New Delhi:
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, in an exclusive interview to NDTV, spoke on a range of issues – from how he almost became an economist, the paltry fees he got for his first case, portrayal of court scenes in Bollywood, to criticisms levelled against judges and the top court, and court vacations.
Here are the key highlights:
Career
Law was not my first choice, to be very honest. I graduated from St. Stephens College in Economics and Mathematics. I did my honors in Economics. And, after I completed my BA, my first choice was actually to pursue a post graduation in Economics at the Delhi School of Economics. But as destiny would have it, you know, I I joined the law faculty, and then there was no going back.
First fee as lawyer
I was fresh out of Harvard Law School. I had an SJD, from Harvard Law School, which is the doctorate in juridical sciences. My first brief, which was a little docket to mention before a division bench of the Bombay High Court, I was given this docket. So I asked the solicitor, how much do I mark on the docket? I mean, since what is my fee?
And, you know, fees in Bombay in those days were marked in GMs, which is gold mohurs (GM). And, you know, one gold mohur was Rs 15. I believe the Calcutta GM was Rs 16. So the solicitor looked at me and said, you know, for this particular work which you are doing in the court for me, the ordinary fee would be five GMs, which would be Rs 75. But since you are first appearing before the High Court, I will give you six guineas for this case. So I realised that notwithstanding a Harvard PhD, what I could mark in those days was about Rs 75 rupees Rs 90 in the mid-eighties.
Tackling various cases
I would think that no judgment which a judge delivers, particularly in the Supreme Court, is easy in itself. Because when the Supreme Court speaks, it speaks for the future. It speaks for the present, and it speaks for the future.
We always had this confidence in the High Court that there was a court above us to correct a possible error. In the Supreme Court, the great challenges that you know that you speak as a final court of appeal, there’s no court higher than you. And, therefore, there is no case which I feel in that sense for us in the Supreme Court, which is an easy case.
Task of delivering judgments
As judges, you are conscious of the fact that what you are deciding now will impact our society… When arguments close, that’s the time for reflection for a judge when you’re really left with yourself. When a case is concluded in terms of arguments and, you know, you reserve a case for judgment, that’s when the real process of judging starts because then you are just left to yourself. There is no one else with you but your papers. So, you know, in that sense, judging itself is a very lonely task.
Ruling on electoral bonds
When you decide a case like the electoral bonds case, when it opens, you are conscious of the ramifications of what you are deciding and you are conscious of the impact which the case will have on the polity in the long run – it is obviously something which is present to the mind of the court. But when you are deciding the case in terms of intellectual rigour, you are applying the basic principles which are associated with that body of law. So, in the electoral bonds case, we were applying fundamental principles of manifest arbitrariness or the need for transparency in electoral funding.
Overruling previous top court judgments
As they say that, you know, the Supreme Court is final not because it is right, but it is right because it is final. And, you know, that is why we, in the Supreme Court, have looked at the correctness of some of the past judgments which were delivered. In fact, in 2024, and even earlier, we overruled several judgments which were delivered by our predecessors in the Supreme Court in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. And we overruled those judgments not necessarily because they were wrong.
Perhaps those judgments may have had some bearing on the society in which they were delivered, in the backdrop of the context in which they were delivered. But those judgments did not make sense today as society has evolved… I overruled a couple of judgments delivered by my own father. And, but that’s part of the process.
Criticisms of courts on social media
In the age of social media, everything that is said in court now becomes a part of a public dialogue in the process of dissection. Our attention spans are so limited today, down to 20 seconds, on social media that people don’t understand the distinction between a dialogue in a court and the final judgment of the court. Even before the final judgment of a court comes, people feel that the dialogue is reflective of your position, and that’s not quite right.
The criticism of a judge, the targeting of a judge is based not on any concrete material, but just what anybody can say about a court.
Courtroom scenes in films vs reality
The Bollywood scenes about courts are very different from what actually happens in reality in the court. Yes, there is drama, and at times, there is quite a bit of drama, particularly in sensitive cases. But a lot of times, what goes on in court is in that sense, you know, bare bone exposition of facts and law. So it’s very different from how the court is portrayed in Bollywood films of that matter and some of the Hollywood films as well or other films of a different genre.
Supreme Court vacations
The criticism that the court has too many vacations is completely unfounded because it doesn’t, you know. It’s not justified by what is the truth, which is, the judges are working 24*7, 365 days. The first victim of a life on the bench is your own ability to spend time with your own family. So I am making up for lost ground now, you know.
