In the context of the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case, CJI Chandrachud disclosed the collective nature of the decision made by the five-judge bench.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in his recent statements and interviews, has offered profound insights into the Supreme Court’s approach to landmark judgments, the collegium system, and the adherence to constitutional principles, highlighting the nuanced and complex nature of judicial decision-making.
Constitutional Adherence in Landmark Judgments
Addressing the controversy over the Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370, CJI Chandrachud emphasized the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional fidelity. He stated,
“So far as we are concerned, we decide according to the Constitution and the law. I don’t think it will be appropriate for me either to respond to the criticism or mount a defence to my judgment. What we have said in my judgement is reflected in the reason present in the signed judgement and I must leave it at that.”
Some jurists and vested interest groups had criticised theartcile 370 judgement. The CJI refused to respond to the criticism of the verdict saying tersely the judges decide a case “according to the Constitution and the law”.
Also Read:- Bombay High Court’s Interpretation on ‘Outraging Modesty’ Under Scrutiny
In the context of the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case, CJI Chandrachud disclosed the collective nature of the decision made by the five-judge bench. CJI Chandrachud told that the Judges in the Ram Janmabhoomi case arrived at a unanimous decision that the authorship of the judgement will not be ascribed. He explained,
“When the five-judge bench sat to deliberate on the judgment… we all decided unanimously that this will be a judgment of the court.”
This approach was aimed at presenting a unified voice of the court, reinforcing the solidarity and consensus among the judges.
Allocation and lawyers
The CJI appeared to comment on the allegation by senior lawyers like Prashant Bhushan and Dushyant Dave on important matters often being reassigned to separate judges than who had already heard a part of the case.
“I am very, very clear in my mind that if the credibility of the institution of the Supreme Court is to be maintained, we have to ensure that the allocation of cases in the Supreme Court is not going to be a lawyer-driven allocation,” he said.
He added that the allocation has to be according to “terms of our system laid down in the Supreme Court.”
“You have to trust your decision makers,” the CJI said, upholding the roster – which he heads.
He added that no lawyer can insist that their case will be heard by a particular judge.
“That does not do justice either to the credibility of the individual judge or the purity of the administration of justice,” the CJI said.
Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage Verdict
Reflecting on the Supreme Court’s stance on same-sex marriage, CJI Chandrachud, along with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, supported the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. However, the bench was divided, with some justices observing that the right to a civil union cannot be constitutionally protected when the right to marriage doesn’t have the same standing.
Also Read:- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Article 370
CJI Chandrachud candidly spoke about the outcome of the same-sex marriage case, saying,
“Once you decide a case, you kind of distance yourself from the outcome. Outcomes are never personal to us as a judge. I never have any regrets“.
He further added, “But the important part of the life of a judge is never to associate yourself with a cause. Having decided a case, I leave it at that.“
Collegium System and Transparency
Defending the collegium system, CJI Chandrachud asserted that it is not lacking in transparency. He acknowledged the efforts made to ensure greater transparency and objectivity in the appointment of judges. “We have taken steps to ensure that greater transparency is maintained,” he said, adding that the deliberations within the collegium can’t be made public due to the privacy of the judges under consideration. He further added,
“To say that the collegium system is lacking in transparency would not be correct. We have taken steps to ensure that greater transparency is maintained. A sense of objectivity in the decision-making process is maintained. But I must also share something and that’s my caveat. When we consider judges for the appointment in Supreme Court, we are dealing with the careers of the sitting judges of the High Court.“
He also highlighted the role of the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning in assisting the collegium.
Also Read:- Supreme Court Clarifies Section 498A: Emphasizing Evidence in Marital Cruelty Cases
“It prepares a comprehensive document that is circulated among members of the collegium which helps them in evaluating judges whose names come up for consideration,” he explained.
“Therefore the deliberations that take place within the collegium can’t be put out in the public realm for a variety of reasons. Many of our discussions are on the privacy of those judges who are under consideration for appointment to the Supreme Court. Those deliberations, if they have to take place in a free and candid atmosphere, can’t be the subject matter of video recording or documentation. That is not the system which the Indian Constitution has adopted,” he added.
The CJI said keeping in mind the diverse society, it is also important to learn to trust judges’ decision-making process.
“It is very easy to criticise the process but now that I have been part of the process for several years I can share with you that every effort is being made by our judges to ensure due process of consultation is made before the appointment of a judge,” he said.
Conclusion
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure in the Supreme Court is marked by a deep commitment to upholding the Constitution, impartiality in judgment, and enhancing transparency in the judiciary. His perspectives on significant cases like the Ayodhya dispute, the same-sex marriage verdict, and his stance on the collegium system demonstrate a dedication to maintaining judicial integrity and adapting to the evolving needs of the judicial system.