Cautioning that courts must not supplant the role of the legislature, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant has said that judicial overreach, “however well-intentioned”, risks unsettling the delicate balance of power.Delivering the keynote address Tuesday at the Asia Society Northern California, San Francisco, he also spoke of the need for promoting judicial literacy and transparency, saying that “without judicial literacy, transparency can be weaponised — leading to misinterpretation rather than insight.”On the separation of powers, Justice Kant said: “The exercise of judicial power must be tempered by humility and guided by constitutional boundaries. Courts must not supplant the role of the legislature or override the will of the people. Instead they must act as facilitators of democratic dialogue — strengthening participatory governance, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring that the rule of law prevails even in moments of political uncertainty.”He stressed that “judicial overreach, however well-intentioned, risks unsettling the delicate balance of powers” and added: “True constitutional guardianship lies not in dominance but in restraint — an ethos that reaffirms the judiciary’s legitimacy in a vibrant democracy.”Touching on the need for the judiciary to adjust to the realities of the digital era, Justice Kant said: “The power of the internet and social media has made judicial decisions instantly available to a global audience. This digital transparency brings both accountability and vulnerability. A nuanced decision can be reduced to a headline or hashtag, stripped of its legal complexity. In this environment, how the judiciary communicates, how it explains its reasoning, and how it carries itself with dignity and restraint, have become as important as the outcome itself.”The judge said this change in expectations must be met not with defensiveness, but with thoughtful engagement. Calling for transparency, he said: “We must recognize that transparency is not antithetical to judicial independence; rather, it strengthens public confidence. A judiciary that shares its processes, methods, and principles in clear and open terms, empowers citizens to trust its workings, even when outcomes may differ from personal expectations.”He, however, warned that transparency alone is not enough but must be accompanied by an active effort to foster judicial literacy — helping the public understand the complexities of legal reasoning and constitutional values.Story continues below this ad“As courts become more visible, so too must their work become more comprehensible. Legal awareness campaigns, simplified summaries of key judgments, partnerships with educational institutions, and open dialogue forums can demystify judicial functioning,” he said.Justice Kant said: “When citizens understand the safeguards of due process, the role of precedent, and the limitations under which courts operate, they are better equipped to both respect judicial decisions and critically engage with them in constructive ways.”He stressed that even as the judiciary opens its processes to greater understanding and dialogue, it “must remain vigilant against the dangers posed by viral misinformation and media trials. These phenomena threaten to distort rather than deepen public engagement. Misleading narratives, selectively edited clips of court proceedings, and uninformed commentary on complex legal matters often obscure the factual matrix and legal reasoning that undergird a judgment.”Justice Kant said that “when judicial decisions are judged in the court of public opinion before they are understood in the court of law, the result is not civic empowerment but confusion, cynicism, and, ultimately, erosion of trust.”Story continues below this adPointing out that courts are often trolled for adhering to rule of law, he said this poses threat to the independence of the judiciary and added that such challenges must be firmly dealt with.“In today’s hyper-connected world, we are witnessing the rise of a vast digital community—vocal, impatient, and often uninformed—whose engagement with law is shaped less by understanding and more by sentiment. Many among them expect courts to deliver judgments that align with their transient emotions and impulses. When courts adhere to the rule of law and the foundational values of constitutionalism, what follows is not reasoned critique, but a barrage of trolling, misinformation, and personal attacks. This phenomenon poses a subtle yet significant threat to the independence of the judiciary, especially in a globalized digital age. The challenge before us is not merely reputational—it is institutional. And it must be met not with timidity, but with the firmness and clarity of purpose that befits a constitutional democracy governed by reason, not rhetoric,” he said.