Addressing the controversy over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence for Ganpati prayers, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Monday said there was “nothing wrong” in it and underscored the need for a “sense of maturity in political sphere” on such issues.
Following the PM’s visit to the CJI residence, opposition parties led by the Congress and a section of lawyers had raised concerns over propriety and separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. The BJP, on the other hand, dismissed the criticism as unwarranted and said it was a “part of our culture”.
Speaking at an event organised by the Indian Express, CJI Chandrachud said one has to respect that the dialogue between the judiciary and the executive takes place as a part of the robust inter-institutional mechanism and separation of powers does not mean the two will not meet.
“The separation of powers concept does not postulate that judiciary and executive are antagonist in the sense they will not meet or not engage in a reasoned dialogue. In the states, there is a protocol of chief justice and the administrative committee of the high court meeting the chief minister and on the chief minister meeting the chief justice at their residence. In most of these meetings, you are discussing basic issues like budgeting, infrastructure, technology, etc,” he said.
On the prime minister’s visit, the CJI shared, “The PM visited my residence for Ganpati puja. I do feel, there is absolutely nothing wrong as these are continuing meetings between the judiciary and the executive even at the social level. We meet at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, Republic Day, etc. We are in conversation with the prime minister and the ministers. This conversation does not involve the cases which we decide but life and society in general.” The CJI, who demits office on November 10, said, “There has to be a sense of maturity in the political system to understand this and trust our judges because the work we do is evaluated by our written word. Everything we decide is not kept in wraps and is open to scrutiny.” He said a robust dialogue taking place between the executive and the judiciary on the administrative side had nothing to do with the judicial side.
“What the separation of powers postulates is that the judiciary should not be performing the role of the executive which is defining policies because the power to frame policy belongs to the government. Likewise the executive does not decide the cases. So long we have this in mind. Dialogue has to take place because you are dealing with the careers and the lives of people in the judiciary,” he said.
The CJI said the dialogue between the judiciary and the executive had nothing to do with how cases were decided. “That has been my experience.” Even his statement of having prayed to God for a solution to the Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute had attracted considerable clamour.
CJI Chandrachud called himself a “person of faith” who respected all religions equally.
“It is a problem of social media. You must have the backdrop of where I was speaking. I visited my village which is 1.5 hours from Pune. It is predominantly an agricultural community. The question which I was asked was that in the arena of conflict in the court how do you stay calm.
“I said everyone has his own mantra and my mantra (not religious) of life is to spend time on reflection on myself. When I said that I sit before a deity, I am not defensive about the fact I am a man of faith. I have my own faith and equally respect all faiths,” he said.
“My being a person who professes a particular faith has nothing to do with how I will treat people of different faiths who come to me seeking justice. Every case is decided in accordance with law and the constitution. If someone’s faith gives a sense of calm and degree of objectivity to look beyond conflict so be it and that people must accept. The fact that you belong to a particular faith has nothing to do with your ability to do justice to people of different faith,” he said.
His statement had come while addressing the residents of his native Kanhersar Village in Khed Taluka during a felicitation ceremony, when he said he had prayed to God for a solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and asserted God will find a way if one has faith.
“Very often we have cases (to adjudicate) but we don’t arrive at a solution. Something similar happened during the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute) which was in front of me for three months. I sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution,” he had said.
“One look at our cause list, would indicate the diversity which comes to our court,” the CJI added.
When asked about his take on presser by four Supreme Court judges in 2018 against ex-CJI Dipak Misra, Mr Chandrachud said there has to be institutional discipline and he believed that there is always a room for a dialogue.
Commenting on CJI-designate Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr Chandrachud said he is an objective and calm human being and can smile even in serious conflict.
“The Court is in safe and secure hands post my retirement,” he added.
When asked if he would like to tweak the frame of the Ganesh Puja picture and include the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and judges of the top court, Mr Chandrachud, in a lighter vein, said that he would not include the LoP as it was not a selection committee for appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner or Director of CBI.
“On occasion such as marriages, deaths, there are social visits. When my mother died, I had a visit from the chief minister of the state. These are elementary courtesies. We must understand that judiciary has a sense of maturity. The fact is that deals are never cut like these, so trust us. We are not here to cut deals. To cast impute motives on judges is denigrating the society,” he added.
Responding to a question on delay in hearing on the bail plea of former JNU student Umar Khalid in Delhi riots case, CJI Chandrachud said in media a particular case assumes significance and then the court is criticized on that particular case.
“After I took over as CJI, I decided to prioritise bail cases as it pertains to personal liberty. It was decided that at least every bench of the top court should hear 10 bail cases. Between November 9, 2022, and November 1, 2024, 21,000 bail cases were filed in the Supreme Court. During this period, 21,358 bail cases have been disposed of.
“As many as 967 Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases were filed during this period and 901 cases have been disposed of. A dozen political cases involving prominent ones, where bail has been granted in recent months. Very often, in media, a certain facet or atmospherics of a case are being made out.
“When a judge applies mind to the record of a case, what emerges may be quite different from what is portrayed in the media on the merits of that particular case. The judge applies his mind to the concerned cases and then decides the case. Speaking for myself, I have granted bail from A to Z (Arnab Goswami to Zubair) and that’s my philosophy,” Mr Chandrachud said at the event.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
