Ex CJI DY Chandrachud (File photograph)
In an interview with BBC journalist Stephen Sackur on Onerous Discuss, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud shared insights into the challenges and complexities of his tenure main India’s judiciary. He mentioned the duty of overseeing a authorized system impacting 1.4 billion individuals, the connection between politics and the judiciary, and his dedication to constitutional rules.
Chandrachud mirrored on his legacy as Chief Justice. When Sackur requested if he had achieved every little thing he got down to do, Chandrachud defined that he had laid out a plan for his time in workplace, with the first objective being the judgments he would ship. He emphasised, “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 dialog then shifted to the extra contentious challenge of political stress on the judiciary. Sackur pointed to issues raised in a New York Occasions editorial, which prompt that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s authorities had used the courts for political benefit, shifting India nearer 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 just like the Gujarat Excessive Court docket’s defamation ruling in opposition to opposition chief Rahul Gandhi, which led to his disqualification from Parliament. Whereas the Supreme Court docket stayed the choice, Sackur questioned whether or not the judiciary was typically complicit in political agendas. Chandrachud defended the courtroom’s impartiality, arguing that whereas particular person circumstances could generate differing opinions, the Supreme Court docket has persistently protected private liberties. “The the fact of the matter is that that the Supreme Court of India has been at the vanguard of personal liberty,” he mentioned. He additionally offered statistics, together with the disposal of over 21,000 bail functions, to strengthen the declare that the rule of regulation is actively upheld in India.Additionally addressing the notion of a dynastic judiciary, Justice Chandrachud refuted claims of nepotism, notably regarding his personal ascent to the best judicial put up, 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 construction shouldn’t be dominated by an elite class, however slightly, a good portion of India’s judiciary—particularly on the district degree—now displays rising gender variety. “Over 50% of the new recruits coming into our states are women,” he defined, emphasizing how authorized training’s attain has contributed to this modification.Justice Chandrachud additionally rejected claims that India’s judiciary is an unique establishment for upper-caste males, reinforcing that “most of the lawyers and judges… are first time entrants into the legal profession.”The dialog additionally touched on the abrogation of Article 370, which revoked the particular standing of Jammu and Kashmir. When Sackur requested why Chandrachud had supported the controversial transfer, he defined that Article 370 was initially 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 mentioned.Sackur additional referenced Chandrachud’s assertion about looking for spiritual steerage within the matter, however the former Chief Justice clarified that this was a misinterpretation. ” I make no bones of the truth that I’m a person of religion. Our Structure doesn’t require you to be an atheist, to be an unbiased decide. And I worth my religion. However what my religion teaches me is the universality of faith. And regardless of who involves my courtroom, and I dare say that applies to different judges within the Supreme Court docket as properly, regardless of who involves you as a litigant, you dispense equal and even handed justice. And due to this fact what I mentioned was this, that it’s my religion. Judicial creativity isn’t just about mental capacity and ability. It’s additionally about notion.”The interview additionally noticed dialogue in regards to the stability of Indian democracy. Chandrachud expressed confidence within the sturdiness of India’s political system acknowledged, “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, throughout the interview, additionally reminded the viewers that the judiciary’s position is to not be a political opposition, however to uphold the Structure and guarantee justice is delivered impartially. “We are here to decide cases and to defend the Constitution and act in accordance with the rule of law.”
