Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, at the Oxford Union Society, emphasized that elections are fundamental to democracy but judges in India are not elected to maintain constitutional continuity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, recently delivered a compelling address at the Oxford Union Society, where he explored the foundational principles of constitutional democracy and the nuanced role of the judiciary in India. In his address, Chandrachud emphasized the intrinsic value of elections to democracy and highlighted the unique position of Indian judges, who are not elected but appointed.
Chandrachud elaborated on the judiciary’s role, stating-
“Elections are the cornerstone of constitutional democracy, but in India, judges are not elected. This ensures that judges represent the continuity of circumstances and uphold constitutional values.”
This statement emphasizes the judiciary’s role in maintaining the continuity and integrity of constitutional values, devoid of the direct influence of electoral politics.
Further discussing the relationship between the judiciary and politics, the Chief Justice remarked-
“We live relatively isolated lives from the political party of the government, but judges should be aware of the political impact of their decisions. This is not political pressure, but an understanding of the potential consequences of a court’s decision.”
This insight provides a glimpse into the delicate balance that judges must maintain between judicial independence and the socio-political ramifications of their rulings.
On the topic of gay marriage, which has been a subject of significant legal and social discussion in India, Chief Justice Chandrachud shared his perspective without advocating for any specific judicial outcome.
ALSO READ: CJI Inaugurates “Accessibility Help Desk” Making Supreme Court Accessible For All
He said-
“I am not defending the verdict here because, as a judge, I believe that once a verdict is delivered, it belongs not only to the country but to global humanity.”
This statement reflects the broader impact and acceptance that judicial decisions can have, extending beyond national borders.
The Chief Justice also touched upon the legislative framework governing marriage in India, referring to the Special Marriage Act, which traditionally recognizes heterosexual relationships.
He highlighted a divergence in judicial opinion within the Supreme Court, revealing-
“My three colleagues disagreed with us. They believed that recognizing gay marriage is beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”
This disclosure not only sheds light on the internal debates within the highest court but also on the complexities involved in judicial interpretations of existing laws.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also addressed the burgeoning role of artificial intelligence (AI) within the legal framework, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to technology adoption. During a comprehensive discussion on the intersection of technology and law, Justice Chandrachud shared his insights on the dual nature of AI’s impact on the judicial system.
Speaking on technology and AI, DY Chandrachud said that-
“It is important to understand and weigh the pros and cons of using technology to ensure a humane justice system. Artificial intelligence offers limitless possibilities for the future, but we must implement security measures to control AI and ensure that the communication process does not shift from the judge to the robot.”
His comments highlight the potential and the pitfalls of integrating AI into judicial processes.
In his speech, Chief Justice Chandrachud also addressed the broader responsibilities of modern democracies and the judiciary’s role within them. He pointed out the necessity for judicial restraint and the importance of distinguishing the roles of different societal sectors.
ALSO READ: J20 Summit in Brazil: CJI Used AirCraft Internet To Pronounce Judgement
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said-
‘I believe that in modern democracy, society must address many issues independently. The court cannot solve every issue or dispute in society. As judges, we must draw a line and determine what legitimately falls within our jurisdiction and what belongs to other societal organs, including civil society.”
This reflects his vision of a judiciary that respects the boundaries of its authority while acknowledging the vital role of civil society in addressing societal issues.