Bhopal:

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar today said that the Chief Justice of the country shouldn’t be involved in any executive appointment in a democracy like India. “How can in a country like ours or in any democracy, by statutory prescription, the Chief Justice of India participate in the selection of the CBI director? Can there be any legal rationale for it?” Mr Dhankhar wondered.

“I can appreciate that the Statutory prescription took shape because the executive of the day has yielded to a judicial verdict. But the time has come to revisit. This surely does not merge with democracy. How can we involve the Chief Justice of India with any executive appointment?” he added.

His statement has come at a time when a meeting is to be held for the selection of the next Chief Election Commissioner. The selection would be a first since the Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Term of Office) Act, 2023, was passed.

The act came after a verdict by the Supreme Court in March 2023 which directed for a three-member panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice (CJI) to operate till Parliament enacted a law. The new law, however, excluded the CJI from the panel. Detractors say the new law amounts to excessive interference of the executive in the appointments and was detrimental to the independence of the poll panel.

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar is set to retire on February 18 and the selection committee for appointing his successor is expected to meet possibly on Monday.

The committee – comprised of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, will deliberate on the appointment a day before the Supreme Court hears petitions against the new law.

Jagdeep Dhankhar,while speaking at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal expressed his deep concern over the breach of the principle of separation of powers and said, “Executive governance by judicial decree is a Constitutional paradox, that the largest democracy on the planet cannot afford any longer. When institutions forget their bounds, democracy is remembered by the wounds this forgetfulness imparts.”

He said that these institutions should operate within defined constitutional bounds while “maintaining cooperative dialogue, keeping national interest in mind”.

“Executive governance reflecting the will of the people is constitutionally sanctified. Accountability is enforceable when executive roles are performed by an elected government. Governments are accountable to the legislature. And periodically accountable to the electorate. But if executive governance is arrogated or outsourced, the enforceability of accountability will not be there. Exclusively, governance lies with the government with utmost respect, any intervention from any source, in the country or outside, from legislature or judiciary, is antithetical to constitutionalism and certainly not in consonance as with fundamental premise of democracy”, he added.

Recalling his stint as Parliamentary Affairs Minister in 1990, Mr Dhankhar said the Supreme Court then had eight judges.

“More often than not, all the eight judges sat together (on a bench hearing a case)….When the strength of the Supreme Court was eight judges, under Article 145(3), there was a stipulation that the interpretation of the Constitution will be by a bench of five judges or more,” he said.

“Please note, when this strength was eight, it (size of constitutional bench) was five. And the Constitution allows the highest court of the land to interpret the Constitution,” he added.

But under the guise of interpretation, there can be no “arrogation of authority”, and the essence and spirit which the founding fathers had in mind under Article 145(3) must be respected, the vice president further said.

Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India states that at least five judges are required to sit on a case involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

Mr Dhankhar, speaking about Judicial review, said, “Parliament is supreme in lawmaking subject to judicial review. It’s a good thing. The judicial review has to be on the anvil that the legislation is in conformity with the Constitution. But when it comes to making an amendment in the Indian Constitution, the ultimate repository, the ultimate power, the ultimate authority, and the last authority is only the Indian Parliament.”

He said in this case there can’t be any intervention from any quarter because the “will of the people is reflected in a representative manner on the most sanctified platform through elections.”

Mr Dhankhar further said the judiciary’s public presence must be through judgments as “other mode of expression other than through judgments avoidably undermines institutional dignity”.

“When we look around the globe, we never find judges reflecting the way we see here on all issues,” he added.

Stressing the importance of dialogue, the Vice President said that democracy gets “thinner” if the right to express is “compromised, or throttled, or diluted”.

“One facet of expression is right to vote. But more important is to express your views, your point of view. You participate in governance, and administration, by having a voice of expression. And this expression is not standalone. This expression requires dialogue. Expression without dialogue means my way or no way. Dialogue is nothing but reflection, either approval of your expression or the other point of view,” he said.

“A difference of opinion should not result in confrontation. A difference of opinion must ignite an urge in us to converse to find a common ground. And sometimes yielding is a better part of discretion,” he added.

New Delhi:

For former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, law was not the first choice and he almost pursued a post-graduate degree in Economics instead. 

In an exclusive interview with NDTV on Wednesday, Justice Chandrachud shared several details about what shaped him as a lawyer and a judge and spoke about the influences in his life, including his father and former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud. 

“Law was not my first choice, to be very honest. I graduated from St Stephen’s College in Economics and Mathematics. 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, I joined the law faculty and then there was no going back. My father, of course, was a very important source of influence on my life, not just in terms of the law, but in terms of learning basic values, the ethical values, which are associated with life. That generation of judges and lawyers was very strong in their foundational principles,” the former Chief Justice said. 

Justice Chandrachud said his father let him choose his own career path and set an example by making time for his family and never imposing his view on them. In their later years, he said, his father was more of a friend to him. 

“And when the call of higher judicial office came to me – I was asked to become a judge when I was just 38 years old – and my appointment was not coming through for two years, I thought, well, it’s time to get on with the law and be a lawyer for the rest of my life. And when I looked at him (my father) for advice, he said, do as you please, and I’ll support you in whatever you do. Perhaps, he said, you will do equally satisfying work and fulfilling law work as a lawyer at the bar,” Justice Chandrachud said.

The former Chief Justice also said he had the good fortune of seeing some of the “greats of the bar” at work and also working with some of them. He said he learnt a lot from Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee and K Parasaran. He also praised former Solicitor General KK Venugopal.

Harvard Degree

Justice Chandrachud said he learnt a policy oriented approach to law at Harvard Law School and also got educated in policy as a student of Economics at Delhi University and at the Campus Law Centre in Delhi. Professor Lotika Sarkar, he said, gave students like him the “first groundings” in feminist jurisprudence when people were not talking about feminism in law in the 1980s.

The former Chief Justice spoke about how the Harvard Law degree did not have much of an impact immediately after he returned to practice. 

“I realised this to my disappointment when I got my first brief as a young lawyer in the Bombay High Court. I had an SJD from Harvard Law School, which is a Doctorate in Juridical Science, and my first brief was a little docket to mention before a division bench of the Bombay High Court. I asked the solicitor: ‘How much do I mark on the docket, what is my fee?'” he recalled.

“Fees in Bombay in those days were marked in GMs, which is gold mohurs, and one GM was 15 rupees. So the solicitor looked at me and said, ‘You know, for this particular work, the ordinary fee would be five GMs, which would be 75 rupees. 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 75 rupees or 90 rupees in the mid-eighties,” he said. 

“So, life teaches you so many good lessons, you know? And you realise that a good academic degree is important, but it is not everything in itself when you actually join the profession. But Harvard benefited me as time went on,” he added. 

Humility

Speaking about what was one his most important judgments, the scrapping of electoral bonds as a means of political funding, Justice Chandrachud said a judge applies intellectual rigour and the basic principles of law to arrive at a verdict. 

“For instance, 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 arere 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,” he explained. 

Justice Chandrachud said judges are conscious that what they are deciding now will impact society in the future. 

“And that constantly reminds you, as a judge, to be humble. Humility is something you learn as a judge of the Supreme Court because you are conscious of the fact that the field of knowledge is so vast, and it’s far vaster than any of us as judges or lawyers can fathom,” he said.

New Delhi:

SCBA president and senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Friday said that outgoing Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud allowed people to criticise judges and transformed the judicial landscape by allowing online access to court proceedings and addressing complexities that previous chief justices had not tackled.

Mr Sibal was speaking at the farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) where he said that Justice Chandrachud expanded equality and that he will be remembered for his judgements, manner, simplicity, affability, and patience, “all attributes of one of the greatest judges of this country”.

He said that Chief Justice Chandrachud had to match up to the quality and the achievement of his father, who was a Chief Justice of India for seven years and 14 days, and claimed that he “truly outpaced” him.

“You’ve given access to millions of people to watch how judges are doing, how they are delivering justice. One day there’s going to be a forensic audit. You allowed people to criticise you. What can be braver than that… You’ve been a pioneer, a torchbearer and a ground-breaking innovator… You’ll be remembered for being one of the patient judges,” he said.

He said that Chief Justice Chandrachud’s tenure was “deeply rich, generative, bringing with it the development of a vast landscape of the law, thereby impacting the future course of the justice delivery system.” “Through your judgments, you demonstrated a willingness to chart unknown waters and to reflect that this Chandrachud has perhaps exceeded the legacy of his father, who was the longest-standing CJI of India,” Mr Sibal said.

He said that Justice Chandrachud will be remembered on the yardstick of how often he has moved towards perfection, to defend life and liberty, and to serve the cause of equality.

“Ultimately the legacy of any judge is measured as to how he has sought to safeguard the citizen’s right, and in that regard, it is beyond any doubt that Chief Justice Chandrachud has rendered some phenomenal judgments,” he said.

He noted that in the privacy judgment, Justice Chandrachud tried to grapple with the complexities of today, which are far greater than those of the past.

“Now how do you build a society when the march of technology is so oppressive that it will destroy the very dignity of the individual and the independence of a human being? “These are the challenges we are going to meet, and to the extent to those challenges, you have already tried to grapple with in the judgements you’ve delivered, take for example the privacy judgment,” he said.

Mr Sibal said that Chief Justice Chandrachud was willing to deal with complex issues.

“I dare say that the past CJIs would not allow themselves to deal with those decisions for years — whether it was Article 370 judgment or same-sex marriage judgment or electoral bonds, or any of those very large issues that actually changed the contours of our being.

“You were willing to take it forward. You were willing to address, and you addressed them with great clarity. We must thank you for all that you have done, and salute you for the fact that were willing, ready to deal with those complexities,” Mr Sibal added.

Chief Justice Chandrachud expanded equality by embracing diversity, Mr Sibal said, adding, “You’re a trailblazer in this regard, for the kind of protection you granted to disability rights. You were a staunch votary of nothing about us is without us.”

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

Two judges are up on stage. One of them is retiring as Chief Justice of India. The other will step in his shoes. A picture of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud hugging his successor Justice Sanjiv Khanna thrilled the photographers and those around them. Years later, the hug will be an exercise in nostalgia.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, who overturned two verdicts by his father and former Chief Justice YV Chandrachud while he helmed the top post, will demit office on November 10. Justice Khanna will take charge on Monday, November 11.

“He has made my task easy and tough. Easy because of the revolutions ushered in and tough because I cannot walk up to him. He will be sorely missed,” said Chief Justice-designate Khanna, who will have a tenure of a little over six months and would demit office on May 13, 2025.

Justice Khanna did not mention to forget the “youthful looks” of the outgoing Chief Justice.

“His youthfulness is not known here only but also abroad. In Australia, there were so many who came to me and asked what his age was,” said Justice Khanna, who is the nephew of former Supreme Court judge HR Khanna.

In November 2022, Chief Justice Chandrachud claimed that he is an “imposter” in the “youthful looks” department.  

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, on his last working day as 50th head of the Indian judiciary on Friday, said there was no greater feeling than being able to serve those in need and people he never knew or met.

“I won’t be able to deliver justice from tomorrow, but I am content,” he said.

Lawyers and members of the bar gathered to honour the outgoing Chief Justice, describing him as “a rock star” of the judiciary.

New Delhi:

Lawyers must learn to pay proper salaries and emoluments to the youngsters who enter their chambers to learn, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud has said In an interview with the All India Radio, D Y Chandrachud said the legal profession is a difficult one where the foundation laid in the initial years keeps the young lawyers in good stead throughout their careers.

“There are always ups and downs in a profession. Initially, the amount you make at the end of your first month in the legal profession may not be very high,” the CJI said.

So it is important to encourage the first timers to hang in, put in the hard work, and be sincere in what they do, D Y Chandrachud said.

“Equally, our structures must change as well. For instance, lawyers must learn how to pay proper wages, salaries and emoluments to the young lawyers who enter their chambers,” he said.

“Youngsters come to their chambers to learn. They also have a great deal to share, so it is a two-way process of absorption and sharing and mentorship which we have to provide to the younger lawyers,” the CJI added.

D Y Chandrachud also recalled his days as a presenter in the All India Radio during his college days in Delhi.

The CJI said his mother, a classical musician, often took him to the AIR studios in Mumbai when he was in third or fourth standard. Later, after moving to Delhi in 1975, he auditioned for Akashvani and began hosting programmes in Hindi and English.

He also recalled how he grew up listening to AIR bulletins in Hindi, English and Sanskrit with his parents, getting enchanted by the iconic voices of Devki Nandan Pandey, Pamela Singh and Lotika Ratnam.

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

Mumbai:

Introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India was a “classical example of cooperative federalism,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said on Saturday.

The courts have, over the last few decades, evolved a robust framework on federalism to ensure that the states’ rights are protected, he said, speaking on `Understanding Federalism and Its Potential” at the inaugural annual lecture series organized by the Marathi daily `Loksatta’. Federalism, for Indians, is not a “monolithic concept” but has multiple facets, the CJI said.

Cooperative federalism is a system of governance where the Centre and the states work together to “iron out differences to achieve the common goal of development,” he said.

The dialogue between the Union government and the states must be placed on “two ends of the spectrum,” Chandrachud said, adding that at one end are collaborative discussions that cooperative federalism fosters, while “interstitial contestation” between the states and the Union are at the other end.

“Both forms of dialogue are equally important for federalism and for our nation to flourish, and what better example (one can think of) than the introduction of the GST,” the CJI added.

Post 1990, when the Indian economy underwent market reforms, the economy has come to occupy the centrestage of the political discourse, he said.

“The amendment in the Constitution to reflect and embody the GST, is to my mind a classical example of collaborative, cooperative federalism,” Chief Justice Chandrachud added.

The courts have played an important role in developing the principles of Indian federalism, said the chief justice.

“The courts have been at the forefront of this development, bringing out the nuances of the doctrine to protect the interests of the states in terms of identity and efficiency,” he said.

Further, in the last few decades, “the courts evolved a robust jurisprudential framework on federalism to ensure that the state’s rights are protected, identity of various communities is fostered and the value of representation is promoted,” he noted.

The federal nature of our Constitution has undergone a change by the actual operation of the democracy, Chef Justice Chandrachud said.

“The concept of federalism that was envisaged by our founding fathers and mothers has not remained static, it’s a concept which has evolved keeping in view the realities of the evolution, the maturity and strength of our political system to incorporate more autonomy for the state,” he added.

The Indian Constitution was meant to be a “transformative document”, the CJI said, while also noting that issues like climate change, AI, data privacy and cyber crime transcend the territorial boundaries which form the basis of federal units.

“These new challenges ill-fit the conventional modes of union and state subjects…..some Indian states are severely impacted by the perils of climate change, while some may be more prone to cyber attacks due to the greater volume of virtual transactions,” he said.

If federalism in the years gone by was adjusting to the political realities of the country in terms of legislative powers, in the years to come it should also be evaluated based on its ability to foster democracy and constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, dignity and fraternity, Chief Justice Chandrachud added.

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

Chandigarh:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday underscored the need for empathy and compassion among young doctors for their patients as he cited a scene from the famous movie ‘Munna Bhai MBBS’, saying the ultimate aim of medicine is to uplift the humanity.

The CJI also said India is one of the pioneers in innovation but its fruits are limited to a very few as he urged doctors to make advancements in the health sector accessible to everyone He was addressing a gathering of young doctors at the 37th convocation of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER).

He highlighted that the PGIMER has been a cornerstone of many medical advancements and innovations in India, standing as a beacon of excellence for the last 62 years.

“As you graduate today you stand on the shoulders of giants, who have been torch bearers in the development of medical sciences,” he added.

Both professions medicine and law share a common goal that is to enhance the wellbeing of individuals and communities through dedicated service, he noted.

He recounted a scene from the Sanjay-Dutt starrer movie ‘Munna Bhai MBBS’ to underscore the need for compassion and empathy among doctors.

He said instead of relying on medical jargon, ‘Munna Bhai’ in the movie gave a warm and comforting embrace to a young patient which he called ‘jaado ki jhappi‘ as the patient was deeply distressed over a medical procedure.

This act of kindness was infused with genuine affection and reassurance, contrasting sharply with the cold clinical environment in a hospital, said the CJI.

After the embrace by ‘Munna Bhai’, the character played by Dutt, the patient’s anxiety melted away, he recalled from the movie.

“This scene highlights a vital point — the power of empathy and personal connection. In both medicine and law, we must all remember that our ultimate purpose is to serve and uplift humanity,” he said.

CJI Chandrachud also referred to a recent judgement on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exam, saying ethics play a crucial role in the entry to medical colleges.

“Recently through our NEET judgment, we all witnessed issues with the conduct of the NEET exam across the country,” he said.

“As a member of the bench, who scribed the judgment, I had the opportunity to observe the complexities involved. It serves as a reminder that the justice in ethical standards are not just theoretical concepts but practical necessities that ensure equitable access to opportunities,” he added.

The CJI said, “You are at the beginning of your journey. It is at the threshold you must ponder upon what values you wish to bring to the noble profession. You are the doctors, researchers and scientists of tomorrow.” “You will have the power to shape not just your future but the future of medicine in India and around the world perhaps. It is at this crossroads in your journey that you must consider making advancements in medicine accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford them,” he added.

He noted that medicine in India has seen a steep commercialisation since the early 1980s with increased investment in medicines in the private sector.

“Today India is one of the pioneers in innovation but the fruits of this innovation are limited to a very few. Medicines have become so expensive that medical expenses form 77 per cent of a person’s expenditure in rural areas and 70 per cent in urban areas,” he said.

“It is surprising to see that professions such as law and medicine, which have their roots in welfare, have become inaccessible to the very community they were developed to serve,” said the CJI.

He said there is a pressing need for medical colleges to fully embrace social responsibility by focusing more on rural health and this involves integrating community-oriented training programmes into the curriculum and extending outreach services to nearby population.

“Medical colleges will have to move beyond theoretical instructions, engaging students in real world challenges faced by the rural communities,” he said. 

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

New Delhi:

“Yeh kya market hai jo aap phone pe baat kar rahe hai?” Chief Justice DY Chandrachud remarked on Monday as he took strong exception to a lawyer talking on the mobile phone inside his courtroom.

The CJI, who was holding the bench along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered the court staff to confiscate the lawyer’s mobile phone.

“Yeh kya market hai jo aap phone pe baat kar rahe hai? Inka mobile le lo” (Is this a market that you are talking on the phone. Confiscate his mobile phone),” Justice Chandrachud said.

The lawyer was talking on the phone inside the courtroom, prompting the CJI to halt the proceedings and address him directly.

The CJI issued a stern warning to the lawyer and said, “Be careful in the future. Judges see everything. We may be looking at the papers, but we have eyes everywhere.”

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

New Delhi:

In strong observations while hearing a woman’s request to terminate a 26-week pregnancy, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked if the petitioner wanted permission to kill the child through a court order.

The Supreme Court has asked the woman’s counsel and the centre’s lawyer to speak to her before the next hearing tomorrow morning.

The three-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India is hearing the married woman’s petition for the permission to abort the 26-week pregnancy. A mother of two, the woman has said she is suffering from depression and is not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally or financially.

On October 9, the court had allowed her to proceed with the pregnancy. The centre then sought a recall of the order, citing the advice of a panel of doctors at AIIMS Delhi against the abortion. Yesterday, a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna gave a split verdict. Following this, the Chief Justice of India-led bench took up the matter.