CJI Chandrachud previously shared his reflections on his legacy, a sentiment that Justice Chavan and other panelists viewed differently. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran praised the CJI’s judgment-writing style, though he found certain decisions, like in the Ayodhya case, perplexing.
NEW DELHI: At a discussion organized by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy to evaluate CJI DY Chandrachud’s legacy, retired Bombay High Court judge Justice RC Chavan criticized the outgoing CJI for expressing concern over how history will judge his tenure.
Justice Chavan stated that a judge should focus on delivering judgments impartially, without being influenced by public opinion or concerns over personal legacy.
“Judges should not be burdened by thoughts about public perception,” Justice Chavan said. He described CJI Chandrachud’s remark as “unbecoming of such an erudite person,” emphasizing that judges should prioritize their duty over external validation. Public trust, he argued, does not mean “playing to the gallery.”
CJI Chandrachud had previously shared his reflections on his legacy, a sentiment that Justice Chavan and other panelists viewed differently. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran praised the CJI’s judgment-writing style, though he found certain decisions, like in the Ayodhya case, perplexing.
Justice Chavan acknowledged that from his time on the Bombay High Court, Chandrachud was seen as a future CJI, noting his caution on issues like homosexuality and privacy, which he later addressed more openly as CJI.
Justice Chavan likened the CJI’s final efforts to a cricketer attempting too much in the last overs, resulting in some incomplete administrative reforms. Human rights lawyer Maja Daruwala pointed out that despite Chandrachud’s aspirations, concrete improvements were limited, adding that he could not rely on imperfections as excuses.
Vidhi’s Arghya Sengupta noted that the younger bar’s expectations may have weighed on him, yet predicted that history would ultimately view CJI Chandrachud’s tenure favorably.
Responding to a question on livestreaming court proceedings, Justice Chavan opined it was introduced hastily. He cautioned that live broadcasting requires careful preparation and training for judges to maintain decorum, comparing cameras to microphones as a “temptation” that could disrupt court proceedings.
