Justice Surya Kant has been appointed as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI). His tenure will begin on November 24, 2025, and extend until February 9, 2027, lasting approximately sixteen months. The official notification of his appointment was issued by the Department of Justice (DoJ) under the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, in accordance with Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Surya Kant will succeed the 52nd CJI, Justice B. R. Gavai, who is due to retire on 23 November 2025. The President of India made this appointment using the constitutional power vested in the office under Article 124(2), which provides that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal, after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.

The appointment continues India’s long-standing convention of elevating the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as Chief Justice, thereby maintaining the institutional continuity and integrity of the apex judiciary.

Eligibility:

The eligibility for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court is defined under Article 124(3) of the Constitution. A person is qualified for such an appointment if he or she:

1. is a citizen of India;

2. has been for at least five years a judge of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; or

3. has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; or

4. is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.

The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum age for appointment as a judge or as the CJI. However, every Supreme Court judge retires at the age of 65 years. These provisions ensure that the appointment process accommodates both judicial experience and professional excellence.

Appointment:

The process of appointing the Chief Justice of India follows the constitutional and procedural framework laid down under Article 124(2) and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). According to this procedure, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office is recommended for appointment. The incumbent CJI formally communicates the name of the senior-most judge to the Union Minister for Law and Justice, who in turn forwards the recommendation to the Prime Minister. Based on the Prime Minister’s advice, the President of India issues the warrant of appointment.

Justice Surya Kant’s elevation followed this standard procedure. The President’s formal notification specified that the appointment was made in exercise of powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution and that Justice Kant would assume charge as Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025. Functions: The Chief Justice of India holds several constitutional, judicial, and administrative responsibilities. As the “Master of the Roster,” the CJI determines the composition of benches, allocates cases, and decides which judge or bench will hear specific matters in the Supreme Court. The CJI also presides over constitutional benches and is responsible for the swearing-in of the president and governors of Indian states.

Under Article 127, the CJI may appoint ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court with the President’s approval. The Chief Justice also heads the collegium system, comprising the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, which recommends appointments and transfers of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Additionally, with presidential approval, the CJI may relocate the Supreme Court's seat from Delhi to another location and appoint an arbitrator to resolve intergovernmental financial disputes.

Removal:

The removal of the Chief Justice or any judge of the Supreme Court is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution. This process, known as impeachment, can occur only on the grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity. The President may issue an order of removal after an address by both Houses of Parliament, supported by:

• a majority of the total membership of each House, and

• a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

The stringent procedure reflects the framers’ intent to protect judicial independence and insulate the judiciary from political or executive influence.