Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure modernized India’s judiciary with notable reforms, such as virtual hearings and inclusivity initiatives, though it drew criticism for perceived alignment with political interests. As he exits, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, known for integrity and restraint, will succeed him, bringing a low-profile approach. Their legacies connect through a shared history rooted in India’s judicial evolution.
New Delhi: As Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s term draws to a close, he reflects on his judicial legacy—a legacy that has roots in a historic decision connecting him with Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the next CJI. Chandrachud and Khanna’s legacies are intertwined through the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976, where Chandrachud’s father, former CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, and Khanna’s uncle, Justice H.R. Khanna, took opposing stances in one of India’s most significant judgments on personal liberty.
The ADM Jabalpur case questioned if citizens, detained under a presidential order, could appeal for release. Four judges, including Y.V. Chandrachud, upheld the order, barring detainees from seeking relief, while Justice H.R. Khanna famously dissented, advocating for the protection of fundamental rights even in times of emergency. His dissent, however, cost him the CJI position. Justice H.R. Khanna’s sacrifice for judicial independence is immortalized with his portrait in Court Number Two of the Supreme Court, symbolizing the independence of the judiciary.
In 2017, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud addressed this legacy directly by overruling his father’s ADM Jabalpur stance in his privacy judgment, affirming Justice H.R. Khanna’s view on liberty and dignity. He wrote,
“The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed… The view taken by Justice Khanna must be accepted.”
This act symbolized his commitment to judicial independence and hinted at the high expectations for his term as CJI.
A Mixed Legacy of Reforms and Judicial Impact
CJI Chandrachud’s two-year tenure leaves behind a legacy marked by notable administrative improvements and initiatives, though some feel it did not fully meet the expectations it had generated. From infrastructure upgrades and salary improvements for judicial staff to the digitization of courts and the continuation of virtual hearings, Chandrachud’s administrative efforts modernized court operations. Supreme Court advocate Sneha Kalita remarked on the convenience these changes provided, especially as a new mother able to attend hearings virtually.
Chandrachud’s tenure was also distinguished by steps toward inclusivity. He made strides in supporting the disabled, including establishing cafés employing disabled individuals within court premises and recruiting disabled staff for the Supreme Court. He addressed LGBTQIA+ rights, proposed steps to legalize same-sex marriage, and made efforts to strike down the electoral bonds scheme, advocating for transparency.
Despite this, Chandrachud’s tenure did not go without criticism. The electoral bonds scheme was not stayed, despite reservations from some quarters, and the LGBTQIA+ community felt the court’s decision deferred too much responsibility to the government. His stance on livestreaming court proceedings and removing barriers for journalists covering the Supreme Court won approval, yet controversial decisions on political cases, such as upholding Article 370’s abrogation and Maharashtra’s defection matter, raised questions about the court’s independence.
Seeking Balance Between Principle and Popularity
Chandrachud’s quest for legacy extended beyond legal and administrative work. He recently spoke at an event in Bhutan, expressing concern about his legacy and anxieties over what he achieved, stating,
“As my tenure comes to an end, my mind is heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past.”
This self-reflection, he noted, drove him each day to do his best in his role. However, some critics feel his tenure fell short in defending dissent and protecting democratic principles. For example, student activist Umar Khalid’s bail petitions were adjourned multiple times, fueling a perception that Chandrachud’s commitment to dissent was inconsistent.
The Ayodhya judgment added further complexity to his legacy. Chandrachud is believed to have authored this judgment, which awarded the disputed site to Hindus while providing Muslims with five acres elsewhere. His recent comment about seeking divine guidance for the judgment left some liberals disillusioned. Former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Govind Mathur observed that while some of Chandrachud’s judgments are progressive, others seem only partially committed to the paths they embark on. He remarked that
“even a legally sound brain will not be able to place the legal stream of his thoughts in a definite frame.”
Another contentious moment during his term came when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Chandrachud’s residence for Ganapati Puja, sparking criticism for the optics and concerns of judicial autonomy. Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya noted, “The prime minister can go anywhere. The question is whether the CJI should have allowed his photograph with the PM to become internationally viral,” expressing that such moments may impact public perception of judicial independence.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Turn in the Spotlight
As Justice Sanjiv Khanna steps into his new role on November 11, many anticipate that his tenure, although brief, will reflect the integrity that defined his uncle’s career. Known for his low profile and strict courtroom demeanor, Khanna is respected as a no-nonsense judge. During his Supreme Court career, he has delivered significant judgments on freedom of speech and Article 21. For instance, he declined to quash an FIR against a journalist, asserting that freedom of speech cannot override the right to life.
Read Also: Legacy or Vanity? Justice Chandrachud’s Quest Sparks Debate on Judiciary’s Role
Among his notable dissents, Justice Khanna questioned the legality of the Central Vista project, asserting the government had not shown enough transparency or consideration for public objections. As CJI, Khanna’s docket will include high-profile cases on marital rape, the constitutionality of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and retrospective e-gaming taxation. His concerns about making courts citizen-friendly and reducing litigation costs signal that his focus will likely be on creating practical improvements.
Reflecting on the two CJIs, Bhattacharyya commented,
“Justice Khanna is a person of unimpeachable integrity. I am confident that he will rise to the occasion and restore the past glory of the institution.”
Many hope Khanna’s tenure will rekindle a more traditional approach, prioritizing judicial independence over any appearance of government alignment.
Chandrachud and Khanna: A Shared Legacy Rooted in History
As these two CJIs with interconnected judicial histories take center stage, they are poised to leave distinct imprints on the Supreme Court. Chandrachud’s tenure, though controversial in some respects, undeniably introduced significant reforms and modernized the judiciary, leaving a mixed but impactful legacy. With Khanna’s more restrained style and commitment to integrity, many are optimistic about a return to the core principles of judicial independence, grounded in his uncle’s fearless legacy.
Both Chandrachud and Khanna’s tenures reflect the complex landscape of India’s judiciary today, where the balance between reform, independence, and public perception continues to shape the nation’s highest court.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES