In a recent exclusive interview, outgoing Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized the importance of curbing hate speech while safeguarding free expression. He defended India’s reservation system as an effective tool for achieving substantive equality and stressed the judiciary’s essential role in supporting democracy.
New Delhi: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted the growing concern of hate speech, noting its intensified impact with the rise of social media, as “hurtful comments have far-reaching consequences on the psyche and emotional well-being of people.”
However, he cautioned that regulating hate speech should not “chill free speech.” Reflecting on his eight and a half years in the Supreme Court, including his tenure as Chief Justice, Justice Chandrachud remarked in an exclusive interview that he believed he had “left the system better than I found it.”
He cited his judgments on disability rights, right to information, economic federalism, and the doctrine of equal opportunity concerning sex and caste discrimination as key contributions.
When asked if reservations should continue indefinitely, outgoing Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud affirmed that quotas as affirmative action have indeed advanced substantive equality.
He remarked,
“That is a model of equality that is tried and tested, and has worked in India,”
Addressing the idea that judicial work involves ‘service,’
Justice Chandrachud disagreed, stating,
“A judge, while discharging her functions, is not doing any service. Judges are doing a job just like everybody else. They are two different issues and must not be mixed.”
He emphasized that judges should receive compensation that reflects their workload and contributions.
Many lawyers regard Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud as the “Rockstar” of the judiciary. After a distinguished 25-year career, with eight years in the Supreme Court, his tenure concluded on Sunday. Reflecting on his journey, Justice Chandrachud spoke on a wide array of topics, including democracy, hate speech, reservations, executive-judiciary relations, and judges’ compensation.
He remarked,
“I don’t think I can speak of my experience as a judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India without a reference to 13 years as a judge of the Bombay High Court and three years as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court,”
He credited much of his judicial philosophy to these years, learning judicial craftsmanship in Bombay High Court under Justices Sujata V. Manohar and P.D. Desai and mastering judicial administration at the Allahabad High Court, with its complex structure and largest sanctioned strength of 160 judges.
Adding that his role taught him the nuances of leadership, human emotions, and judicial administration, he observed,
“As the Chief Justice, you are not a ‘leader’ in the traditional sense. You are the first among equals,”
Reflecting on his transition to the Supreme Court, he called the shift “humbling,” as he returned to focusing exclusively on the judicial dimension.
He stated,
“I had the opportunity to lay down the jurisprudence on disability rights, expand the equal opportunity doctrine in the context of sex and caste discrimination, limit sealed cover jurisprudence to exceptional situations, strengthen the right to information, and refine economic federalism,”
He retires with “a sense of satisfaction,” confident he has “left the system better than I found it” by advancing frameworks that reduce ad-hoc decision-making in judicial processes.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that democracy lacks a uniform checklist and that each country shapes its democratic principles to address its unique challenges.
He explained,
“The premise of democratic functioning in India, where we are faced with our own unique problems, is different from the premise of democracy in other countries,”
Adding that democracy in India extends beyond politics. It encompasses “social democracy,” which includes addressing discrimination and fostering substantive equality of opportunity.
On the role of institutions in democracy, he emphasized,
“Institutions are created and conferred with power to ensure that the premises of democracy are not abrogated.”
He described courts as “‘specially abled’ democratic institutions” designed to prevent the capture of other democratic institutions, thereby guarding against democratic decay. Courts, therefore, play a key role in matters ranging from election processes to issues like reservation policies, arrests, and even bail applications, all of which touch on India’s constitutional vision of democracy.
An advocate for freedom of speech, Justice Chandrachud affirmed that this right is “subject to reasonable restrictions,” while stressing that such restrictions should not reduce it to “a mere paper right.” He voiced concern over the growing impact of hate speech on social media, where “keyboard warriors” use freedom of speech for attention, causing harm to people’s mental and emotional well-being.
He warned, to avoid chilling free speech, highlighting the need for proportional responses to hate speech,
“The method opted by the state must be covered within the fold of the restrictions,”
Addressing reservations, he clarified a common misconception, stating,
“The statement that reservations for SCs and STs were to last for 10 years is factually inaccurate.”
Article 334 of the Constitution initially set a time limit only for reservations in the legislature, not for education or services, and it has been amended to extend this limit. He defended reservations as a proven means to promote “substantive equality,” noting, “That is a model of equality that is tried and tested, and has worked in India.”
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud responded to questions about the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) model versus the collegium system, explaining,
“The court does not sit in judgment on whether a model of appointment is better than the other but only on whether it is constitutionally sound.”
The Supreme Court ultimately found the NJAC model constitutionally unsound. Within the existing system, however, Justice Chandrachud emphasized his efforts to improve transparency, setting clear criteria based on (i) merit, performance, and integrity; (ii) diversity and inclusion; and (iii) representation.
On the topic of extending the retirement age for judges, he expressed neutrality, highlighting both sides. Pointing to senior lawyers who excel in their 70s. However, he also recognized the need for turnover to provide opportunities to younger generations, calling for a balance between experience and adaptability he noted,
“If you ask me whether our brain becomes ‘slower’ at the ages of 62 and 65… I would say no,”
Justice Chandrachud advocates for salaries that reflect the responsibilities of judicial roles.
He stated,
“Any service must provide competitive salaries to attract talent,”
He cited his adjustment of judicial law clerks’ salaries from Rs.65,000 to Rs.80,000, increasing it to Rs.90,000 in the second year, making clerkship highly sought after.
The same principle, he argued, should apply to judges,
“A judge, while discharging her functions, is not doing any service. The minute that is the perception, then any decision of the judge will be viewed not as a discharge of her constitutional function but as an outcome of ‘graciousness’… They are doing a job just like everybody else.”
When asked if he had ever been approached by the executive for a favorable order, he firmly replied,
“No, I have never been approached by the executive seeking a favourable order.”
Discussing public interest litigations (PILs), Justice Chandrachud defended their value.
Allowing those not directly affected to raise issues of public concern, he explained,
“The core principle of public interest litigation is that it dilutes the traditional rule of locus standi,”
He cited landmark cases, like the Vishaka judgment on workplace harassment and the recent Sukanya Shantha ruling on caste discrimination in prisons, as significant examples. While acknowledging that frivolous PILs add to the court’s workload, he remarked that the rise of certain lawyers through PILs is simply “a natural consequence of diluting the principle of locus standi.”