Justice DY Chandrachud: Legacy of Law and Politics
Sylalbus:
GS-2:
Constitutional Bodies
Focus;
Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure as Chief Justice of India is in the news due to concerns about his decisions aligning with authoritarian trends and political ideologies, rather than upholding the Constitution’s principles. This has sparked debates regarding the erosion of judicial independence and civil liberties during his time.
Judicial Evaluation and Standard Scorecards:
- Supreme Court justices, when leaving office, are often assessed based on their rulings, with “good,” “bad,” or “ugly” judgments catalogued.
- These assessments can be superficial, failing to account for the depth and nuances of the judicial process.
- Justice DY Chandrachud had a long tenure with a mix of progressive and controversial rulings, especially in areas like personal freedom, reproductive rights, privacy, and gender equality.
- Despite this, evaluating his career on a simple scorecard doesn’t capture the broader impact of his judgments and legacy.
Key Facts about Chief Justice of India (CJI):
Qualifications
- The CJI must be a citizen of India.
- Must have been a judge of a High Court for at least five years, or an advocate for at least ten years in a High Court, or be a distinguished jurist in the President’s opinion.
Appointment of the CJI
- The President appoints the CJI and the Judges of the Supreme Court (SC) under Article 124 of the Constitution.
- The outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
- The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the Prime Minister, who advises the President.
- The SC’s Second Judges Case (1993) dictates that the senior-most SC judge is appointed CJI.
- The SC collegium, headed by the CJI, is responsible for judicial appointments.
Administrative Powers of CJI (Master of Roster)
- The CJI is the administrative head of the SC.
- Allocates cases to specific benches and decides how many judges will hear a case.
- Can influence case outcomes by selecting favourable judges.
- Exercises powers without collegial consensus or providing reasons.
Removal
- The CJI can only be removed by the President after a Parliamentary address.
- Requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament (majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting).
- Grounds: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity (Article 124(4)).
Recent Development
In 2019, the SC ruled that the CJI’s office is subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Justice DY Chandrachud as a Product of His Era:
- Justice Chandrachud personified the judicial approach of the era under Prime Minister Modi, marked by a mix of authoritarianism and communalism.
- His judicial philosophy mirrored the government’s, often legalizing majoritarianism in cases like the Ayodhya judgement.
- Rather than acting as an independent check, the judiciary under his leadership was seen as enabling policies aligning with the political climate of the time.
- Cases like the delayed restoration of statehood to Kashmir and dilution of the Places of Worship Act signified a shift towards legalizing majoritarian views.
Authoritarian Tendencies and Selective Justice
- While some of Justice Chandrachud’s orders seemed positive, such as those challenging “bulldozer justice,” they often came too late, with substantial damage already done.
- Despite high-profile judgments, his leadership did little to safeguard civil liberties, especially during emergencies or for dissenters.
- There were several instances where procedural cover-ups prevented a fair reckoning in high-profile political and corruption cases.
- The judiciary failed to protect basic rights like habeas corpus during critical moments, reflecting a larger pattern of judicial complacency.
Chandrachud’s “Glossy” Approach to Judicial Reform
- The judicial reforms he pushed, such as digitization, live-streaming, and paperlessness, were commendable in themselves, yet they did little to secure the integrity of the judiciary.
- His self-defence regarding civil liberties was framed as granting “bail to many,” which appeared as an act of personal beneficence rather than a consistent application of law.
- This approach emphasised form over substance, keeping the façade of judicial fairness intact while allowing the foundations of constitutional integrity to weaken over time.
- His tenure ultimately reduced faith in the judiciary and left citizens questioning the effectiveness of the courts in defending their rights.
Public Perception and Political Affiliation
- Justice Chandrachud was often in the public eye, much like Prime Minister Modi, with an image meticulously curated through media.
- His public performances, including religious displays, undermined the secular and independent nature of the judiciary, blurring the line between state and religion.
- Such displays, including personal rituals performed for media consumption, risked cheapening both religion and the judiciary.
- The growing spectacle of judicial actions and political alignment undermined the credibility of the Supreme Court, raising doubts about its ability to stand apart from political pressures.
Impact on Constitutional Values and Legal Integrity
- Justice Chandrachud’s tenure saw the gradual erosion of constitutional values in India, despite some positive individual rulings.
- There was a failure to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, as his actions seemed to align with the government’s interests.
- Landmark judgments were overshadowed by the Court’s reluctance to challenge government actions, leading to an overall weakening of democratic structures.
- The Court’s inconsistent approach on matters like the Kashmir issue, electoral bonds, and Article 370 reflected a lack of cohesion in upholding constitutional integrity.
- His role in facilitating decisions that enabled government policies, without adequate scrutiny, raised questions about the neutrality of the judiciary.
- The erosion of legal principles was particularly evident in cases where political pressure influenced outcomes, undermining the judiciary’s independence.
Judiciary’s Role in Shaping Public Trust and Democracy
- Justice Chandrachud’s leadership had a profound impact on public perception of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democracy.
- His tenure witnessed a shift in the judiciary from being an independent check on executive power to a more compromised institution.
- The public’s trust in the judicial system diminished as the Court’s decisions increasingly reflected political rather than constitutional considerations.
- His PR-driven approach, which brought the judiciary into the limelight, seemed more concerned with public image than with judicial integrity.
- As judicial decisions began to reflect majoritarian sentiment, the perception of the Supreme Court as an impartial guardian of justice was compromised.
- Ultimately, this undermined the credibility of the judiciary, further eroding the checks and balances essential to a healthy democracy.
Challenges:
- Erosion of Judicial Independence: Over time, judicial decisions seemed to align with government policies, raising concerns about the autonomy of the judiciary.
- Political Influence on Judgments: The increasing influence of political ideologies on judicial decisions, especially in cases like Article 370 and electoral bonds, challenged the impartiality of the Court.
- Inconsistent Protection of Civil Liberties: There were instances where the Court failed to protect fundamental rights, particularly under authoritarian regimes, eroding public faith in its role as a defender of democracy.
- Delay in Addressing Crucial Cases: While some timely interventions, like those in hate speech cases, were seen, many important issues faced undue delays, weakening the judiciary’s effectiveness.
- Lack of Transparency in Judicial Appointments: The absence of a clear, transparent process in judicial selections diminished the credibility of the Court, leading to concerns about its independence.
- Public Trust Deficit: The Court’s increasing reliance on public relations strategies, rather than on substantive legal arguments, led to a decline in public trust in the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice.
Way Forward:
- Strengthen Judicial Independence: Ensuring that the judiciary remains free from political influence is crucial to restoring its credibility.
- Transparent Judicial Appointments: Introducing clear and transparent processes for judicial appointments can help eliminate perceptions of bias.
- Timely Intervention in Crucial Cases: The judiciary must address key constitutional matters swiftly to uphold democratic principles.
- Restoring Public Faith: The judiciary needs to focus more on legal reasoning and less on public relations to rebuild trust with the public.
- Reaffirm Commitment to Fundamental Rights: Future decisions must emphasise safeguarding fundamental rights, even in challenging political environments.
- Promote Accountability: A system of accountability within the judiciary would ensure that any lapses or biases are addressed promptly, restoring the Court’s legitimacy.
Conclusion:
- Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure as Chief Justice of India will be remembered for both its legal achievements and its significant contributions to a period marked by political and judicial compromise.
- While certain rulings showcased his commitment to liberal values, the overall trend in his leadership demonstrated a judiciary that, at times, aligned more with government interests than with the protection of constitutional values.
- His tenure highlights the dangers of a judiciary too closely tied to political forces, leading to the erosion of democratic institutions and individual freedoms.
Source:The Hindu
Mains Practice Question:
Discuss the challenges faced by the judiciary during Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure as Chief Justice and suggest reforms to address these issues.