Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud defended judiciary-executive meetings, stressing “we must have the maturity to understand that it has no bearing on judicial work.” Addressing recent criticisms, he explained that these interactions focus on administrative matters, not judicial influence. CJI emphasized, “the work of all three arms is dedicated to one and the same goal — the betterment of the nation.”
Mumbai: In a recent discussion with Loksatta’s Chief Editor, Girish Kuber, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud addressed concerns over the interactions between members of the judiciary and high-ranking executive officials. CJI Chandrachud clarified that such interactions have no influence on judicial decisions, underscoring that these meetings are part of India’s governance and administrative norms rather than judicial influence.
In response to the controversy that followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the CJI’s residence for Ganpati Puja last month, CJI Chandrachud emphasized,
“we must have the maturity to understand that it has no bearing on judicial work.”
This statement came amidst criticisms from opposition parties, retired judges, and prominent lawyers who raised questions about the judiciary’s independence after the meeting.
Reflecting on the tradition of judiciary-executive interactions, CJI Chandrachud elaborated that meetings between high-ranking judicial and political figures occur not only at national festivals like Republic Day and Independence Day but also in various administrative settings.
“In states, there is a tradition that there are regular meetings between the Chief Justice of the state and the CM,”
he explained, referencing his experiences as Chief Justice in the Allahabad and Bombay High Courts.
CJI Chandrachud stressed that such meetings serve administrative needs rather than judicial influence. “You never meet for a decision (judicial),” he explained, indicating that meetings primarily focus on logistics and infrastructure. For instance, judicial infrastructure budgets and approvals for courthouse construction and judge accommodations depend on governmental cooperation. To facilitate these necessities, “you need a meeting of the Chief Justice and the CM,” he noted.
Discussing the practical side of these interactions, CJI Chandrachud acknowledged,
“There is a great deal of maturity in the political system.”
He highlighted the respect shown to the judiciary, even among politicians, who refrain from discussing pending cases. “Never did the CM say that or talk about a pending case,” he added, clarifying that both judiciary and executive officials recognize their distinct roles within governance.
The CJI’s remarks also addressed the structural relationship between the judiciary and the government. At the state level, there exists an administrative relationship between high courts and state governments, while a similar framework operates between the Supreme Court and the central government. However,
“we must have the maturity to understand that it has no bearing at all on judicial work,”
he reiterated.
In acknowledging meetings at personal events or during ceremonial occasions, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that these interactions are “part of robust dialogue between the three arms of the government — legislature, executive and judiciary.” He stressed that such engagements should not be misconstrued as judicial interference or compromise on judicial independence.
“We have to understand that the work of all the three arms is dedicated to one and the same goal — the betterment of the nation,”
he explained.
CJI Chandrachud argued that maintaining open lines of communication among the judiciary, executive, and legislature is essential for governance.
“So long as we trust this process, I think, we must accept that there has to be a continuing dialogue,”
he stated, emphasizing that this dialogue does not affect the judiciary’s work.
“Not in terms of the work which we do as judges… because in the work which we do as judges, we are completely independent,”
he concluded, underscoring the judiciary’s autonomy and impartiality.
This perspective from CJI Chandrachud serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and its essential role in India’s democracy. By addressing the significance of administrative cooperation while preserving judicial independence, he advocates for a balance that upholds both public trust and functional governance.
The judiciary’s independence remains intact, as CJI Chandrachud emphasized, and interactions with the executive should be understood as integral to India’s democratic framework, not a compromise of judicial ethics. This approach, he suggested, reflects the maturity needed to respect both governance norms and the judiciary’s distinct role.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES