‘Supreme Court has been at vanguard of personal liberty’: Ex-CJI Chandrachud reflects on legacy, judicial independence | India News

In an interview with BBC journalist Stephen Sackur on Hard Talk, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud shared insights into the challenges and complexities of his tenure leading India’s judiciary. He discussed the responsibility of overseeing a legal system impacting 1.4 billion people, the relationship between politics and the judiciary, and his commitment to constitutional principles.

D.Y. Chandrachud on the Ayodhya verdict, Article 370, and judicial transparency | BBC News India

Chandrachud reflected on his legacy as Chief Justice. When Sackur asked if he had accomplished everything he set out to do, Chandrachud explained that he had laid out a plan for his time in office, with the primary goal being the judgments he would deliver. He emphasized, “A Chief Justice is first and foremost a judge and then second, you’re also the administrative head of the Indian judiciary. So I first and foremost wanted to, in my judgments, realize the full transformative potential of the Constitution, which I do believe we tried to do.”
The conversation then shifted to the more contentious issue of political pressure on the judiciary. Sackur pointed to concerns raised in a New York Times editorial, which suggested that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government had used the courts for political advantage, moving India closer to a “one-party state.” Chandrachud strongly disagreed with the editorial, stating, “I think that the New York Times is completely wrong because they were not able to anticipate what would happen in the elections which took place in 2024, which if at all completely debunks the myth that we are moving towards a one-party state.”
Sackur continued, citing examples like the Gujarat High Court’s defamation ruling against opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, which led to his disqualification from Parliament. While the Supreme Court stayed the decision, Sackur questioned whether the judiciary was sometimes complicit in political agendas. Chandrachud defended the court’s impartiality, arguing that while individual cases may generate differing opinions, the Supreme Court has consistently protected personal liberties. “The the fact of the matter is that that the Supreme Court of India has been at the vanguard of personal liberty,” he said. He also provided statistics, including the disposal of over 21,000 bail applications, to reinforce the claim that the rule of law is actively upheld in India.
Also addressing the perception of a dynastic judiciary, Justice Chandrachud refuted claims of nepotism, particularly concerning his own ascent to the highest judicial post, noting, “By the way, my father had said that I will not enter a court of law so long as he was Chief justice of India. And that was why I spent three years at Harvard Law School doing my studies. Second, I entered a court for the first time after he retired.” He continued, asserting that the judiciary’s structure is not dominated by an elite class, but rather, a significant portion of India’s judiciary—especially at the district level—now reflects increasing gender diversity. “Over 50% of the new recruits coming into our states are women,” he explained, emphasizing how legal education’s reach has contributed to this change.
Justice Chandrachud also rejected claims that India’s judiciary is an exclusive institution for upper-caste males, reinforcing that “most of the lawyers and judges… are first time entrants into the legal profession.”
The conversation also touched on the abrogation of Article 370, which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. When Sackur asked why Chandrachud had supported the controversial move, he explained that Article 370 was originally a “transitional provision”. “My caveat, which is this, that Article 370 of the Constitution, when it was introduced into the constitution, at the birth of the constitution, was part of a chapter which is titled Transitional Arrangements or Transitional Provisions. It was later renamed as temporary and Transitional Provisions. And therefore, at the birth of the constitution, the assumption was this, that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with the overall text,” he said.
Sackur further referenced Chandrachud’s statement about seeking religious guidance in the matter, but the former Chief Justice clarified that this was a misinterpretation. ” I make no bones of the fact that I’m a man of faith. Our Constitution does not require you to be an atheist, to be an independent judge. And I value my faith. But what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion. And irrespective of who comes to my court, and I dare say that applies to other judges in the Supreme Court as well, irrespective of who comes to you as a litigant, you dispense equal and even handed justice. And therefore what I said was this, that it’s my faith. Judicial creativity is not just about intellectual ability and skill. It’s also about perception.”
The interview also saw discussion about the stability of Indian democracy. Chandrachud expressed confidence in the durability of India’s political system stated, “I’m confident about it for the simple reason that over 75 years of our history, the trials and tribulations of a modern nation, of a new nation, our nation, has emerged as a mature democracy. The last elections and consistent patterns of elections across the states only go to remind you that Indian democracy is stable. You know, when the Constitution was born, we were one of the first modern democracies to give the right to vote to every citizen, irrespective of gender, property, class or education. And at that point of time, a fear was expressed. Were Indians ready for democracy? 75 years of our history have only reminded us that Indian democracy is sound.”
Chandrachud, during the interview, also reminded the audience that the judiciary’s role is not to be a political opposition, but to uphold the Constitution and ensure justice is delivered impartially. “We are here to decide cases and to defend the Constitution and act in accordance with the rule of law.”

Source link