The tenure of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has been a topic of significant debate. While some hail his contributions to the judiciary, others argue that his legacy is marred by controversial decisions and actions that have failed to uphold the principles of justice. This article critically examines various aspects of Chandrachud’s tenure as the Chief Justice of India.
Controversial Verdicts and Inaction
1. The Ram Mandir Verdict: An Unfinished Stand
Chandrachud co-authored the verdict on the Ram Mandir dispute, a landmark decision that paved the way for the construction of the temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. However, his decision not to sign the final judgment has raised questions about his commitment to the verdict. Critics argue that his hesitation showed a lack of courage to fully endorse a decision that had far-reaching social and political implications.
2. Electoral Bonds: Declared Illegal, But No Action Taken
Chandrachud played a role in declaring the controversial electoral bonds, used for anonymous political funding, illegal. Despite this, there was no follow-up to recover the money or hold anyone accountable. The inaction has led to concerns about the efficacy of the judiciary in addressing corruption and political transparency.
3. The Chandigarh Election Controversy
The CJI’s handling of the allegations against the Election Officer during the Chandigarh elections also came under scrutiny. Although the official was called out for allegedly criminal behavior, no concrete action followed. The failure to hold individuals accountable, even in cases where wrongdoing is identified, diminishes the public’s trust in the justice system.
Handling of Political and Constitutional Issues
4. Shinde-Fadnavis Government Verdict: Avoiding Responsibility?
The ruling declaring the Maharashtra government led by Shinde and Fadnavis illegal was another contentious issue. While the judgment called out the actions of the Governor as unconstitutional, it allowed the same government to continue for the remainder of its term. This decision was perceived by some as an attempt to dodge responsibility, leaving the fate of an “illegal” government to be decided by the political process rather than the judiciary.
5. Article 370: Legitimizing the Abrogation
Chandrachud’s stance on the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was met with criticism. The removal of Article 370 was carried out while the state’s legislative assembly was dissolved, and many viewed it as unconstitutional. The CJI’s decision to support the move, despite concerns over the legal and constitutional processes, further fueled the debate on judicial independence and the safeguarding of federal principles.
Handling High-Profile Cases: Justice Delayed?
6. Umar Khalid’s Incarceration
One of the most controversial aspects of Chandrachud’s tenure is the continued incarceration of activist Umar Khalid. Khalid, a student leader charged under stringent anti-terrorism laws, has repeatedly been denied bail despite numerous calls for his release. Many see this as a failure of the judiciary to uphold fundamental rights, as Khalid’s prolonged imprisonment appears politically motivated.
7. The Bhima Koregaon Case
Similarly, the CJI has been criticized for his handling of the Bhima Koregaon case, where several activists have been detained without substantial evidence. The case has been marked by allegations of fabricated evidence, yet the accused remain behind bars. The death of Father Stan Swamy, an elderly activist who was denied bail despite his deteriorating health, stands as a tragic example of what critics describe as judicial insensitivity under Chandrachud’s leadership.
8. Professor GN Saibaba’s Case
The ultimate death of Professor GN Saibaba, a disabled academic convicted under questionable circumstances, further raised eyebrows. Despite credible evidence suggesting that the case against him was fabricated, justice was not delivered in a timely manner. The handling of such cases suggests that the judiciary, under Chandrachud, has often failed to prioritize human rights.
Judicial Appointments and Independence
9. Constitutional Questions on Hindenburg Probe
The decision to allow an expert panel to probe allegations related to the Hindenburg report on Adani Enterprises, rather than involving Hindenburg Research itself as a party in the investigation, sparked a debate about judicial objectivity. The final report cleared Adani of wrongdoing, leading to suspicions that the judiciary may have succumbed to corporate influence.
Symbolic Acts vs. Substance
10. Unveiling the Statue of Lady Justice
Chandrachud unveiled a statue of Lady Justice with her eyes open, symbolizing transparency in the legal system. However, critics argue that this symbolic gesture contrasts sharply with his judicial record. Some see this as a mere act of window dressing, with the judiciary under his leadership failing to truly uphold justice in several significant cases.
11. Participation in Religious Ceremonies
Chandrachud’s participation in a private ceremony with the Prime Minister, performing a pooja (a Hindu ritual), was also viewed by some as compromising the secular stance expected of the judiciary. Such actions raise concerns about the perceived impartiality of the Chief Justice in a diverse and secular nation like India.
The Legacy of CJI DY Chandrachud
The legacy of CJI DY Chandrachud is one that elicits divided opinions. On one hand, he made important rulings and took significant stances in various cases. On the other hand, his perceived inaction, symbolic gestures, and decisions that seemed to favor political and corporate interests have led some to view his tenure as a period where justice was not always served.
Ultimately, history may judge his tenure harshly, with the perception that he often flattered to deceive, promising much but delivering little. The failure to address key constitutional issues, deliver timely justice in critical human rights cases, and ensure accountability in the political system will likely weigh heavily in assessing his time as the Chief Justice of India.
Conclusion
CJI DY Chandrachud’s tenure represents a mixed legacy for the Indian judiciary. While he made strides in certain areas, his actions—or lack thereof—have left many questioning the integrity and independence of the legal system. As history continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how his decisions will impact the future of Indian jurisprudence.
