PM [1]
Rank : Helper
Status : Super Owner
#1
Higher courts in India, especially the Supreme Court, has sent a clear message that we are here to safeguard personal liberties and that's why the judiciary has the faith of the people, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said.
The former Chief Justice faced tough questions from veteran journalist Stephen Sackur on BBC's HARDtalk. The questions ranged from the gender ratio in the judiciary to key judgments such as the Ram Janmabhoomi case and the Article 370 case.
Dynasty In Judiciary?
To a question on whether there is a dynasty problem in Indian judiciary and whether it is dominated by elite, male, Hindu upper caste men like him, Justice (retd) Chandrachud disagreed. "If you look at the lowest levels of recruitment to the Indian judiciary, the district judiciary, which is the base of the pyramid, over 50 per cent of the new recruits coming into our states are women. There are states where the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70 per cent."
He said the higher judiciary now reflects the status of the legal profession 10 years ago. "What's happening now, as the reach of education, particularly legal education, has reached women, that gender balance you find in law schools is now reflected in the lowest levels of indian judiciary. In so far as gender balance in concerned, you find an increasing number of women coming into district judiciary and these women will be climbing up," he said.
In response to the question about being the son of a Chief Justice, he said that his father, former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, had told him not to enter a court of law so long as he was Chief Justice of India. "That's why I spent three years at Harvard Law School doing my studies. I entered a court for the first time after he retired. If you look at the overall profile of the Indian judiciary, most lawyers and judges are first-time entrants into the legal profession. So quite contrary to what you said, it is not that our judiciary is either upper caste or... in the higher echelons of judiciary, the movement of women to more responsible positions is just about taking place," he said.
Pressure From Modi Government?
The former Chief Justice was asked if he had to deal with political pressure during his term. Mr Sackur quoted an editorial in The New York Times which said that according to political opponents, the ruling BJP had leaned on the courts to protect its own.
Justice (retd) Chandrachud said the 2024 general election results debunked the myth that India is combining towards a one-party state. "If you look at the states in India, the states are where the regional aspirations and identities have come to the fore, and so many of our states in India you have regional political parties which have done exceptionally well and they are ruling those states," he said.
Asked about Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a defamation case, he said the Supreme Court later paused the judgment. Citing the number of people who have been granted bail, many of them political leaders, he said, "Higher courts, particularly Supreme Court, have sent a clear message that we are here to safeguard personal liberties, in individual cases, there may be a difference of personal opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has been at the vanguard of personal liberty. This is the reason why we have the faith of the people," he said.
Article 370 Judgment
Mr Sackur told the former Chief Justice that many legal scholars were disappointed with the top court's judgment in the Article 370 case which had challenged the Centre's move to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's special status.
"Since I was the author of one of the judgments in the case, a judge by the very nature of their profession has some restraints on defending or critiquing their judgments. I will briefly answer your question notwithstanding my caveat. Article 370 when it was introduced into the Constitution was part of a chapter which is titled Transitional Arrangements, it was later renamed Temporary and Transitional Arrangements. Therefore at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and merge with the overall context of the Constitution. Is 75 plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision?" he asked.
Justice (retd) Chandrachud said the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir must be restored and a democratically elected government is in place now. "There has been a peaceful transfer of power to a government which is a political party which is not of the dispensation as the Union government in Delhi. This is a clear indicator that democracy has succeeded in Jammu and Kashmir," he said.
On the statehood question, he said the government had given an undertaking that the status of Jammu and Kashmir would be restored as soon as possible. "Therefore the Supreme Court has ensured democratic accountability, a people's government is in place, so the criticism that we didn't apply our Constitutional mandate is not correct," the former Chief Justice said.
A CAA Question, A UK Jab
When Mr Sackur asked Justice (retd) Chandrachud about the case linked to the Citizenship Amendment Act and why it was not taken up during his term, he replied that the case is pending and added a UK example. "If this were to take place in the UK, the court would have no power to invalidate it. In India, we have the power to invalidate legislation, I wrote about 62 judgments for the Constitution bench through my tenure, we had constitutional cases which were pending for 20 years, dealing with critical issues," he said.
The former Chief Justice said he needed to strike a balance between old cases and new cases. "Do you take up new cases at the cost of cases, or do you also deal with seminal old cases?" he said, adding that he did manage to dispose of a fair share of old cases too. The CAA case, he said, would be dealt with in due course.
Ram Temple Judgment, And Deity Remark
Asked about his purported remark that he sat before a deity before the landmark Ram Temple judgment, he said, "If you look at social media and try and derive what was said by a judge, you will get the wrong answer. I make no bones of the fact that I am a man of faith, our Constitution does not require you to be an atheist to be an independent judge, and I value my faith, what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion and irrespective of who comes to my court, and that applies to all other judges in Supreme Court, you dispense equal and even-handed justice," he said.
Judges work in areas of conflict, he said. "Within that area of conflict, how do you find a sense of calm, of equanimity, different judges have different ways to approach that need for calm and equanimity. For me, time in meditation and prayer is very important, but my time in meditation and prayer teaches me to be even-handed to every religious group and community in the country," he said.
On Prime Minister's Visit To His Home
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the then Chief Justice's home for Ganesh Chaturthi had sparked a massive row, with several Opposition leaders making critical remarks. Asked about the issue, Justice (retd) Chandrachud said not much should be made out of "elementary courtesies of Constitutional office". "I think our system is mature enough to understand that elementary courtesies which are observed between high Constitutional functionaries have nothing to do with the way they dispose of cases," he said.
The former Chief Justice said before the Prime Minister's visit, the Supreme Court delivered judgments like in the electoral bonds case and after the visit too, it has delivered numerous judgments against the government.
"The role of the judiciary in a democratic society is not the role of the Opposition in parliament. We are here to decide cases and act in accordance with the rule of law," the former Chief Justice said.