Former CJI DY Chandrachud firmly dismissed allegations of bias in assigning bail cases to Justice Bela Trivedi, calling them unsubstantiated. He stressed that facts prove otherwise, as case allocation in the Supreme Court is done randomly by computer.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed allegations that he intentionally assigned bail cases to Justice Bela Trivedi, who is perceived as less inclined to grant relief.
Speaking at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai, Chandrachud described such claims as “unsubstantiated” and contrary to court records. He clarified that cases in the Supreme Court are randomly allocated by a computer.
He stated,
“It’s very well to make these unsubstantiated allegations but facts are to the contrary,”
He added,
“When I was Chief Justice of India and I said we prioritise bail in the two years that I was the Chief Justice of India, we granted bail in 21,000 cases. Over 21,000 individual citizens of India got bail.”
Chandrachud emphasized that “every single individual who deserved bail got bail” during his tenure.
He referenced the case of Congress leader Pawan Khera, who was arrested in February 2023 by the Assam Police at the Delhi airport while on his way to Raipur for a Congress plenary session. Khera faced multiple FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and Assam due to remarks he made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a press briefing related to the Adani-Hindenburg controversy.
The Supreme Court intervened, granting him interim bail the same day and later extending his protection from arrest.
On the overarching principles regarding bail, Chandrachud reiterated that “ordinarily bail should be the rule, jail should be the exception.”
He noted that judges need to balance individual liberty with societal concerns,
“Just as individual personal liberty is involved in the grant or refusal of bail, equally there is a societal element in prosecuting crime… you don’t want our streets, you don’t want our communities to be unsafe for individuals.”
He acknowledged the complexity of a judge’s role in making these decisions case by case.
While recognizing the citizens’ right to critique, he warned against misrepresenting the judicial system,
“We are free citizens of a free nation, you are entitled to your freedom of speech and expression, but let’s not tarnish the system on the basis of unsubstantiated facts.”
Addressing recent comments by economist Sanjeev Sanyal, who claimed that the judiciary obstructs the ambition of a Viksit Bharat, Chandrachud acknowledged that delays exist but stressed they are not solely the fault of the courts.
Adding that investors seek “certainty, transparency and objectivity.”
He remarked,
“Expedition’s disposal of cases is the key to the preservation of the rule of law,”
He pointed out that bottlenecks primarily arise from inadequate infrastructure, with the government being the “largest litigant,” along with the continuous introduction of new laws.
Also Read: Woman’s Gotra Changes When She Marries: Supreme Court On Widow’s Property Rights
He cited the surge of cheque dishonor cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as an example, asserting,
“We need to build the infrastructure of the Indian judiciary. Also, create conditions by virtue of which the truly meritorious people… get appointed to the courts.”
Furthermore, he rebutted criticism regarding judges’ vacations, stating,
“You ask any judge of the Supreme Court, what do they do during the vacations? They’re not vacationing. You need the vacation to prepare judgments.”
He elaborated that many significant rulings are crafted during these breaks.
Noting that lawyers also depend on these intervals to reconnect with their districts, he remarked,
“Judging is not just a question of disposing of cases, but of reflection, of thought,”
Regarding Trolling
Chandrachud acknowledged,
“Good people don’t want to get into (judiciary) this anymore due to intense social media scrutiny and trolling.”
He observed that while there is an increase in women entering the district judiciary through examinations, there is a growing hesitation among lawyers to accept judgeships in higher courts.
D.Y. Chandrachud said,
“The real problem which many people face is the intense social media scrutiny, the intense trolling which takes place against judges by certain segments of the polity which want to bend the independence of the court in order to secure outcomes which are favourable. Good people don’t want to get into this anymore,”
About PM’s Ganpati Visit
Chandrachud defended the puja he performed and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at the Ganesh Puja at his home last year.
He stated,
“I make no bones of the fact that I’m a devout Hindu, that I’m committed to my faith,”
But emphasized that “justice must remain even-handed among communities.”
He added that courtesies between constitutional functionaries should not be interpreted as a compromise of judicial independence.
He stated,
“The ultimate test is this: How is that person performing as a judge?”
Concerning the Ayodhya Judgment
Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud responded to criticisms suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decisions on politically sensitive cases, such as the Ayodhya title dispute, were politically driven.
He challenged the social media narrative that equates judicial independence with ruling “against the government.”
He cited numerous instances where the judiciary acted against government interests, including striking down electoral bonds for their “lack of transparency” and decisions regarding the National Capital Territory.
Regarding the Ayodhya judgment, he clarified that the court’s decision was based on “well-settled principles of adverse possession” rather than faith.
He said,
“The problem is most people who attack us don’t have the time, the patience or the inclination to read a 1,045-page judgment,”
Regarding Equality in the Judicial System
In response to concerns about unequal justice, where some voices seem to be prioritized, Chandrachud provided a counter-example.
He shared a case where the Supreme Court intervened to free a poor Muslim man who had been sentenced to 18 years for electricity theft, a conviction he hadn’t contested due to his financial situation.
He stated,
“Even though this is a solitary voice challenging the imposition of a sentence… this person must have a voice in the system,”
He also referenced his own judgment in the bulldozer demolitions case, asserting that the government must adhere to due process before demolishing homes.
Chandrachud also addressed personal controversies, including the criticism he received for overstaying at the Chief Justice’s bungalow after his retirement. He explained that he required a few extra months to find suitable housing for his two adopted daughters, who have special needs and use wheelchairs.
He highlighted that cities like Delhi lack homes equipped with ramps and wide doors, making it challenging for individuals with disabilities.
D.Y. Chandrachud said,
“But surely, I do expect that after 25 years of having served the nation, two months, particularly when neither of my successors were going to occupy the home of the Chief Justice of India, this is not too much to ask (for a two-month extension on bungalow stay),”
Reflecting on his career, Chandrachud expressed that the ruling allowing women’s permanent commission in the armed forces holds special significance for him.
D.Y. Chandrachud said,
“When I find a woman as a fighter pilot on our Rafale jets or a woman on a warship on high seas defending India, I feel that’s what my deed has done for the nation,”