Ex-CJI Chandrachud's interview to BBC: Top 5 things that he said

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has defended his verdict on the abrogation of Article 370 and spoke about some of the important cases during his tenure including the Ayodhya Ram Temple judgment, and also Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his house.

Also read: Chandrachud didn't quite play the boy who stood on the burning deck, but then, who has?

In an interview with BBC, Chandrachud faced some tough questions including alleged political interference in the judiciary.

Here are five major things that Chandrachud said during the interview.

Verdict on Abrogation of Article 370

Chandrachud was asked, “Article 370 was part of the Constitution, which guaranteed the special status, the autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, now that had been out the place of the very inception of the modern state of India. You agreed that the government had a right to abrogate Article 370. Many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with your decision because they felt you had failed to uphold the Constitution. Explained to me why you took the decision you did.”

Also read: Judiciary is not meant to do Opposition’s role, says Chandrachud

“Since I was the author of one of the judgments in the case, a judge by their very nature of profession has some restraints on either defending or critiquing their judgments… Article 370 of the Constitution when it was introduced into the Constitution at the birth of the Constitution was part of a chapter which is titled ‘transitional arrangements’ or ‘transitional provisions’. It was later renamed as ‘temporary and transitional provisions’, and 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 overall text, the context of the Constitution. Now is 75 plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision,” Chandrachud replied.

On Indian law adjudicated by “an elite of male Hindu upper caste men”

“The truth is that the law in India is still presided upon, adjudicated by an elite of male Hindu, upper caste men like yourself, and indeed your own father was Chief Justice of India before you. Isn’t there a problem? It is dynastic,” journalist Stephen Sackur said.

Also read: Justice Chandrachud | In crucial matters, he belied our hopes

Responding to this, Chandrachud said, “No. It isn’t. Now what happens is this, if you look at the lowest levels of recruitment to the Indian judiciary, the district judiciary, which is the base of the pyramid, over 50 per cent of the new recruits coming into our states are women. There are states in which the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70 per cent.”

“The higher judiciary today is reflective of the status of the legal profession about 20 years ago. I had spent 25 years at the Bench before I retired. What's happening now is that as the reach of education, particularly legal education, has reached out to women, that gender balance which you find in law schools is now reflected in the lowest levels of the Indian judiciary… So quite contrary to what you said, it is not that there are judiciaries either upper caste or that it is male in the sense, the higher echelons of the judiciary. The movement of women to more responsible positions is just about taking place,” he added.

PM Modi’s visit to his residence for Ganesh puja

“Let’s not make too much out of elementary courtesies between high constitutional functionaries,” he said. “Our system is mature enough to understand that these courtesies have nothing to do with the way cases are decided. 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.”

Ram Temple judgment

About his remark of "sat before the deity" and prayed to God for a solution to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, he explained, "If you look at social media and try and derive what was said by a judge, you will get the wrong answer. 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 in Supreme Court, you dispense equal and even-handed justice."

"Within that area of conflict, how do you find a sense of calm, of equanimity, different judges have different ways to approach that need for calm and equanimity. For me, time in meditation and prayer is very important, but my time in meditation and prayer teaches me to be even-handed to every religious group and community in the country," he added.

Is there pressure from Modi’s party? And targeting Opposition leaders including Rahul Gandhi

Sackur cited a New York Times editorial that claimed “Narendra Modi’s party (BJP) has leaned on the courts to protect its own, target its rivals as Modi has layered, vociferous democracy closer toward a one-party state. Did you have to deal with growing political pressure?”

“I think The New York Times is completely wrong,” he said and added that the 2024 general election results completely debunked that India is 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.

At this point, Sackur brought up Rahul Gandhi being convicted in a defamation case by a Gujarat court and said Supreme Court put a stay on it but this showed “courts in India being used for political purposes”. He also said civil society activists, journalists, Opposition party politicians are all finding themselves in court rooms which appear to be intent on “bending to the will of Narendra Modi’s party”.

To this, Chandrachud replied, “No, it is to the contrary. If you look at the number of people who have been granted bail...last year, 21,000 bail applications were filed in the Supreme Court, and it disposed off 21,300 applications. I am not going to name the political leaders but this is an indicator that the due process of the law does govern.”

"Higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have sent out a clear message that we are here to safeguard personal liberties, in individual cases, there may be a difference of personal opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has been at the vanguard of personal liberty. I dare say, this is the reason why we have the faith of the people," he said.