Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud “If by political pressure you mean pressure from the government, I can tell you that in my 24 years as a judge, I have never felt any political pressure from those in power. This is because, in India, our democratic traditions ensure that we live lives relatively isolated from the political arm of the government.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud stated that he has never faced political pressure from any Government during his 24-year tenure as a judge.
Speaking at an Oxford Union Society event at the University of Oxford, he clarified that while he has never experienced direct pressure from the Government, judges do encounter political pressure in a broader sense when deciding politically sensitive cases.
He emphasized that judges must consider the political and societal impacts of their decisions without it being seen as political pressure. The Supreme Court judge made these remarks in response to a question during a discussion hosted by the Oxford Union Society at the University of Oxford in London.
CJI Chandrachud stated,
“If by political pressure you mean pressure from the government, I can tell you that in my 24 years as a judge, I have never felt any political pressure from those in power. This is because, in India, our democratic traditions ensure that we live lives relatively isolated from the political arm of the government.”
However, the CJI noted that judges do experience a different type of political pressure when ruling on politically sensitive cases. He explained,
“If you mean political pressure in the broader sense of a judge being aware of the political ramifications of a decision, judges obviously must understand the impact their decisions have on the larger polity. I don’t consider this political pressure. It is the court’s duty to factor in the potential impact of its decisions as part of the decision-making process.”
CJI Chandrachud also mentioned that courts frequently face social pressure.
“Many of the cases we handle have significant societal impacts, and I believe it is our duty as judges to be aware of how our decisions will affect the social groups involved,”
–he explained.
The CJI also highlighted that courts face social pressure, as many cases have significant societal implications. He believes that judges should be aware of how their decisions affect society.
During the Q&A session, CJI Chandrachud addressed a question about the rise of social media criticism of courts.
“In our courts today, every remark made by a judge is live-tweeted. This is something we cannot prevent. Naturally, we are sometimes on the receiving end of this. Sometimes the criticism is fair; sometimes it isn’t. I believe, as judges, we must have broad shoulders to accept the critique of our work,”
–he said.
He noted that “every citizen on social media is a journalist” and expressed surprise at times when social media posts attribute comments to the court that were never made.
Prior to the Q&A session, CJI Chandrachud delivered a speech on “Role of courts in humanising law,” discussing how courts can counteract the dehumanizing effects of legal processes through judicial review, focusing on individual freedoms and dignity.
However, he acknowledged that such issues are beyond control and expressed hope that the positive aspects of technology would prevail.
“Often, when I see comments on social media about things we never said, I think, ‘We never said this!’ But is this within our control, or are we living in a society where social media is beyond our control? I always believe that the powers of good prevail over evil. Despite the downsides of technology and sometimes unwarranted criticism of judges, technology allows us to reach out to people and convey the seriousness with which we address common citizens’ issues,”
–he said.
In response to a question about the Supreme Court’s decision to deny legal recognition of same-sex marriages, CJI Chandrachud commented that while he wasn’t defending the judgment, the court’s powers of judicial review have limits.
Addressing the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, CJI Chandrachud explained that while courts should humanize the law, they cannot override existing laws. He stated that recognizing same-sex marriages is a matter for Parliament to decide but suggested that courts should at least recognize civil unions for same-sex couples until legislative action is taken.
“It is the judiciary’s duty to humanize the law, but in doing so, we cannot disregard existing laws unless we strike them down. The Special Marriage Act envisions marriage as a heterosexual relationship. Can the courts then override this provision and interpret it as ‘man and man’ or ‘woman and woman’? We decided that we cannot. Furthermore, the domain of marriage is governed by legislation across communities in India. Therefore, the Supreme Court Bench felt that recognizing same-sex marriages is a matter for Parliament, which is responsible for law-making,”
–he explained.
He continued discussing how technological advancements have broadened public access to justice in India, through initiatives like Artificial Intelligence for translating court judgments, digitizing court records, introducing virtual hearings, and enhancing e-court services.
“Hybrid hearings have transformed the Supreme Court from being just a court in Delhi to a court for the whole nation. Now, lawyers from anywhere in the country can address us, and a litigant from even the most remote part of India can follow the proceedings in their case,”
–explained CJI Chandrachud.
Regarding social media criticism, CJI Chandrachud acknowledged that judges are subject to both fair and unfair critiques. He noted that social media has made every citizen a journalist, sometimes leading to misreported remarks.
Despite these challenges, he believes technology has overall positive impacts, such as enhancing public access to justice through virtual hearings and AI-driven translation of court judgments.
In this regard, he noted,
“I firmly believe that a legislative audit is necessary when new laws are passed to assess their impact on the current judicial infrastructure. Should these laws place additional demands on our judicial system, it is imperative that we enhance our existing judicial infrastructure to meet these demands.”
In response to a question about high case pendency, CJI Chandrachud pointed to the need for improved judicial infrastructure. He mentioned that legislative audits should assess the impact of new laws on judicial resources. Additionally, he highlighted efforts to address backlogs, such as filling judicial vacancies promptly and using technology to streamline case management.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
