Desk
Share
Upon the death of India’s former prime minister Manmohan Singh in December last year, a few obituaries recalled a remark made during his final press conference as the Prime Minister in 2014. While he was under assault for purported irruption of his government, and countering the inflow of the opposition terming his leadership as “feeble”, he remarked, “I sincerely believe that history will treat me better than the present day media or the opposition from the parliament does.”
About a month before he left office, in November last year, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud recalled, “As my tenure draws to an end, my time is consumed with worries, fears and anxieties of the future and the past. I ask myself, To what extent have I achieved my objectives? How will history perceive my term?Is there anything I could have done differently? What will my mark on the future, and on budding judges and legal professionals, be?”
Not an “ideological” judge
Justice Chandrachud, who earned the title of CJI with high expectations as a ‘beacon of hope’ after serving as a judge in the Supreme Court, drew profound and harsh critique a lot from different quarters when he retired, the most of which stemmed from the disappointment over his not subscribing to a certain ideology. The fact that, on different occasions, his judgments upset different poles of the ideological spectrum pretty much proves that he was no one’s man.
The verdict in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case was delivered by the 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court in September 2018. They, too, argued that the exclusion of women from the temple was against the law, with 4 justices in agreement and 1 on the contrary. In his judgement, Justice Chandrachud reasoned that the denial of autonomy, liberty, and dignity to women aged 10 to 50 years was inconsistent with constitutional morality and therefore, being a woman barred from visiting the temple is in fact, very much against हिंदी का संस्कार. Not all were pleased with the decision.
Just like how in the February 2024 judgement of an electoral bond scheme set in place being deemed ‘unconstitutional’, Justice Chandrachud was scored as an opposition judge due to the apparent “non-BJP” sentiment. The 2019 abrogation of article 370 was a shock to the system for many, even those who supported the; this was witnessed when the public deemed him a still sympathiser for the rule and decisions of the state.
Justice Chandrachud taking on the challenge of decisions even when preknown dooming outcomers is what sets him apart from other ruling judges. These decisions, whether they be the dissolvable Article 370 or the Bonds affair, are well past essential, but for so many others, they certainly are American road trip assist to give up choosing easy.
A man of phenomenal intellect.
Chandrachud made his harshest critics appear soft when, at the core of his liberal and perhaps naive proclamations, he suggested they “should have broad shoulders” to bear the weight of unpopular yet necessary decisions. On which any judge would agree he/she has to make calls that are hard to take, “to” quote him “on”.
Jest aside, even sombre critics of Chandrachud’s work cannot but help acknowledge his phenomenal erudition in law and jurisprudence, equally if not more renowned in the field of constitutional law. No one achieves and no one speaks with such tangible authority and clarity as he does. In the previous example, it suffices to mention the marking tax in the Mineral Area Development Authority Case where the issue sought to be litigated was whether the state concerned had the jurisdiction to tax mineral rights and if so, to what extent.
Even with all concentrated compassion associated with his reformist agenda, none of serious assessments can blame a single one of his botched up interventions without bringing into the argument these elements of his personality. To illustrate, by magistrate’s order, Justice Chandrachud allowed post-attack admission for a Dalit boy who lost a chance owing to unnecessary delay in payment of fees by exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution. These types of choices sustain moderation of justice as “fairness”.
Regarding his reform works, he will surely be remembered for institutionalising virtual hearings, live streaming, and the grand e-courts project aimed at modernising the judiciary for his reforms. In chasing the illusion of a balanced assessment of Justice Chandrachud’s judgeship, most people ignored the positions he assumed in the Puttaswamy case which endorsed the Right to Privacy\nis a basic natural right as well as the Navtej Singh Johar case which decriminalised sodomy.It is necessary for the balance of the world to forgo focusing solely on his administrative functions as CJI. Justice Chndrachud's contribution as a puisne judge is often neglected because the position of CJI is not viewed merely as a judicial officer, but rather as the head of the judiciary with an extensive set of managerial powers who can control the direction of the administration of justice in India.\n\n However, to ignore a judge’s contribution in terms of salient constitutional issues purely because of his institutional head status is certainly not objective and fair.
Backed with liberal and progressive judgery, Justice Chandrachud was perhaps one of the most apprehensive men on the bench when he began his term. He was expected to adhere to certain ideological norms, and he did not. Understanding justice Chandrachud’s decisions requires one to appreciate the law in its fullest form. Take for instance the case concerning the nullification of Article 370. He single handedly destroyed the assertion that Article 370 could not be abrogated and was a permanent feature of the Constitution.
The abrogation of Article 370 had profound political haters and supporters offering applaud to Justce Chandrachud aplently while criticizing his decision as irresponsible. Alongside blaming him from reducing the supreme court to a cornerstone of political contest.
The fact that a singular case can have such mixed reactions is troubling to some. No one doubts Justice Chandrachud's commitment to upholding the constitutional principles, human beings' rights, and the justice system's accessibility to all citizens. Many analysts and legal commentators admire him, ruthless as he is in the courtroom, for his bon vivant approach, sharp thinking, and his leniency on different constitutional questions.
The reality is, Justice Chandrachud has given fairness a new definition. More so, he should be extremely proud of the attentive approach he has taken towards the most fundamental aspects of Indian polity and his willingness to take on the thorny activities of constitutional mathematics.
Every prominent judicial authority has to grapple with some degree of criticism, especially in the case of Justice Chandrachud whose work impacted many different people through his Supreme Court verdicts. It seems as if Justice Chandrachud’s approach, and where he ended up in comparison to the other judges on the bench, has generally been commendable when viewed from the perspective of both the law and the society. Social justice, individual rights, and the health of democracy are amongst the social issues that his theses showed deep concern in.
Regardless of public opinion, negative or positive, it appears to be the case that Justice DY Chandrachud will be remembered as a caring and progressive judge concerned with affirming the Indian judiciary’s base as an institution which serves justice, equality, and overall fairness.
A judge’s primary quality should be absence of bias and not devotion to a certain school of thought. A judge’s only bias must be one of the law and justice. In this extreme divided world, remaining neutral might rather speak of a lack of conviction instead of a principled position. An impartial person, rather than being appreciated for balance, risks challenge from both sides.
But, in the context of resistance, neutrality may imply the refusal to assume any overly extreme positions. And, Justice Chandrachud will be remembered for this resistance to siding with either of the extremes.
