Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan harshly criticized former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, calling his justification for key judgments “bullshit” and accusing him of aligning with the Modi government instead of upholding judicial independence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a scathing interview with Kapil Sibal, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, in a sharp interview, criticized former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, accusing him of having an excessive love for publicity.
He did not hold back, calling out Chandrachud for making statements that, according to him, do not align with judicial integrity.
“Former CJI Chandrachud said he got divine inspiration in Babri Masjid matter but it’s rather Sangh Pariwar & Modi inspiration,”
-Rajeev Dhavan stated.
He dismissed Chandrachud’s justification for his decisions, saying,
“Chandrachud’s explanation to media is bullshit.”
Dhavan has previously criticized Justice Chandrachud’s judgments and actions, arguing that he prioritizes building a “personal legacy” rather than maintaining judicial neutrality.
According to Dhavan, Chandrachud has often crossed lines that should keep the judiciary independent from political influence.
One major example Dhavan pointed out was a widely circulated photo of CJI Chandrachud and Prime Minister Narendra Modi praying together.
Dhavan found this highly unusual and remarked:
“Justice Chandrachud now wants to explain this in terms of the relationship between prime ministers or chief ministers and judges, which I hope will not become a norm for the future.”
He warned that such actions, combined with frequent media appearances, could blur the line between judicial conduct and political narratives.
Dhavan was particularly critical of Chandrachud’s stance on significant cases, especially his claim of “divine intervention” in the Babri Masjid judgment.
This statement unsettled many legal experts. Rejecting the idea that spiritual elements should influence legal decisions, Dhavan firmly stated,
“Deities do not decide cases in any court in India.”
The Babri Masjid judgment remains one of the most controversial verdicts in Indian history. Dhavan believes that the court’s ruling failed to deliver true justice.
He pointed out:
“The recompense for these crimes, in the eyes of the bench, is five acres,”
suggesting that the decision lacked proper accountability for past events.
Beyond case rulings, Dhavan also criticized Chandrachud for altering judicial traditions. He took issue with the installation of a statue of Lady Justice in the Supreme Court Bar Library without a blindfold, a feature that traditionally symbolizes impartiality in justice.
Dhavan questioned whether this change signified a break from universal judicial principles, asking:
“Should the other high courts which follow the original, universal version now bow to this legacy?”
He also scrutinized Chandrachud’s approach to politically sensitive cases, particularly the Jammu and Kashmir decision. According to Dhavan, the former CJI sided with the government rather than protecting India’s federal structure. Additionally, he linked this tendency to the court’s approval of electoral bonds, which many critics believe undermined financial transparency in Indian politics.
Dhavan argued that judgments were favoring the Modi government’s political interests and warned that this could compromise the judiciary’s independence.
“Judgments upholding the Modi government’s electoral agenda”
could, in his view, erode trust in the judiciary and weaken democracy.
While acknowledging that Chandrachud worked hard and made important contributions to legal discussions, Dhavan believed that his judicial independence faltered when he had to challenge the government. He asserted:
“When it came to opposing the Sangh Parivar government, his independence weakened. This is not a good legacy for an outgoing CJI.”
Dhavan’s criticism aligns with concerns raised by journalists like N. Ram, who have highlighted the need for media scrutiny of judicial decisions. According to Dhavan, the Indian judiciary must be held accountable, especially when personal image and publicity threaten to overshadow fairness. He strongly believes that judges should prioritize justice over personal reputation, emphasizing:
“Pulling down thy vanity.”
For Dhavan, ensuring that the judiciary remains impartial and free from political influence is essential to maintaining India’s democratic values.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
