CJI DY Chandrachud emphasized the significance of having more women judges by sharing his experience with Justice Bela Trivedi. He also discussed the influence of court hearings on LGBTQ issues, the ongoing reservation versus merit debate, and addressed the Supreme Court’s controversial “sinners have a future” remark in a rape case.
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud highlighted the importance of increasing the number of women judges in courts. He emphasized that this need transcends the common yet potentially inaccurate belief that women judges tend to deliver “liberal” verdicts.
Speaking at a lecture held on June 6 at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, CJI Chandrachud remarked,
“Assuming that simply having a woman instead of a man deciding a case will result in a more ‘liberal outcome’ is a misconception. Increasing the number of women on the Bench should not be pursued with the expectation of a more liberal judiciary. Let’s be clear about that.”
He illustrated his point by referencing the Sabarimala case, where the sole dissenting opinion came from a female judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, who is now retired.
CJI Chandrachud explained,
“In the Sabarimala case, the issue was whether women of menstruating age should be barred from worshipping in the temple. I was part of the majority that ruled you cannot deny women the right to pray based on their menstruating status, even though the tradition held that the deity is celibate. While I respect that traditional view, my decision was grounded in constitutional principles. The lone dissent came from a female colleague. When I returned after the judgment was announced, several of my law clerks approached me, asking, ‘How could your colleague deliver such a dissenting judgment?’ I responded, ‘You are mistaken in thinking that just because we had a woman judge, she would necessarily deliver a more ‘progressive’ verdict. It doesn’t work that way. Her judgment has also received significant praise from the academic community,”
He emphasized the necessity of having more women as judges, citing their unique life experiences and perspectives that male judges might lack.
The CJI remarked,
“Women, through their experiences of social life an aspect my female colleagues are intimately familiar with offer a perspective distinct from mine,”
He noted how a female colleague at the Bombay High Court identified recurring patterns in crimes against women or gender-based violence.
Reflecting on his time at the Supreme Court, he praised Justice Bela Trivedi for vividly presenting the facts of a complex criminal case before the Bench.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) recounted an incident involving his colleague, Justice Bela Trivedi.
The CJI shared,
“I was sitting with a woman colleague, Justice Bela Trivedi. The case involved a complex set of evidentiary records and multiple witnesses. After the proceedings ended, before I started dictating my judgment, I turned to her and asked, ‘Sister, what do you think about this case?’ She put down her brief and responded, ‘Let us keep down our pens.’ In the next ten minutes, she vividly reconstructed the entire crime scene for me based on the records. Her reproduction brought the crime scene to life in a way that truly reflected lived reality,”
He emphasized that this experience highlighted the value of having more women and diverse segments of the community on the Bench, stating,
“This isn’t just about women but also about diversity in terms of caste and social groups.”
He highlighted that many states have reported a higher number of women passing competitive district judiciary exams compared to men.
He remarked,
“This demonstrates that given equal opportunities, women can aim for positions traditionally held by men or even surpass them,”
He emphasized the importance of encouraging women to remain in the litigation field and establishing frameworks that acknowledge their contributions, stating that both the courts and the Bar share this responsibility.
The Chief Justice of India made these remarks during a Q&A session following his lecture on.
“The Role of a Judge in Craftsmanship and Constitutional Interpretation.”
During his lecture, the Chief Justice of India highlighted how earlier views that reservations or affirmative action would undermine merit have been increasingly challenged over time.
He recalled that while affirmative action faced initial opposition and was even overturned by the Supreme Court in 1951 for being contrary to equality, the understanding of equality itself evolved over time.
Reflecting this shift, in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that reservations are an aspect of substantive equality, he noted.
He added,
“I believe all these perspectives have contributed to a new synthesis and a fresh understanding of what equality truly means,”
The Chief Justice further remarked that merit should be interpreted in a more inclusive manner.
He said,
“Does merit truly represent the scores obtained in admission tests for universities? Or does it refer to the raw scores achieved in competitive examinations for public service employment, given the scarcity of jobs? Or should merit be defined in a broader sense, as incorporating those segments of our society that have not yet had the opportunity to partake in the larger societal benefits? By defining merit in a more inclusive manner, we also define equality in a more substantive way not merely as formal equality but as the equality of opportunity that our Constitution strives for,”
Chief Justice of India Chandrachud also remarked that while the Supreme Court rejected a plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriages, stating that it was the responsibility of the parliament to legislate on marriage issues, the courtroom discussions on LGBTQ matters have initiated public conversations.
CJI Chandrachud said,
“The point I am making is that this dialogue in the court lays the groundwork for a future and more evolving society. When I visit law schools, engage with civil society activists, and converse with people across the ideological spectrum both liberal and conservative. It is evident that there is a growing awareness of the changes occurring in India regarding LGBTQ relationships. This shift is partly due to the prominence the subject has gained through courtroom debates,”
During the Q&A session at the event, Chief Justice of India Chandrachud addressed a question about a controversial observation made by a three-judge Bench in 2022.
In commuting the death sentence of a child rape convict, the Court had quoted Oscar Wilde, noting,
“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.”
When questioned about this judgment and its wording, CJI Chandrachud admitted that the remark was inappropriate.
He emphasized the importance of the Court’s self-corrective mechanisms, stating,
“That’s why there is a corrective mechanism in the courts, to ensure that erroneous verdicts are corrected. Beyond judicial correction, we are also working on sensitizing judges. Why are such remarks made in judgments? For instance, why was a remark like ‘every sinner has a future’ included in a rape case? As you rightly pointed out as a non-lawyer, and I agree with you, it was indeed an inappropriate remark.”
He further mentioned that the Supreme Court has now published a gender handbook to address the broader issue of inappropriate comments made by judges in their orders and judgments.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
