From Ayodhya Ruling To PM's Visit, Former CJI DY Chandrachud Sets The Record Straight In New Interview

In an exclusive interview with ANI, which aired on Tuesday, 26th November, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud sat down to address a series of controversies and public perceptions surrounding his tenure, offering insights into the judiciary’s independence, its role in a democracy, and his personal philosophy on navigating complex judicial responsibilities.

Clarifying Judicial Misconceptions and Independence

One of the key highlights of the interview was Justice Chandrachud’s response to remarks made by political leaders suggesting that the judiciary has assumed roles traditionally expected of the political opposition. This notion, he clarified, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judiciary’s constitutional mandate.

“People should not presume that the judiciary should perform the role of the Opposition in Parliament or state legislatures. Too often, there’s a misconception that the judiciary must act as an opposition. We are here to scrutinize laws and assess executive action for its consistency with the law and the Constitution,” he stated.

Justice Chandrachud emphasized the separation of powers in a democracy, highlighting that the judiciary’s primary responsibility is to uphold the Constitution. Attempts to transform courts into a platform for political opposition, he argued, undermine this essential function.

Addressing allegations by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut that the judiciary failed to act on disqualification petitions against MLAs during the Maharashtra Assembly elections, Chandrachud reaffirmed the court’s independence. He explained that the judiciary prioritizes cases based on constitutional importance and the availability of resources, not political considerations.

“Should any one party or individual decide what cases the Supreme Court should hear? Sorry, that choice is for the Chief Justice,” he said. He noted that during his tenure, the court decided several significant constitutional cases, resolving disputes that had lingered for decades.

The Ayodhya Verdict and Misconstrued Remarks

Justice Chandrachud also clarified earlier remarks about praying to God for a solution to the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which he said were “completely misconstrued.” He explained that his comments about prayer and meditation were meant to reflect his personal coping mechanisms in the face of judicial stress, not an endorsement of divine intervention in judicial decisions.

Recounting his visit to his ancestral village in Kanersar, near Pune, Chandrachud said he shared with locals how daily meditation and prayer provided him inner calm. However, he reiterated that these personal practices never influenced his judicial duty to uphold the law.

On the Ayodhya judgment itself, Chandrachud described it as a complex and sensitive case that required careful application of constitutional principles. The five-judge bench, which delivered a unanimous verdict in November 2019, awarded the disputed 2.7-acre site to a government-appointed trust for constructing a Ram temple while allocating a separate five-acre plot for a mosque. The decision, he explained, was a collective effort, with no single judge attributed authorship to emphasize unanimity.

Challenges in Judicial Infrastructure and Staffing

A significant portion of the interview focused on the systemic challenges facing India’s judiciary. Justice Chandrachud highlighted the severe shortage of judges in district courts, with 21% of judicial posts vacant and 27% of staff positions unfilled.

“The first priority should be to increase the judge-to-population ratio by appointing more judges. We do not have the necessary number of judges to handle the immense caseload coming into the district judiciary,” he said.

To address these gaps, he proposed the establishment of a national judicial service examination, arguing that a unified recruitment process could streamline appointments and improve efficiency. However, he acknowledged that this would require a constitutional amendment, as district judge appointments currently fall under state governors’ jurisdiction.

On Judicial Perceptions and Religious Bias

Responding to concerns about perceived religious bias in court decisions, Chandrachud dismissed such claims, pointing out that bail and other judicial decisions are granted based on case specifics rather than communal considerations. He noted that the judiciary has often been labeled as biased when its decisions do not align with certain political or societal expectations.

“The real problem is that a segment of the polity believes the judiciary is independent only if it follows their agenda,” he remarked.

Interactions Between Judiciary and Political Leadership

Justice Chandrachud addressed the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the residence of then-CJI UU Lalit for Ganpati Puja celebrations. Critics, including members of the Congress and Trinamool Congress (TMC), argued that such meetings could raise questions about judicial independence.

Chandrachud dismissed these concerns, calling such visits a matter of “elementary social courtesy.” He explained that interactions between judges and political leaders often occur as part of statutory requirements or social occasions, and these do not compromise judicial independence.

“Prime Ministers have visited the homes of judges on social occasions, sometimes on sad occasions as well. These social courtesies do not detract from the independence of the judiciary,” he asserted.

Judiciary as a Protector of the Common Citizen

Countering perceptions that the Supreme Court primarily serves the wealthy, Justice Chandrachud highlighted its role in addressing the concerns of ordinary citizens. He pointed out that during his tenure, the court disposed of over 21,000 bail applications, many of which were filed by individuals from marginalized backgrounds.

“The Supreme Court is not a court for the rich. It deals with the issues of the common people,” he emphasized.

On Handling Judicial Criticism

Chandrachud acknowledged that criticism is an inherent part of public office but cautioned against unwarranted attacks that undermine trust in institutions. He dismissed claims that the judiciary had failed to act independently during his tenure, citing the resolution of 38 Constitution Bench cases, including landmark rulings on electoral bonds, the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act, and the Aligarh Muslim University case.

“Look at the work which we have done. I think assess us in terms of the work which we have done,” he said, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to addressing both constitutional and social issues.

On Balancing Personal Faith and Professional Responsibility

Reflecting on his approach to judicial responsibilities, Chandrachud reiterated the importance of treating all individuals and faiths equally under the law. He rejected the notion that a judge’s faith—or lack thereof—affects their ability to deliver impartial justice.

“A judge does not have to be an atheist. You may be a person of practicing faith, but you still do justice to every faith and to people of all faiths who come before you,” he said.

Chandrachud emphasized that the judiciary’s role in a democracy is not to act as a counterweight to political power but to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution.