Today, On 19th October, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that the Supreme Court should not function as an opposition to the Parliament, but rather uphold its role as the people’s court. He highlighted the importance of preserving the judiciary’s independence while maintaining a balance with the legislative and executive branches. The CJI stressed that the court’s duty is to protect citizens’ rights and ensure justice, not to engage in political matters.
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud emphasized on Saturday that the Supreme Court’s role as a people’s court must be safeguarded for the future, but clarified that this does not mean it should act as an Opposition in Parliament.
Speaking at the first Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) Conference in South Goa, he remarked,
“One can critique the court for inconsistencies in legal doctrine or errors, but its role should not be judged solely by outcomes.”
Read Also: “We’re Not Just Adding Space, But Expanding to Deliver Timely Justice”: CJI DY Chandrachu
He further stressed,
“The access to justice paradigm developed by the Supreme Court over the last 75 years is something we must not lose sight of.”
Chandrachud also highlighted that, unlike courts focused on major cases,
“Ours is a people’s court, and this role must be preserved.”
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud clarified,
“Being a people’s court does not mean we take on the role of the opposition in Parliament.”
Speaking further, he said,
“Especially in today’s times, there’s a divide where the Supreme Court is praised when decisions favor someone, but denigrated when they don’t. That’s a dangerous mindset. You can’t judge the Supreme Court’s role solely based on outcomes. Decisions may go for or against you, but judges have the independence to decide each case on its merits.”
He added that criticism of the court for inconsistencies or errors in legal doctrine is valid, stating,
“Judges don’t have a problem with that. The issue arises when people criticize the court simply because the outcome is unfavourable to them.”
CJI D Y Chandrachud emphasized,
“As a legal profession, we need the common sense to understand that judges are entitled to decide cases on a case-by-case basis, applying legal doctrine to the specific facts of each situation.”
Discussing the Supreme Court’s initiatives, he highlighted advancements in technology, such as e-filing, digitization of case records, and the use of speech-to-text conversion for constitutional bench arguments, as well as live-streaming of court proceedings.
He remarked,
“Live-streaming has been a game-changer, despite some downsides,”
Referring to recent events, he noted,
“We’ve seen lawyers speaking to the gallery, but now proceedings are no longer confined to 30 or 50 lawyers in a courtroom—it reaches 20 million people at the click of a button.”
He further added,
“I believe live-streaming has brought the work of the Supreme Court into people’s homes and hearts. There was a perception that the Court only dealt with cases involving the rich and powerful.”
The Chief Justice of India stated,
“It is very easy to make allegations against the Supreme Court because citizens, being outside the system, have no way of cross-checking what we do. However, live-streaming has changed that. Now, people can see that the Supreme Court gives serious attention to even the smallest issues—whether it’s a minor bail application for someone who has been in custody for two years under laws like PMLA or NDPS, or matters concerning pension dues or service retirement benefits. These ordinary problems of citizens are taken with utmost seriousness.”