I Entered A Court for The First Time After My Father Retired: EX-CJI DY Chandrachud

Former CJI DY Chandrachud discussed judiciary issues, including Article 370, gender balance, and political pressure, emphasising rule of law and judicial independence on BBC's HARDtalk.

New Delhi:DY Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India (CJI), faced sharp queries in connection with the law in India being still presided upon, adjudicated by an elite male, Hindu, and upper caste men like himself and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's controversial visit to his home to key judgments, which included the upholding Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370, as he appeared on BBC's HARDtalk.

During the interview with Stephen Sackur, the former CJI addressed contentious cases like the Article 370 abrogation, the time for restoration of the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, the Ram temple judgment, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Justice (Retd) Chandrachud stressed that despite the challenges, the judiciary remains committed to upholding the rule of law and the higher courts, especially the apex court, have sent a clear message that the courts will safeguard personal liberties.

Dynasty in the Indian judiciary

Sackur said the law in India is still presided upon, adjudicated by an elite male, Hindu, and upper caste men like yourself. Your father, Justice YV Chandrachud, was Chief Justice of India. Isn't it a problem there, isn't it dynastic?

CJI replied that it is not dynastic and explained that at the lowest level of the recruitment to the Indian judiciary, district judiciary, which is the base of the pyramid, over 50 per cent of recruits coming into our states’ are women, and are states’ where recruitment of women goes up to 60 per cent or 70 per cent. "The higher judiciary today is reflective of the legal profession twenty years ago. I joined the bench in 2000 and spent 25 years before retirement…..," said the ex-CJI.

He told Sackur, 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”.

The former CJI said as the reach of education, particularly legal education, has reached women, the gender balance found in law schools is now reflected in the lowest levels of the Indian judiciary. He told Sackur, you find an increasing number of women coming into the district judiciary and these women will be climbing up.

In response to the question about being the son of a former Chief Justice of India, he said that his father, former CJI YV Chandrachud, had told him not to enter a court of law as long as he was the CJI.

"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 the judiciary, the movement of women to more responsible positions is just about taking place," he said.

Pressure from the Modi government

Citing an editorial in the New York Times, which claimed that political opponents accused the BJP of exploiting the courts to protect its interests, Sackur asked Justice Chandrachud, did you as CJI have to deal with the growing political pressure from the BJP government? He replied that the New York Times is completely wrong because they were not able to anticipate what would happen in the general election in 2024, which debunks the myth that we are moving 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.

Article 370 ruling

On the Supreme Court’s judgment on the abrogation of Article 370, Sackur said many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with the court’s ruling upholding the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370.

“Article 370, when it was introduced into the Constitution was part of the chapter titled Transitional Arrangements or Transitional Provisions and later renamed Temporary and Transitional Provision. Therefore, at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with the text and context of the Constitution. Is 75 years plus, too little to abrogate a transitional provision," said the former CJI.

Sackur said that Jammu and Kashmir was demoted from a state to a federal Union Territory. Justice Chandrachud said the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir must be restored, and a democratically elected government is in place now.

He pointed out that the top court had underscored the need to restore the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir, setting a timeline for its restoration.

On the statehood question, the former CJI said the Centre had given an undertaking that the status of Jammu and Kashmir would be restored as soon as possible.

"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.

Ram Temple Ruling

The former CJI told Sackur that if he were to look at social media and try and derive what was said by a judge, “you will get the wrong answer”.

Justice (Retd) Chandrachud said that 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 on the Supreme Court, you dispense equal and even-handed justice," he said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the former CJI’s home

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Justice Chandrachud’s home during Ganesh Chaturthi sparked a major controversy, and it was slammed by several Opposition leaders.

Sackur asked the former CJI about PM Modi's visit to his house on Ganesh Chaturthi. Justice Chandrachud replied that not much should be made out of “elementary courtesies of in the constitutional office”.

Justice Chandrachud said, “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 pointed out that before the PM's visit, the apex court delivered judgments like in the electoral bonds case and after the visit too, it 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," he said.