Judiciary in India a bastion of elites, Hindus and men? Former CJI speaks out
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has said that higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have sent a clear message that they are committed to safeguarding personal liberties, which is why the judiciary retains the faith of the people.
In an interview on BBC’s HARDtalk with veteran journalist Stephen Sackur, the former Chief Justice addressed a range of questions, including gender representation in the judiciary, key judgements such as the Ram Janmabhoomi case and the Article 370 case, and whether the judiciary in India is dominated by elite, upper-caste men.
When asked if the Indian judiciary suffers from a dynasty problem and whether it is predominantly controlled by elite, male, Hindu upper-caste figures like himself, Justice (retd) Chandrachud disagreed. “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 where the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70 per cent.”
He stated that the composition of the higher judiciary today reflects the status of the legal profession a decade ago. “As legal education has expanded, particularly among women, the gender balance in law schools is now mirrored in the lower levels of the Indian judiciary. Women entering the district judiciary today will progress through the system,” he said.
Responding to a question about his father, former Chief Justice of India Y V Chandrachud, and whether his background gave him an advantage, he said that his father had advised him not to enter a court of law while he was Chief Justice. “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,” he said.
On whether he faced political pressure during his tenure, Sackur cited a New York Times editorial suggesting that the ruling BJP had influenced the courts to its advantage. Justice (retd) Chandrachud said that the 2024 general election results disproved the notion that India was moving towards a one-party state. “If you look at the states in India, regional aspirations and identities have come to the fore. Many states are governed by regional political parties that have performed exceptionally well in elections,” he said.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s handling of political cases, including Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case, he said the court later stayed the judgment. “Higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have sent a clear message that we are here to safeguard personal liberties. In individual cases, there may be differing opinions, but the Supreme Court has consistently been at the forefront of protecting personal liberty. This is why we have the faith of the people,” he said.
On the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Article 370 case, which upheld the Centre’s decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, Sackur pointed out that many legal scholars were disappointed. Justice (retd) Chandrachud, who authored one of the judgments, said that judges are constrained in how they discuss their decisions. “Article 370, when introduced into the Constitution, was part of a chapter titled Transitional Arrangements. It was later renamed Temporary and Transitional Arrangements. The assumption at the time was that what was transitional would eventually be integrated into the broader framework of the Constitution. Is 75 years too short a time to abrogate a transitional provision?” he asked.
He stated that democratic processes in Jammu and Kashmir must be restored, adding that a democratically elected government is now in place. “There has been a peaceful transfer of power to a political party that is not aligned with the ruling government at the Centre. This indicates that democracy has succeeded in Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.
On the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, he said the government had assured the court that the process would take place as soon as possible. “The Supreme Court ensured democratic accountability. A people’s government is in place, so the criticism that we did not apply our Constitutional mandate is not correct,” he said.
Asked why the Supreme Court had not taken up the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) case during his tenure, he noted that the case was pending and cited a UK example. “If this were to take place in the UK, the court would have no power to invalidate it. In India, we do have the power to invalidate legislation. I wrote about 62 judgements for the Constitution bench during my tenure. We addressed constitutional cases that had been pending for 20 years. The CAA case will be dealt with in due course,” he said.
When questioned about reports that he had prayed before a deity before delivering the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, he said, “If you look at social media for quotes attributed to judges, you will often find misinterpretations. I make no secret of the fact that I am a man of faith. Our Constitution does not require judges to be atheists to be independent. My faith teaches me the universality of religion, and irrespective of who appears before me, justice is dispensed equally.”
He added that judges often work in high-pressure environments and seek different ways to maintain their composure. “For me, time in meditation and prayer is important, but it teaches me to be even-handed to every religious group and community in the country,” he said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his home for Ganesh Chaturthi had sparked controversy, with several opposition leaders questioning the propriety of the visit. Asked about the issue, he said, “Not much should be made out of elementary courtesies extended between Constitutional officeholders. Our system is mature enough to understand that such gestures have no bearing on judicial decisions.” He noted that before and after the Prime Minister’s visit, the Supreme Court had delivered multiple judgments against the government, including the ruling on electoral bonds. “The role of the judiciary in a democratic society is not to act as the Opposition in Parliament. We are here to decide cases in accordance with the rule of law,” he said.
