔗 Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17452835

To                                                                                                                                October 26, 2025

Ms. Droupadi Murmu
President of India
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi

Copy to: Chief Justice of India at the Supreme Court of India

Appeal: Request for a Transparent and Accountable Public Review Before the Appointment of Justice Surya Kant as Chief Justice of India

Appeal by: Rakesh Raman, a journalist and social activist

Respected Madam President,

This is an urgent appeal concerning the reported recommendation of Justice Surya Kant as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI), following the forthcoming retirement of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai on November 23, 2025.

Please refer to the India Judicial Research Report 2025 (IJRR 2025) — published by RMN Foundation and archived on Zenodo, a globally recognized research repository developed by the European OpenAIRE initiative and managed by CERN (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17324442). This research report, which I compiled, devotes an entire section (Section 17: Judicial Appointments and the Surya Kant Precedent) to detail findings about the lack of transparency, ethical oversight, and public accountability in judicial elevations. It specifically documents multiple public complaints and corruption allegations against Justice Surya Kant, many of which have remained uninvestigated for more than a decade.

Unresolved Complaints and Allegations – The documented record includes:

• 2012 Complaint (Satish Kumar Jain): Accused Justice Surya Kant of undervalued real-estate transactions, benami holdings, and tax evasion totaling several crores of rupees, including properties in Panchkula, Himachal Pradesh, and New Delhi.
• 2017 Complaint (Surjit Singh, prisoner): Alleged acceptance of bribes in bail orders across multiple NDPS cases between 2015–2017, with intermediaries identified by name.
  
• 2017 Judicial Note (Justice A.K. Goel): Referred to corruption and casteism in judicial appointments linked to Justice Kant’s tenure on the Punjab & Haryana High Court bench, and opposed his elevation to Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh.

None of these allegations has ever been subjected to an independent or public inquiry. The collegium and the Law Ministry have maintained complete silence, despite the nature of the charges involving potential criminal and ethical misconduct.

Why This Case Demands a Public Hearing

If a judge facing such serious unresolved allegations is elevated to the highest judicial office, the credibility of the Supreme Court — and by extension, the rule of law — will suffer irreparable harm. The appointment of Justice Surya Kant is therefore not a procedural matter; it is a test of India’s constitutional integrity.

IJRR 2025 proposes that every future Chief Justice-designate, beginning with Justice Surya Kant, should face a U.S.-style public confirmation hearing, conducted by an independent vetting commission composed of retired judges of impeccable record, senior advocates, investigative journalists, and civil society representatives. This hearing should be live-streamed, and the candidate’s judicial record, financial disclosures, and past complaints must be made public.

Key Questions for Public Examination

Justice Surya Kant should be asked to respond publicly to questions such as:

1. Have you ever been the subject of any complaint or inquiry involving financial impropriety, benami property, or bias in judicial decisions?
2. What is your response to the 2012 and 2017 complaints alleging property irregularities and bail-related corruption?
3. Why were these allegations never voluntarily disclosed or addressed in the public domain?
4. How do you define judicial independence in an environment where executive influence and political pressures are evident?
   
5. Would you pledge to decline any post-retirement government or political appointment?
   
6. Do you support the publication of AI-based audits of your judgments to detect bias or inconsistency?
   
7. What reforms would you implement to ensure transparency in future judicial appointments?

These are not hypothetical questions. They are the minimum ethical threshold for the head of the Indian judiciary.

Constitutional Responsibility and Request

As the constitutional appointing authority, you have both the power and the moral duty to ensure that the next Chief Justice of India is beyond ethical suspicion. I therefore respectfully urge:

1. That the appointment of Justice Surya Kant be deferred until a transparent public hearing and independent verification of all allegations are completed.
2. That the collegium system be directed to adopt the IJRR 2025’s recommended framework for public scrutiny, including AI-based integrity audits and live-streamed interviews.
3. That all candidate records — including complaints, judgments, and financial disclosures — be made public on a dedicated official portal before elevation.

The elevation of Justice Surya Kant, without public vetting, would set a dangerous precedent — signaling that even the highest constitutional office in the judiciary is immune from accountability. Conversely, a transparent process would mark the beginning of a new era of judicial integrity, where merit and ethics outweigh secrecy and hierarchy. India’s constitutional promise of justice demands nothing less.

Respectfully submitted,
Rakesh Raman

About Rakesh Raman

Rakesh Raman is a national award-winning journalist and founder of the humanitarian organization RMN Foundation, which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society. He leads the Raman Media Network (RMN) Company, a global news and research organization producing multilingual, AI-driven editorial reports and open-access publications on democracy, human rights, and technology. His work aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

As an AI and technology expert, his professional focus is on applying emerging AI and digital technologies to enhance decision-making, operational efficiency, transparency, and democratic participation in governance, media, and business systems. His AI work is guided by global ethical frameworks, including the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2024), OECD AI Principles (2024), and the EU AI Act (2024).

He serves as a Country Expert for India with the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, contributing research on regimes, political parties, media, judiciary, executive, elections, and digital society. He was earlier associated with the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) as a digital media expert to help enterprises adopt digital technologies for business development.

Due to his independent journalism and anti-corruption work, he has faced continuous threats, including death threats. The Paris-based international press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has publicly urged the Indian government to protect him and ensure his safety.

Contact

Rakesh Raman
Editor, RMN News Service — [ Website ]
Founder, RMN Foundation — [ Website ]
463, DPS Apartments, Plot No. 16, Sector 4
Dwarka, Phase I, New Delhi 110078, India
WhatsApp / Mobile: +91-9810319059
Email: editor@rmnnews.com