Even after the retirement of Justice Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, debates about his judgments persist. Evaluating his performance as Chief Justice is essential to understanding the trajectory of India’s justice system and its role in empowering democracy. To gauge this effectively, an examination of Justice Chandrachud’s judgments during his two-year tenure and his conduct beyond the courtroom is necessary.
Harvard-educated and the youngest to head a high court, DY Chandrachud followed in his father’s footsteps, who also served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Chandrachud’s tenure spanned over eight years as a judge and two years as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, India’s apex judicial institution serving 1.4 billion citizens. During this period, he earned the media’s monikers of “India’s first celebrity judge” and “rockstar judge.” As Chief Justice, he delivered 93 significant judgments, surpassing his four predecessors combined. His efforts in digitizing court processes and live-streaming hearings gained attention. Notably, his judgments on personal liberty, freedom of expression, gender equality, and LGBTQ rights were considered progressive. Among these were landmark rulings decriminalizing homosexuality and allowing menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala temple. His statements on the right to privacy and dissent also garnered widespread discussion.
However, this period marked a critical juncture for India as it transitioned from electoral democracy to what many describe as electoral autocracy. The judiciary, as the guardian of constitutional values, has a pivotal role in safeguarding democracy. Several key issues came before the Supreme Court during this time—demonetization, the Rafale deal, COVID-19 mismanagement, the Pulwama attack, Pegasus surveillance, the subversion of federal systems, the farmers’ protests, human rights violations, the Citizenship Amendment Act, declining press freedom, the Manipur crisis, the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, and more. Despite the gravity of these matters, the Supreme Court appeared reluctant to challenge the central government, raising concerns about the direction of India’s justice system.
Justice Chandrachud’s approach to judgments has been described as skillfully interpretive, setting precedents for future cases. Yet, critics argue that he fell short of acting independently in cases where the central government faced setbacks. Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh described Chandrachud’s record as a ‘mixed bag.’ For instance, while the Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional, it refrained from investigating the sources of political funding or penalizing those responsible for illegalities. Justice Madan Lokur likened this to a successful operation where the patient did not survive. Similar patterns emerged in judgments related to the political crisis in Maharashtra and Delhi’s federal power struggle, leading to disappointment among those who expected the judiciary to check the Modi government’s majoritarian nationalism.
Former Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Dushyant Dave burst into tears during an interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire and strongly criticized Justice Chandrachud.
Although the Places of Worship Act of 1991 does not permit any change in the religious character of a place of worship after August 15, 1947, Justice Chandrachud ruled that “there is no express prohibition on ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship.” Dave spoke emotionally as he agonized over this verdict of far-reaching implications delivered by Justice Chandrachud in May 2022.
This verdict, which allowed the survey, came when the Muslim faction approached the Supreme Court against a lower court ruling in favor of the claims made by Hindu organizations over the Gyanvapi mosque in Uttar Pradesh. This development fueled further claims by Hindu organizations over the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, the Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow, and now the Juma Masjid in Sambhal and the Ajmer Dargah.
Five people were killed, and several others were injured during firing on protesters during the Shahi Juma Masjid survey process in Chandaus, in the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh. In this interview, Dushyant Dave expressed his concern that Justice Chandrachud’s judgment could destroy social harmony and secular values. Dave pointed out that Justice Chandrachud undermined the legal system and divided society to protect a few’s interests.
Justice Chandrachud’s tenure has also faced criticism for aligning with the authoritarian government’s measures. His approach in cases involving intellectuals like GN Saibaba, activists like Stan Swamy and Sudha Bharadwaj, and students like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam revealed a perceived bias. Simultaneously, India plummeted in global press freedom rankings. Critics liken him to controversial figures like Justice Ranjan Gogoi, citing his reluctance to hear cases challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act and other government policies.
His handling of administrative responsibilities as “master of the roster” also drew scrutiny. Despite advocating for bail as the norm, Justice Chandrachud assigned politically sensitive bail cases to ‘bail-averse’ benches, exacerbating the plight of detainees. Contrarily, he prioritized cases like that of Arnab Goswami, signaling selective intervention.
Justice Chandrachud’s public persona often overshadowed his judicial role. While his speeches championed fundamental rights and gender equality, his recommendations to the Supreme Court Collegium raised eyebrows for excluding women.
Additionally, a viral video of him participating in a religious ceremony alongside Prime Minister Modi and his statement about praying for guidance in the Babri Masjid case shocked many. His controversial judgment awarding the disputed land in Ayodhya to Hindus fulfilled a BJP manifesto promise and paved the way for the Ram Temple’s construction, raising questions about his impartiality. In 2018, Chandrachud was also on the bench comprising the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which ordered an NIA probe in the Hadiya case in which the bride’s family challenged the marriage with a Muslim.
He was also on the bench that rejected the demand for an inquiry into the mysterious death of BH Loya, the judge hearing the murder case involving Modi’s right-hand man, Amit Shah. It may also be recalled that the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli amended the BCCI constitution, allowing Amit Shah’s son, Jai Shah, to continue as the secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Equally important is the verdict on the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The abrogation of Article 370 was part of the BJP’s 2014 manifesto. The Supreme Court’s approach was to trust the central government to handle the matter, even though there was confusion during the removal of the special status. Analyzing such interventions by Justice Chandrachud, former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur said in an interview with Karan Thapar that his tenure was full of “serious mistakes.”
Another avowed goal of the RSS, Sangh Parivar, and Hindutva forces was fulfilled by a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud in a landmark judgment. This was the implementation of sub-classifications for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The judgment of August 1, 2014, appeared to aim at ensuring representation for under-represented SCs. However, in reality, it was seen as an RSS-driven political move to abolish caste-based reservation and implement economic reservation. The judgement created a wedge between different caste groups and undermined the possibility of Dalit unity forever, a wet dream of Sangh Parivar! The only legal impediment to the implementation of economic reservation in India is the caste reservation for Scheduled Castes. Thus, it can be argued that the oligarchic governance system mentioned by Ambedkar is being used to subvert reservations meant for the social justice of backward classes, who are victims of the caste system, by using poverty as a criterion.
It is necessary to recall Dr. BR Ambedkar’s observations from many years ago to understand why the judicial system remains silent or supports the government’s actions when it deviates from the constitutional framework. He warned that once British rule ended, India might be ruled by an oligarchy enjoying privileges. It can be argued that our country has reached its complete take over. Ambedkar believed that India’s democracy could succeed only in a system of government based on social democracy, which recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity, and that the progress of a society could be measured by the progress of women.
The oligarchy, which has played a decisive role in shaping India’s course post-independence, overtly and covertly gained legitimacy with Modi’s arrival and began actively implementing its right-wing agenda through decisive institutional mechanisms. Some of these forces have a radical nature, while others present a liberal face. Justice Chandrachud appears to belong to the latter category. (Another example is Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who recently attended an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and stated that policies would be implemented only in the interest of Hindus in this country.)
Is India’s future bleak? Former director of the National Judicial Academy, Professor Mohan Gopal, argues that it is the actions taken by the people to empower democracy that will determine its future. Post-independence, as part of the oligarchy referred to by Ambedkar, the judicial system controlled by a privileged class must be dismantled. Instead, representation based on caste, gender, language, religion, and region should be ensured. He also emphasizes the need for the judiciary to include individuals from diverse backgrounds. Only then can constitutional values and democratic systems remain effective. Otherwise, he warns, proponents of majoritarian nationalism, with the support of figures like Justice Chandrachud, will turn India into a Hindu nation through the judiciary. India’s Supreme Court, he argues, will become the key mechanism to facilitate this transformation. Mohan Gopal reminds us that examining Supreme Court judgments reveals how the Hindutva forces can achieve their goals through courts that are impossible to realize through Parliament.
A K Shiburaj is an independent journalist based in Kerala.
This article was originally published in Malayalam at Keraleeyam
