Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned whether a single party should have the authority to decide which cases the Supreme Court hears. His remarks came in response to allegations by the UBT Sena about selective case hearings. He emphasized the judiciary’s independence and the need for impartiality in its functioning.
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud addressed allegations from the Shiv Sena (UBT), which sought to blame him for the poor performance of the Opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in the recent Maharashtra Assembly elections.
Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut claimed that Justice Chandrachud’s failure to decide on petitions regarding the disqualification of MLAs created an environment that enabled political defections, contributing to the MVA’s defeat.
Raut remarked at a press conference following the election results that “history will not forgive them.”
In the November 20 elections, the Sena (UBT) secured only 20 out of the 94 seats it contested within the MVA alliance, while its allies fared similarly poorly, Congress won 16 of 101 seats, and the NCP (Sharad Pawar) gained only 10 of 86 seats.
In an exclusive interview with , Justice Chandrachud responded to the criticism, stating,
“My answer is very simple… Throughout this year, we were dealing with seminal constitutional cases… Now, should any one party or individual decide what case the Supreme Court should hear? Sorry, that choice is for the Chief Justice.”
Following a split in the Shiv Sena due to a rebellion led by Eknath Shinde in 2022, the previous MVA government, which was headed by Uddhav Thackeray, fell. Thackeray subsequently filed petitions in the Supreme Court regarding the disqualification of MLAs who had defected.
The Supreme Court instructed Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar to resolve the disqualification petitions.
Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the Supreme Court has been managing significant cases, some of which have been pending for two decades.
He noted,
“You point out to us that we are not working even for a minute… Important constitutional cases are pending before the Supreme Court for 20 years. Why is the Supreme Court not taking up these 20-year-old cases?”
Regarding the Sena UBT’s claims about delays in their case, he remarked,
“The real problem is that a given segment of the polity feels that, well, you’re independent if you follow my agenda… We decided electoral bonds. Was that any less important?”
He defended the Court’s decisions during his tenure, mentioning cases related to disability rights, federal structure, and crucial constitutional issues, asserting that all cases decided were significant.
Chandrachud concluded by stating,
“We have refused to be dictated by any third party on which cases to decide… There’s going to be a backlash when you take cudgels for the system, for the ordinary Indian.”
When asked about political pressure from the ruling party on the Supreme Court, he denied such claims, noting the lengthy delays in high-profile cases like Article 370 and Ayodhya.
Justice Chandrachud retired on November 10 after completing his two-year term as Chief Justice of India.