The legacy of outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud will be remembered for several significant actions and controversies. He co-authored the Ram Mandir verdict but did not sign it, raising questions about his conviction, his moral standpoint, and his confused resolve around the verdict itself. The verdict was certainly in poor spirit, having several “new firsts,” “oxymorons,” and invocation of special powers, to serve a utilitarian principle and not justice. He recently recounted “how he had to pray to God and seek guidance from God in order to deliver a verdict,” leading to several people questioning whether his judgment was a spiritual or a legal exercise.
He called the Electoral Bonds scheme (EB) illegal and remained firm on the disclosures to be made by the State Bank of India, but despite this, neither he attempted to create a case where money collected through an illegal scheme was recovered nor was anyone punished for the irregularities. His decision/judgment was limited to the legality of the Electoral Bonds scheme. The long delay in the pronouncement of the judgment gave enough space to the biggest beneficiary, BJP, to amass thousands of crores in its coffers. To this day, it continues to create an uneven playing field for all political parties against BJP, raising questions about the free and fair nature of the elections in the recent past and many more to come in the future, as the financial muscle will continue to benefit BJP for decades to come.
He referred to the Chandigarh Election Officer as a criminal but failed to take any action against him. He could have set a standard by setting an example of zero tolerance toward electoral malpractice.
Justice Chandrachud also labeled the Shinde, Fadnavis, and Pawar (Ajit) government illegal, as well as the actions of the Governor, but allowed the same government to continue for its full term without taking any decisive action. Instead, he deferred the matter back to the Speaker, whom he had deemed illegal, allowing further questionable decisions to be made. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander — the CJI did not seem to follow his own infamous quote, which he had uttered while hearing the EB Case.
In the Hindenburg-Adani case, rather than suggesting Adani Enterprises sue Hindenburg Research in US courts or making Hindenburg part of the probe, he formed an expert panel to investigate. He then accepted the panel’s report, which cleared Adani Enterprises of wrongdoing, as the final word without further scrutiny.
He also dragged his feet on the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370, eventually ruling the action proper, despite the fact that it occurred when the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly, which should have been consulted, was in suspended animation, creating an odd situation where the President of India effectively consulted himself before deciding on the abrogation.
Justice Chandrachud will also be remembered for his role in allowing the prolonged incarceration of Umar Khalid, who has been denied bail likely because he is not wealthy, influential, or powerful, and because he is Muslim. He also permitted the continued imprisonment of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, which led to the death of Father Stan Swamy, and the potential death of Prof. G.N. Saibaba, despite credible evidence that the entire case was based on the planting of evidence by the police and politicians.
These incidents form part of the legacy he leaves behind. In the end, opinions will remain divided on whether he served the cause of justice or failed it. While he did unveil a statue of Lady Justice holding a book with her eyes open, symbolic of transparency and fairness, critics argue that he did not uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution, delivering rulings that were more guided by personal beliefs than by evidence and law.
Shariq Us Sabah is a published writer and can be contacted at [email protected]
