New Delhi:

In his farewell speech at an event organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remembered a conversation with his father, former Chief Justice YV Chandrachud, about a flat in Pune.

“He bought this small flat in Pune. I asked him, ‘why on earth are you buying a flat in Pune? when are you going to stay there?’ He told me, ‘I know I am never going to stay there. I am not sure how long I will be with you. But keep this flat until the last day of your tenure as a judge.’ I said why is that. He said, ‘If you feel that your moral integrity or your intellectual integrity is compromised, I want you to know that you have a roof above your head. Never allow yourself to be compromised either as a lawyer or as a judge because you have no place of your own’,” the Chief Justice said, recounting the father-son chat. The Chief Justice said his father was very disciplined. “But he didn’t discipline us as children. He thought that we should learn the ideals of discipline looking at the way he led a disciplined life,” he said.

The event was attended by the Chief Justice’s family too. Remembering his mother, the Chief Justice said, “I was a sick child, I was prone to falling sick and my mother must have spent night after night awake to ensure I get well. I still remember her saying, ‘Medicine is like the Ganges and the doctor was in the position of Narayan (god)’. She told me while I was growing up, ‘I have named you Dhananjay, but the ‘dhan’ is not material wealth, I want you to acquire knowledge’.”

The Chief Justice’s mother, Prabha Chandrachud, was a classical musician for All India Radio.

“Like most Maharashtrian women, she was very powerful. Ours was a woman-dominated house. My mother dominated everything at home,” the Chief Justice said. He then added a parallel that drew a loud applause. “I think women from Odisha are in the same pattern. My lovely spouse Kalpana calls all the shots at home, but never messes around with the judgments,” he said.

The Chief Justice said he was disciplined as a child, but not overly disciplined. “I was allowed to live my own childhood without really compelling me to live the dream of my parents. They never tried to live the dreams through me.

He also remembered a household help, Bhimabai Bhanu Kamath. “She was completely illiterate. She learnt how to write her name when she joined our family. I was so sick, she really nurtured me and taught me so much about life beyond the urban area I was born into. She made sure that though my father had become a judge, I associated with young friends who belonged to the margins of our society. My best friend always wore two pairs of shorts, not because he had too many, but because he wanted to hide the holes in his shorts,” he said, adding that there is rarely a day when he and his sister don’t remember Bhimabai.

The Chief Justice also recounted his father’s intervention when he had to choose a subsidiary subject as a student of Delhi University. “Most of my friends were taking philosophy, which was a subject you read for one evening and passed. But my father insisted that I should take up Hindi. I knew only Bambaiya Hindi. But he insisted that I took Hindi, it was a difficult call.”

He said that in the course of learning Hindi, he was introduced to the works of legendary writers such as Mahadevi Verma, Jaishankar Tripathi, Nirala, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar and Munshi Premchand. “Almost 30 years later, when I was to go to Allahabad High Court, I realised how important it was. Very often, the advocacy in English will end with ‘please, your lordship’. Lawyers would accept me so much better. They realised the frailties of my language, but they felt I had reached out to them in a language which was close to their hearts. That’s one of the lessons I learnt, of trying to reach out to people in areas that make a difference to their lives,” he said.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud retires from the country’s top legal post today, two years after he took over in November 2022. Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take the oath as the next Chief Justice tomorrow.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court today refused to transfer the RG Kar rape-murder case trial outside West Bengal and rebuked a lawyer who claimed that the people of the state were losing faith in the police and the judiciary. Responding to a lawyer’s request to transfer the case, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, “Yes we have done it in cases like Manipur. But we are not doing anything like that here. No such transfer.”

At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, went through the status report filed by the CBI, which is investigating the heinous rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor in Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in August.

“We have seen the sixth status report filed by CBI, which indicates that the Additional Sessions judge has framed charges punishable under Sections 64 and 103 of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). The next hearing is on November 11. Since the investigation is underway, we refrain from making observations. Let an updated status report be filed after four weeks,” said the Chief Justice, who retires this Sunday.

The bench also reviewed a report by the National Task Force formed to recommend steps to ensure safe working conditions for healthcare staff in hospitals. The Chief Justice said the report must be circulated among Chief Secretaries of all states/Union Territories so that they can make suggestions. He said this exercise must be completed in three weeks.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for doctors in Bengal, raised some objections. The Chief Justice asked her to submit the suggestions.

At one point, a counsel said that the people of West Bengal “have lost faith in the judiciary”. The Chief Justice responded sternly and asked the lawyer, “Who are you appearing for? Do not make such general statements. There is no such thing at all.” He added that this was “canteen gossip happening in court”.

The RG Kar rape-murder incident sparked massive protests across the country as doctors took to the streets to demand safety at the workplace. The Mamata Banerjee government drew fire as protesters alleged a cover-up attempt. The Calcutta High Court was not satisfied with the Kolkata Police probe and transferred the case to the CBI. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and pulled up the hospital administration for its response after the doctor was found dead. The top court has been monitoring the CBI’s probe since. Once Chief Justice DY Chandrachud retires, the next Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take his place on the bench hearing the case.

New Delhi:

Judges should be mindful of not castigating past judges only because they reached a different outcome while deciding a case, Justice BV Nagarathna said today. The remark was made as the Supreme Court ruled that all privately owned property does not qualify as community resources that the State can take over for the common good.

The landmark verdict was delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Nagarathna BV, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma and Justice AG Masih. The bench passed the ruling with an 8-1 majority. Three judgments were authored — the Chief Justice wrote one for himself and six colleagues, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a concurrent but separate judgment and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.

One of the past verdicts referred to extensively during today’s judgment was the 1977 ruling in the State of Karnataka vs Ranganath Reddy case. This case addressed the issue of nationalisation of private transport companies and the extent to which the State can intervene in private enterprises. The matter had come up when the then Karnataka government brought a law to nationalise private bus services. A seven-judge bench had then ruled with a 4-3 majority

that all private property did not fall within the ambit of material resources of the community. Justice VR Krishna Iyer, one of the judges in the minority, had contended that both public and private resources fell within the ambit of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

“We have been guided by the thought that an all-too-large gap between the law and public needs, arising out of narrow notions, must be bridged by broadening the constitutional concepts to suit the changing social consciousness of the emerging Welfare State. Institutional crises and confrontations can be and should be avoided by evolving a progressive interpretation, discarding over-sensitivity to under-valuation when private property is taken for public good,” Justice Iyer had said.

Delivering the judgment today, the Chief Justice said, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”

The Chief Justice also pointed out that Justice Iyer referred to Karl Marx in his judgment. “The judgment is rooted in the economic ideology that private property can be used by the state for the welfare of people. The role of this court is not to lay down economic policy but to facilitate to lay down economic democracy,” he said, adding that the country’s economy has shifted from a socialist approach to a liberal economic regime.

“The doctrinal error in the Krishna Iyer approach was, postulating a rigid economic theory, which advocates for greater state control over private resources, as the exclusive basis for constitutional governance,” the Chief Justice said. 

In response, Justice Nagarathna said Justice Iyer’s judgment on community resources came against a backdrop of a constitutional and economic structure that gave primacy to the State in a sweeping manner. “Can principles of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation adopted in India since the year 1991, reforms in the economy and structural changes that have been brought about in these last three decades hold a mirror against the socioeconomic policies that were followed in the decades immediately after India attained independence? As a result, can the judgments of this Court which interpreted the Constitution to be compatible with the policies of the State then be considered to be “a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution” and the authors of the said judgments being critiqued today?” she said.

Justice Nagarathna flagged some of the Chief Justice’s observations on Justice Iyer’s judgment and said they are “unwarranted and unjustified”. “It is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgments of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties and the socio-economic policies that were pursued by the State and formed part of the constitutional culture during those times. Merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State to globalisation and liberalisation and privatisation, compendiously called the “Reforms of 1991″, which continue to do so till date, cannot result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears ‘as doing a disservice to the Constitution’,” she wrote. 

She noted that such observations made by the Supreme Court create a “concavity in the manner of voicing opinions on judgments of the past and their authors by holding them doing a disservice to the Constitution of India and thereby implying that they may not have been true to their oath of office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India”. Justice Nagarathna, however, agreed with the majority judgment and said a “flexible interpretation” of the Constitution is needed as times change.

Justice Nagarathna said the Indian judiciary has an obligation to meet newer challenges by “choosing only that part of the past wisdom which is apposite for the present without decrying the past judges”. “I say so, lest the judges of posterity ought not to follow the same practice. I say that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is greater than individual judges, who are only a part of it at different stages of history of this great country,” she said. 

Justice Dhulia, who delivered a dissenting judgment, too, flagged the Chief Justice’s remark in the majority judgment on Justice Iyer’s ruling. “I must also record here my strong disapproval on the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer Doctrine as it is called. This criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided,” he said. 

Not all privately owned properties qualify as community resources that the State can take over for the common good, the Supreme Court said in a landmark verdict today. The nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered the judgment on the vexed issue with an 8-1 majority.

Three judgments were authored — the Chief Justice wrote one for himself and six colleagues, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a concurrent but separate judgment and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented. The judges on the bench were Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Nagarathna BV, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma and Justice AG Masih.

The case relates to Article 31C of the Constitution that protects laws made by the State to fulfill directive principles of state policy — guidelines the Constitution lays down for governments to follow while making laws and policies. Among the laws that Article 31C protects is Article 39B. Article 39B lays down that the State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

On this, the Chief Justice remarked, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”

“The enquiry about the resource in question falls under 39B must be contest-specific and subject to a non-exhaustive list of factors such as nature of resource, the characteristics, the impact of the resource on well-being of the community, the scarcity of resource and consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the public trust doctrine evolved by this court may also help identify resources which fall under the ambit of material resource of a community,” he added.

In 1977, a seven-judge bench had ruled with a 4:3 majority that all privately owned property did not fall within the ambit of material resources of the community. In a minority opinion, however, Justice Krishna Iyer held that both public and private resources fell within the ambit of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).

In her separate judgment, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with the Chief Justice on his observations on the ruling by Justice Iyer.

“Justice Krishna Iyer adjudicated on the material resources of a community in the backdrop of a constitutional and economic structure which gave primacy to the State in a broad sweeping manner. As a matter of fact, the 42nd amendment had included socialist in the Constitution. Can we castigate former judges and allege them with disservice only because of reaching a different interpretative outcome?”

“It is a matter of concern as to judicial brethren of posterity view the judges of the brethren of past… possibly by losing sight of time when the latter discharged duty and socio-economic policies pursued by the state… merely after liberalisation, paradigm shift after 1991 reforms, it cannot lead to branding the judges of this court of yesteryears as to doing disservice to the Constitution… at the outset I may say that such observations emanating from this court and calling that they were not true to their oath of office… but just by having a paradigm shift in economic policies… judges of posterity should not follow the practice. I do not concur with the opinion of the Chief Justice in this regard,” she said.

Mumbai:

Judges are not gallivanting even during vacations and are deeply committed to their work, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said, stressing that judges do not get sufficient time to think or read about law and are expected to dispose of cases like machines.

The Chief Justice addressed the inaugural Loksatta Annual Lecture in Mumbai yesterday. In an interaction that followed, he said that unlike in other fields, a judge’s work burden increases in volume and complexity as he or she rises in the judiciary.

“Our judges are not gallivanting or goofing up even in vacation, they are deeply committed to the work they do,” he said, according to news agency PTI. The orders they pass will define the country for decades, but judges hardly get time to think or read about the law (aside from their work), the Chief Justice added.

“….do we give our judges sufficient time to think or read about the law or do you just want them to be merely a mechanical machine in the disposal of cases,” he asked.

The pendency of cases across lower courts, high courts and the Supreme Court runs into crores. The lack of an adequate number of judges and infrastructure issues are among the key reasons.

Speaking about the collegium system, the Chief Justice said every institution can be improved, but this should not lead to a conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. He said the Collegium system is a federal system where responsibility has been given to different levels of governments, both the Centre and the states, and the judiciary.

“It is a process of consultative dialogue, where consensus emerges, but at times there is no consensus, but that’s part of the system. We must have the maturity to understand that this represents the strength of our system,” he said.

“I wish we will be able to foster a greater consensus, but the point of the matter is, this is dealt with a very great level of maturity on the parts of different levels within the judiciary and different levels within the governments,” the Chief Justice added.

If there is an objection about a particular candidate, discussions take place with a “very great deal of maturity”, he said. “We have to understand that it is very easy to criticise the institution that we have formed… every institution is capable of betterment. But the very fact that there are institutional improvements, which are possible, should not lead us to a conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with the institution,” he said.

“The fact that these institutions have stood the test of time for over the last 75 years is a reason for us to trust our system of democratic governance of which judiciary is a part,” he added.

On the emergence of social media, the Chief Justice said it is good for society.

“The whole universe of judging, I believe, has undergone changes due to social media. Judges have to be very careful about what they say, use appropriate language,” he said. “I still feel that the advent of social media is good for society, as it enables the user to reach a huge section of society,” the Chief Justice said.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is due to retire on November 10. Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take over the country’s highest judicial post thereafter.

New Delhi:

The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will no longer hear petitions challenging the immunity granted to husbands in marital rape cases. The decision was taken because the Chief Justice is due to retire on November 10 and the bench, also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, won’t be able to complete hearing the submissions and give a verdict before that.

The Chief Justice-led bench adjourned the matter for four weeks. A new bench will hear the matter after that.

During the hearing today, lawyers representing several parties said they would take time to make their submissions in the matter. Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan said he would take at least a day to complete his submissions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he would take a day too. So did Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi. Maninder Singh, Arvind Datar and Indira Jaising are the other lawyers appearing in the matter.

“Then this can be deferred,” the Chief Justice said. “We have heard submissions by Ms Nundy. Mr Gopal Sankarnarayan says he will require one day. This will be followed by submissions by Senior Advocate Jaising and other counsels will take a day each. The above estimates show that arguments will be heard for intervenors, rape accused and respondents. Hence it will not be possible to complete the hearing in the foreseeable future,” he said, ordering the matter to be relisted.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for one of the petitioners said, “Your (Chief Justice) legacy would warrant this case to be heard for the millions of women.” To this, the Solicitor General responded, “Your lordship’s legacy will be remembered and this statement need not be made.” The Chief Justice noted that all parties have to make arguments and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks. The hearing in the matter started on October 17.

The newly-implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita grants immunity from prosecution to a husband for rape if his wife is not a minor. Under the new law, exception 2 to Section 63 (rape) says “sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape”.

The Centre has told the court that there is no need to criminalise marital rape and that it is not within the court’s purview to take this decision. The government has said that the marital rape issue is more a social issue than a legal one as it will have a direct impact on society.

The Parliament, the Centre has argued, has provided several measures to protect the consent of a married woman within marriage.

The sexual aspect, it said, is one of the many aspects of the relationship between a husband and wife on which the foundation of their marriage rests. If the legislature is of the view that the protection of the institution of marriage is essential, it would not be appropriate for the court to strike down the exception, the Centre has said.

Pune:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Sunday said he had prayed to God for a solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and asserted God will find a way if one has faith.

He was addressing residents of his native Kanhersar village in Khed taluka where he was felicitated.

“Very often we have cases (to adjudicate) but we don’t arrive at a solution. Something similar happened during the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute) which was in front of me for three months. I sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution,” he said.

Asserting that he prays regularly, the Chief Justice said, “Believe me, if you have faith, God will always find a way.” On November 9, 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi settled a fractious issue that went back more than a century by paving the way for the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

The bench also ruled that a mosque will come up on an alternative five-acre plot in Ayodhya itself.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was part of the bench that delivered the historic verdict.

The Chief Justice had visited the Ram Temple in Ayodhya in July this year and offered prayers.

The idol consecration of the temple was held on January 22 this year in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud pulled up a lawyer in the Supreme Court today after he told the bench that he had cross-checked with the court master about the details of the order dictated in court. “How dare you ask the court master what I dictated in the court? Tomorrow you will come to my house and ask the personal secretary what I am doing. Lawyers have lost all sense or what.”

The Chief Justice said he was still in charge, “though for a short time”. “Don’t try these funny tricks again, these are my last days in the court,” he said. The stern remarks came during an exchange over an arbitration order. 

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is set to retire on November 10. Justice Sanjiv Khanna is the next in line for the top legal post.

During his two-year term, Chief Justice Chandrachud has focused on ensuring decorum in the courtroom and often rebuked lawyers for bypassing processes and callous conduct in court.

The latest example played out in court earlier this week when the Chief Justice criticised a lawyer’s use of the informal ‘yeah’ while addressing the bench. “This is not a coffee shop! what is this yeah yeah. I am very allergic to this yeah yeah. This cannot be allowed,” the Chief Justice said sternly.

Earlier this year, during the hearing in the crucial electoral bonds case, the Chief Justice had blasted a lawyer when he raised his voice while addressing the bench. “Don’t shout at me. This is not a Hyde Park corner meeting, you are in the court. You want to move an application, file an application. You have got my decision as Chief Justice, we are not hearing you. If you want to file an application, move it on the email. That’s the rule in this court,” he had said.

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud today pulled up a lawyer for using the informal ‘yeah’ to address the bench and said he is “allergic” to the expression. He also reminded the lawyer that he was in the courtroom, not a cafe.

The lawyer mentioned a 2018 petition in which he had added former Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent. “But is it an Article 32 plea? how can you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent,” Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked. Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to seek constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated.

In response, the lawyer said, “Yeah, yeah the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi… I was asked to file a curative…” The Chief Justice cut him short. “This is not a coffee shop! what is this yeah yeah. I am very allergic to this yeah yeah. This cannot be allowed.”

“Justice Gogoi was a former judge of this court. You cannot file a plea like this against a judge and seek an in-house inquiry because you did not succeed before the bench,” the Chief Justice said.

The lawyer responded, “But Justice Gogoi dismissed my plea relying on the statement that I had challenged for being illegal. I had no fault, I had requested CJI Thakur to move my review plea before a bench conversant with the labour laws. But that did not happen and it was dismissed.” The Chief Justice then told the lawyer in Marathi that he cannot impugn a judge when he challenges a high court judgment.

The Chief Justice said the registry would look at the petition and asked the petitioner to delete the name of Justice Gogoi — now a Rajya Sabha MP — from his petition.

Bengaluru:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday emphasised on the need to create awareness about rare diseases among the society, on being empathetic and supportive to such parents and their families regardless of cultural, religious or traditional barriers.

He said we can no longer afford to be unaware of genetic diseases.

Citing the National Policy of Rare Diseases launched by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in March 2021, he said that further research is necessary to define the definition of rare diseases and stressed on the need to ensure equitable access to advanced medical therapy like gene therapy in a diverse nation like India.

Speaking at the conference organised by Narayana Nethralaya Foundation on Gene therapy and precision medicine, Justice Chandrachud noted, “In a country like India, home to the largest population in the world with over 4,600 distinct population groups, many of which are endogamous, we face a heightened burden of rare diseases. Unfortunately, these innovative therapies remain largely unavailable in India and other low and middle income countries. This is a situation which has to change.” 

Mentioning the country’s first home-grown gene therapy for cancer which was launched by the President Droupadi Murmu in April, the CJI said, the CAR T cell therapy has often been inaccessible globally due to its prohibitive costs.

“But the therapy introduced today is not only revolutionary but also represents the world’s most affordable CAR T cell treatment, embodying the spirit of the Make in India initiative. While this innovation sparks, we face a pressing challenge ensuring access to such treatments for all patients, particularly those in underserved regions,” he said.

He also noted how people from marginalised communities face persistent barriers in accessing healthcare.

“Social determinants of health factors outside the healthcare system, such as class, caste, gender, and regional location, often play a significant role in determining an individual’s health status. Injustice in healthcare becomes evident when we view individuals not merely through the lens of clinical symptoms but by understanding their social determinants of health. This reality highlights a pressing need for targeted interventions that address these systemic barriers,” he said.

The CJI also emphasised how access to essential treatments is a fundamental aspect of the right to health, along with Article 21 of the Constitution (protection of life and personal liberty) and the need to devise strategies that enhance access to cutting edge precision diagnostics and gene therapies across the nation.

He said raising awareness among healthcare providers and patients about available treatments and ongoing clinical trials can empower more individuals to seek and receive appropriate care.

To truly address accessibility, we must confront the third key issue, which is affordability.

Recently, in a batch of petitions filed by parents of children with rare diseases, the Delhi High Court clarified that customs duties and charges should not be levied on medicines, drugs, and therapies for rare diseases, urging customs authorities to ensure these items are cleared expeditiously without unnecessary delays.

“These initiatives signify progress in our efforts to improve access to essential treatments. However, to effectively address these challenges, we must prioritise the development of indigenous technologies specifically tailored to our patient population. This involves building partnerships between research institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and the government to promote innovation in the creation of affordable therapies,” he said.

He said the government must stand behind our innovations in the treatment of rare diseases, putting its spine behind the evolution of technology.

“Support for the advancement of gene therapy and rare diseases treatment requires a multi facility approach. There are three essential types of support which are needed first for any progress to take place. The first step is society awareness. The general public must become more knowledgeable, empathetic and supportive of rare diseased patients and their families, regardless of cultural, religious or traditional barriers.

We can no longer afford to be unaware of genetic diseases,” he stressed.

Therefore, raising awareness across society about the realities of these diseases is crucial for building a culture of support, he said.

“Second, collaboration between the public and private sectors, as well as partnerships with global biotech and pharmaceutical giants has fostered a favourable environment for innovation in India….to further promote innovation in gene therapy and rare diseases, the industry must step up its support through corporate social responsibility initiatives or direct investment in startups,” Justice Chandrachud said.

He also noted that to encourage more industry participation, there should be proposals for tax incentives and benefits, especially since the market for their disease treatment is relatively small.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)