Chief Justice Dr DY Chandrachud emphasized the judiciary’s role in selectively addressing societal disputes, distinguishing between its jurisdiction and that of other societal wings. He also clarified that while judges must consider the political implications of their decisions, he has not encountered direct governmental pressure during his tenure.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud, recently addressed the Oxford Union, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the limits of judicial intervention in societal disputes. Highlighting the necessity for judges to delineate the boundaries of their jurisdiction, he stated-
“We cannot expect the courts to address every dispute that arises in society. As judges, it’s crucial that we delineate what falls under our jurisdiction and what rightly belongs to other societal realms, such as Civil Society.”
During the Q&A session, Chief Justice Chandrachud was questioned about the perceived political pressure on the judiciary, particularly in recent years.
He clarified his stance by saying-
“In my 24 years as a judge, I can confidently state that I have never encountered political pressure from government authorities.”
He elaborated further-
“If by ‘political pressure’ you mean the broader awareness judges must have of the potential political consequences of their decisions, especially in constitutional cases, then yes, judges must consider the broader societal implications of their rulings. This isn’t political pressure per se, but rather a recognition of the impact their decisions can have on the larger polity.”
The conversation then steered towards the landmark same-sex marriage judgment delivered by the Supreme Court.
The interviewer brought up the issue, stating-
“You raise a crucial point about the separation of powers and the distinct roles of the Legislature and Judiciary. Regarding the recent ruling on the Special Marriage Act, the rationale for deferring the legislation of same-sex marriage to the legislature was based on the principle that the Judiciary cannot engage in legislation. However, do you think this principle aligns with the Judiciary’s responsibility to humanize the law?”
In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud affirmed-
“The Judiciary has a duty to humanize the law. However, in doing so, it must respect the law unless it decides to strike it down. In India, governed by constitutional principles of judicial review, the court not only interprets the law but also has the authority, in specific cases, to nullify it.”
The interviewer described the judgment as ‘very infamous,’ prompting Chief Justice Chandrachud to share his perspective.
“You refer to the Judgment in the Special Marriage Act case as infamous. However, I would like to clarify the underlying issue. As a judge, I believe that once a judgment is delivered, it becomes the concern not only of the nation but of global humanity. Therefore, it is up to others to critique the Judgment.”
-he said.
Expanding on the rationale behind the judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud explained-
“We believed that challenging the law would create a situation where there would be no legal framework for couples of different faiths to marry, as the Special Marriage Act allows. The law specifically uses the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Can the court reinterpret these terms to include ‘man and man’ or ‘woman and woman’? We determined that this was not feasible at the time.”
In a recent address, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud underscored the critical role of Parliament in legislating marriage laws, particularly in the context of the Special Marriage Act and the ongoing discussions about same-sex unions. He emphasized that the Act, a parliamentary enactment, was designed to facilitate marriages between individuals of different religious faiths, explicitly using the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, thus inherently defining marriage as a heterosexual institution.
ALSO READ:CJI States “More Efforts Needed for Gender Representation in Legal Profession”
Highlighting the legislative framework, the Chief Justice stated-
“The law explicitly used the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, clearly indicating it envisioned marriages within heterosexual relationships.”
He further elaborated that the domain of marriage is comprehensively governed by legislation in India, a responsibility entrusted to Parliament.
Reflecting on a recent judicial decision, the CJI remarked-
“I must also mention that I was in the minority on a specific aspect of that case. I believed that the court should recognize at least the right to form civil unions for same-sex couples until Parliament intervened and legislated on the matter.”
He revealed a divergence in judicial opinions, noting-
“Three of my colleagues disagreed with us. They believed that even recognizing same-sex unions was outside the court’s purview.”
He elaborated on the judiciary’s role in modern democracies, emphasizing that court decisions are part of an ongoing dialogue with both litigating parties and broader civil society. This, he explained, is one reason behind the decision to livestream important constitutional cases.
“In modern democracies, the role of courts extends beyond the substantive outcomes of cases. Courts engage in a continuous dialogue, not only with the parties involved but also with broader civil society. This is why we have chosen to livestream our significant constitutional cases. As Chief Justice of India, I firmly believe in bringing the processes of justice and law administration directly into the homes and hearts of the people.”
– he said.
Reflecting on societal progress, CJI Chandrachud expressed optimism that the decriminalization of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India (2018 SC) had led to broader acceptance of such relationships. However, he cautioned against over-reliance on the judiciary to resolve societal issues, emphasizing the role of society and other democratic institutions.
“In a modern democracy, much responsibility falls on society itself and on other branches of government. People cannot rely solely on the courts to resolve every issue.”
-he asserted.
Addressing a question about the cooperation needed between the legislature and civil society for humanizing laws, the CJI referenced the constitutional powers under Articles 32 and 226, which grant the judiciary the authority to enforce fundamental rights. He pointed out that legal reforms do not always fall within the judiciary’s purview.
“…the reform of law does not always fall within the court’s domain, and that’s something we must acknowledge. Often, legislative bodies need to intervene in certain areas of law reform, as we emphasized in the same-sex marriage equality case.”
– the CJI explained.
Chief Justice Chandrachud also highlighted the valuable role of the Legislature in humanizing the law, acknowledging that legislative bodies across different jurisdictions and civilizations have historically played a pivotal role in this endeavor.
“The Legislature plays a crucial role in humanizing the law, and legislatures across different jurisdictions and civilizations have made efforts in this direction.”
-he noted.