Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan critiques Chief Justice Chandrachud’s tenure, questioning his judicial independence and legacy-building. Citing actions like a high-profile photo with Prime Minister Modi and controversial judgments, including the Babri Masjid case, Dhavan argues that Chandrachud’s approach risks politicizing the judiciary. He emphasizes the importance of impartiality in safeguarding India’s legal system against political influence.
New Delhi: In an era where judicial integrity is paramount, Chief Justice Chandrachud’s tenure has stirred discussions on the balance between legacy and judicial restraint. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan critiques Justice Chandrachud’s actions and judgments in shaping what he calls a “personal legacy,” often crossing lines that traditionally kept the judiciary impartial and distant from politics.
One prominent example cited by Dhavan is the photo-op of CJI Chandrachud and Prime Minister Modi praying together, which, Dhavan argues, is unprecedented in judicial circles. He comments,
“Justice Chandrachud now wants to explain this in terms of the relationship between prime ministers or chief ministers and judges, which I hope will not become a norm for the future.”
This gesture, paired with a strong media presence, he suggests, risks aligning judicial decorum with political narratives.
Dhavan is particularly critical of Chandrachud’s stance on landmark cases, especially his disclosure of “divine intervention” in the Babri Masjid judgment, an observation that unsettled many in the legal community. “Deities do not decide cases in any court in India,” Dhavan emphasized, casting doubt on whether constitutional principles or spiritual influence shaped the judgment. The decision in the Babri Masjid case remains one of the most debated, as Dhavan argues,
“The recompense for these crimes, in the eyes of the bench, is five acres,”
suggesting it diminished accountability for historical incidents.
In addition to high-profile judgments, Dhavan critiques the installation of a statue of Lady Justice in the Supreme Court Bar library without a blindfold, symbolizing a deviation from universal judicial symbolism. He argues this act underscores Chandrachud’s pursuit of a unique legacy, diverging from established traditions.
“Should the other high courts which follow the original, universal version now bow to this legacy?”
Dhavan questions, expressing concern over potential disruptions in India’s judicial symbolism.
Dhavan also critiques Chandrachud’s record on political matters such as the Jammu and Kashmir decision, where he claims the CJI “simply followed the government line” rather than upholding India’s complex federalism. He links this with the court’s allowance for electoral bonds, which have raised transparency concerns. Dhavan contends that judgments “upholding the Modi government’s electoral agenda” could potentially weaken the judiciary’s independence, a cornerstone of India’s democratic values.
While acknowledging CJI Chandrachud’s diligence and contributions to legal discourse, Dhavan argues that judicial independence wavered when challenging the government became necessary.
“When it came to opposing the Sangh Parivar government, his independence weakened. This is not a good legacy for an outgoing CJI,”
he states, highlighting the judiciary’s need for impartiality, especially in politically charged cases.
Journalists like N. Ram have voiced similar concerns regarding the media’s role in critiquing the judiciary, echoing Dhavan’s call for robust oversight. The current landscape of Indian judiciary, Dhavan asserts, requires vigilance and critique, especially when vanity risks overshadowing justice. For Dhavan, preserving the sanctity of judicial decisions demands “pulling down thy vanity,” focusing on impartial legacy over personal acclaim.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES