Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who retired on November 10, 2024, recently reflected on his legacy and the impact of his tenure; the tenure which has been irrevocably sad and painfully disappointing as one sees him lead with a weak stature.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure has been a free fall coupled with multiple comebacks. However, the more radically the CJI tries to be a liberally impactful judge with his put-on image of constitutionalism, it only lands him the titular trope of being a classic big mouthed MUN kid—all talks, no show.
The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was appointed and has been serving since November 2022. It is to be recognized here that his appraisal came at a very astute timing. The nation was convalescing with the aftermath of COVID pandemic, the Agnipath scheme had divided the youth’s job security, rampant political arrests had been ensuing with most political prisoners languishing in jails without proper trials and pending verdicts, right-wing extremism and communal clashes had grown manifold, minority rights were under scrutiny, state governments continued being unstable with the arrests of ministers and fall of coalition governments, the UCC, Article 370, and the Citizenship Amendment Act faced an undecided legal fate. The CJI, however, leaves office with a new unblinded saree-clad lady justice and folded hands that ask for forgiveness in case he hurt anyone.
Any criticism of D.Y. Chandrachud comes mostly from the fact of his identifying with morally high, progressive ideas but failing to deliver on any affirmative action that would strengthen them further. It has become a pattern of deceit. Famously, during the Marriage Equality proceedings, the Chief Justice earned his bytes of fame across social media when he corrected the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, saying, “There is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all. Biological definition is not what your genitals are. It’s far more complex; that’s the point.” What came from the hearing was a judgment against the legalisation of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The bench also unanimously decided that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right; this sounds contradictory to other guaranteed rights such as the rights to equality, dignity, and liberty. A review petition was later filed as the court’s decision has been criticized for violating fundamental rights, ignoring lived realities, undermining constitutional morality, and contradicting international human rights standards.
Interestingly, the more the CJI edges towards his retirement, the more he finds it imperative to testify for a clean character certificate from the public. He recently said, “I have always granted bail from A to Z, from Arnab to Zubair.” The statement sadly comes at a time when the movement and agitation towards Professor G.N. Saibaba’s institutional death is at its peak. The ignorance extended towards political prisoners’ plight is apparent. D.Y. Chandrachud’s judgment on the Bhima Koregaon Arrests under the UAPA is reflective of the larger judicial sentiment harbored towards those wrongly persecuted by the state. The court, in its judgment, ruled over the arrests of five human rights activists under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Maharashtra Police and allowed the investigation to continue. The police had accused the activists of involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence and sedition. There are several human rights activists and student leaders who continue to be politically incarcerated and framed while legal and political freedom withers.
Delhi University Professor Nandini Sundar, while addressing a crowd gathered for the memorial meet of Dr. G.N. Saibaba, said,
For a judge to say that he has given bail to some and not the others, sounds akin to a teacher saying I have failed some students but passed the others.”
There had also been large public concern and criticism of the CJI when he openly hosted the Prime Minister for a Ganesh Chaturthi event at his residence. The opposition and citizens raised concern in the matters of division of powers, arguing that it was a display of negation of judicial independence, propriety, and protocol. The CJI, however, dismissed the backlash as he considers there being “absolutely nothing wrong.”
Furthermore, adding to the populist religious sentiment around the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the CJI is said to have prayed to the “lords” to guide him through the judgment. Such statements disintegrate the secular core of public institutions. The judiciary does not in any capacity have a religion, but what one sees during the tenure of CJI Chandrachud is various judges openly endorsing religion and politics, as we see former Justices Rohit Arya and Abhijit Gangopadhyay joining the BJP.
There have also been judgments from the now former CJI that have effectively been pro-citizens and have sought to ensure and maintain the rule of law, but in a broader observation of phenomena, the CJI has delivered less of the more expected from him. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s legacy is a curious case of accepting the unexpected.
Read Also: DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba.
Featured image credit: The Hindu
Bhavana Bhaskar
