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:

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.

New Delhi:

Having started practising law nearly 30 years ago and then retiring as the longest-serving Chief Justice of India in over a decade, Justice DY Chandrachud did not only get a ringside view of how courts function but also helped shape jurisprudence in the country with a string of important judgments, including on electoral bonds, the validity of Article 370 and same-sex marriage. 

On Wednesday, the former Chief Justice sat down for a wide-ranging interview with NDTV in which he spoke about everything from how he almost became an economist and the paltry fees he got for his first case to the criticisms levelled against judges and the Supreme Court.

Justice Chandrachud also addressed a colleague’s remarks of him being harsh on a former judge of the Supreme Court and spoke about the need for revisiting and overturning earlier judgments – even those by his father and former Supreme Court Chief Justice YV Chandrachud.

Early Days

On a question about his experiences and what he learnt from his father, Justice Chandrachud said his first choice was to pursue a post-graduate degree in Economics. Later, when it seemed like he would remain a lawyer for the rest of his life, his father told him he would support him no matter what he did. 

“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. 

Stressing that his father made time for his family and never imposed his view on them, Justice Chandrachud said he also left it up to him to choose his career path. In their later years, he said, his father was more of a friend to him, and that friendship continued till the end. 

“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 belonging to a generation when some of the “greats of the bar” were still active. He said he learnt immensely from Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee and K Parasaran. He also praised former Solicitor General KK Venugopal, calling him “extraordinarily brilliant” in both commercial and constitutional cases. 

First Fee After Harvard

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 Harvard Law degree did not, however, 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 recounted. 

“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… When I became a judge and started writing about the law and not just speaking about the law, I realised what an imperceptible impact Harvard had on my way of thought as an individual. So a lot of things are not so perceptible when you first join the profession, but the impact of what you’ve learned emerges later on in life,” he added. 

Electoral Bonds

The former Chief Justice said that when he was a judge at the High Court, there was comfort in knowing that there was a higher court that could correct any inadvertent errors. That was not the case with the Supreme Court and that was one of the reasons why no case in the top court was ever easy.

“Because when the Supreme Court speaks, it speaks for the present, and it speaks for the future,” he said.

Elaborating on one of his most important judgments, the scrapping of electoral bonds as a method of political funding, Justice Chandrachud said a judge is aware of the ramifications of the judgment but 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 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,” he explained. 

These principles, he pointed out, have been developed over decades and 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,” Justice Chandrachud noted.

The former Chief Justice also highlighted how judging can be a very lonely task. 

“When arguments close, that’s the time for reflection for a judge. When a case is concluded in terms of arguments and 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. And, in our case now, this is a digital format, so the digitised files and yourself. So, in that sense, judging itself is a very lonely task,” he said. 

Overturning Father’s Judgments

To a question on a former top court judge saying that the Supreme Court is “supreme but not infallible”, the former chief justice summed up his thoughts succinctly, saying: “The Supreme Court is final not because it is right, but it is right because it is final.”

This, he explained, was the reason why some past judgments of the Supreme Court were relooked at and overruled, including in 2024, when he retired as the Chief Justice. The former judge said this did not necessarily mean that the judgments were wrong – they may have been right in their context but may not make sense in today’s society. It was this, he said, that led to him overruling two judgments delivered by his father.

“For instance, you know, there was a judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer on property, which we recently had a look at again. The Supreme Court had said that because the individual is a member of the community, every property which belongs to the individual is property of the community in the context of Article 39 (b) and (c).  Now, this judgment was delivered in the context of the society when it was delivered – a very tightly regulated economy, central planning. All that changed after 1990, when the market reforms took place,” Justice Chandrachud said. 

He continued: “Between 1990 and 2024, India has evolved as a society, as an economy. So,  intrinsic to the work of the Supreme Court is the ability to relook at the judgments of the past. And, in that process, I overruled a couple of judgments delivered by my own father. But that’s part of the judicial process. Incidentally, they happen to be judgments of my father, but I would have done that anyway as part of our constitutional duty.”

Emergency

Addressing remarks by a colleague that he had been unduly harsh to a former judge, the former Chief Justice explained that some of what was attributed to him was not in the judgment and could have been in a draft circulated to other judges. 

“Well, for one thing, some of the words which are attributed to me as having been actually said in the judgment are not in the judgment, for the reason that maybe those observations were there in a draft which was circulated to colleagues… And, in this case, after a very well-meaning colleague requested me to look at that particular observation, I deleted it from the judgment. But how you phrase the judgment is, again a perception of that individual. And I don’t believe that to say that a judgment is ‘wrong’ or ‘terribly wrong’ is harsh,” he said. 

Pointing to the ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency, which dealt with the suspension of rights – a judgment to which his father was a party – Justice Chandrachud said strong statements were made when it was overruled because the judges felt strongly about it. 

“We overruled that initially when we decided the Puttaswamy case where we decided the right to privacy. When we decided Puttaswamy, we said that the judgment was terribly wrong because the right to life and personal liberty does not originate in the Constitution. Even if there’s no Constitution, human beings in a civilised society, in a democratic society, have the right to life and personal liberty. The Constitution recognised the right to life and personal liberty, and, therefore, we overruled that judgment,” Justice Chandrachud said. 

“And, while we overruled it, we were also conscious as judges of the excesses which took place in the course of the internal Emergency which was declared in 1975, because those were the years when I was growing up. I had just entered college then and we were deeply conscious of what had happened. So when we responded to ADM Jabalpur and overruled it, we didn’t do so by saying very simple words that there was a constitutional error or there was a legal error. We were very, very strong about it because you feel strongly about an issue,” he said. 

Justice Chandrachud also pointed out that judges should be able to state how they feel about an issue. 

“I don’t think that there’s any harm in a judge giving vent to how strongly they feel about the issue, using parliamentary language… It’s not just youthful angst, I think (it is) constitutional angst because I just felt that we had to overrule the judgment,” he stressed. 

Social Media, Limited Attention Spans

When he was in office, Justice Chandrachud had spoken about the criticism of judges on social media and its use by vested interests.

Asked whether this kind of scrutiny made a judge’s job tougher, the former Chief Justice said, “Of course. Because, in the age of social media, everything that is said in court now becomes a part of a public dialogue…. Now every little word which is said by the court or by a judge in the course of an argument is on social media the next moment. The real challenge is that a lot of conversation which takes place in the court in the course of the hearing of a case does not reflect the final judgment. But, you know, 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.”

He also said the criticism is sometimes “extremely irrational” and without any basis in concrete material, but judges have to face the new normal.

“True To Conscience”

Justice Chandrachud said he spent several sleepless nights as a judge, thinking about judgments and dealing with administrative files. He shared that there is also a great deal of reflection and a judge always questions himself, even before delivering a judgment. 

To a question on senior lawyer and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi writing in a newspaper that Justice Chandrachud “was 90% right” and he should not be trolled, the former judge said what matters to him was that he had worked to the best of his ability. 

“I would think that it’s for others to judge my work. For me, what mattered was that I was true to my conscience and I did my work to the best of my ability. But it’s for others, today and tomorrow, to assess the work, to critique the work, and decide whether it has made a difference to society. For me, it was (about) if the individual cases which we decided made some difference to society –  whether it was, you know, having women in the armed forces. I just love it when I see a picture of a woman fighter pilot or a woman on the battlefront or women in warships. Because I realised that has been transformative to have women in the armed forces. So that’s the degree of personal fulfilment which you have as a judge,” he said. 

“And the future, always, will take its own call. Sometimes the present can be very complimentary, as Dr Singhvi was very graciously complimentary. Sometimes the present can be uncharitable as well to judges. But, I think, once you are away from the present zone of conflict and the polarity of views, the future decides on the contribution of a judge a little more objectively away from the zone of conflict and the conflict of ideologies,” he stressed. 

Judicial Evasion?

The former Chief Justice also spoke out strongly against charges of “judicial evasion”, saying the Supreme Court does not have full strength. The pressure of work, he said, is enormous and picking a particular case is always difficult because a Chief Justice has to balance constitutional issues and smaller cases that can have a big impact on individuals.

“It would be uncharitable to the Supreme Court to say it evades cases or it evades deciding cases. The court has 34 judges. Today, it’s not a court with full strength. Now there are about 80,000 cases which are pending. This is a great challenge for any head of the institution, which is that do you take up the smaller cases which involve a big impact on the lives of common citizens – maybe a civil appeal, a criminal appeal, a bail application, or do you take up, say, the seminal constitutional cases? Because when five or seven or nine judges are assigned by a chief justice to deal with a constitutional case, they are not dealing with the ordinary work of the court,” he pointed out.

“Now, some balance has to be drawn by the head of the institution on how many judges would you devote to doing the normal or routine work of the court, which is important in itself because you are dealing with the lives of individual citizens. But, equally, this is not just a court of appeal, it is a constitutional court, and you have to devote sufficient resources and human manpower to dealing with the important constitutional cases as well,” he explained.

Justice Chandrachud said that, in 2024, close to 60,000 cases were filed in the Supreme Court – the highest since Independence – and over 59,000 cases were disposed of despite Constitution benches growing. 

“So many of these Constitution bench cases that we decided were cases which were pending for a long, long time in the Supreme Court. And, obviously, you can’t deal with all of them, but I tried to deal with as many as I could. But I don’t think it is really a matter of judicial evasion when a case cannot be taken up by, a court. Some of my predecessors, for instance, if they couldn’t take up a particular case, it was not an act of judicial evasion. It was just because of the pressure of work.”

“It’s only when you are the Chief Justice of India and a judge of the Supreme Court that you realise the enormous pressure of work, just the volume of work – pressure in the sense of the volume of work which you have to handle. So this is a big challenge of how do you balance the two,” he said.

Justice Chandrachud also stressed that the Supreme Court works even during vacations. “I know as a matter of fact that the first victim of a life on the bench is your own ability to spend time with your family. So, I am making up for lost ground now.”

New Delhi:

Dismissing reports of him being considered for the post of the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said rumours are being spread and that he is enjoying his retired life as a private citizen. 

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been without a full-time chairperson since former Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Kumar Mishra finished his tenure on June 1. A high-level committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and also comprising Home Minister Amit Shah and the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge,  had met on Wednesday to consider names for the new chief of the panel.

When Justice Chandrachud was asked about reports claiming that he was in contention for the post, he told NDTV: “It is just a rumour. Nobody has spoken to me about this and I am loving my life as a private citizen. I am enjoying my retired life.”

Justice Chandrachud, who was the 50th Chief Justice of India, demitted office on November 10. During his two-year tenure as the Chief Justice, he headed the Constitution bench which upheld the scrapping of Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and also led the bench which ordered the dismantling of the electoral bonds scheme. 

The NHRC, which is headed by a former Chief Justice of India or a retired Supreme Court judge, currently has one of its members, Vijaya Bharathi Sayani, serving as the acting chairperson. 

Former Chief Justice HL Dattu was appointed the chairperson of the panel in 2016 and former Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan also served as its head between 2010 and 2016. 

New Delhi:

Reacting to a recent remark by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi that the Opposition has taken it upon themselves to “do the task of the judiciary,” former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the judiciary is here to “scrutinise laws” and people should not presume that it will fulfil the role of opposition in Parliament or the state legislatures.

In an exclusive interview with ANI, former chief justice Chandrachud noted that there is separate space in a democracy for the political opposition.

“Well, I don’t want to join issue with the leader of the Opposition because that’s not the ambit of what we are here to speak. But what I want to say is this, people should not presume that the judiciary should be performing the role of the opposition in Parliament or the State legislatures. Too often, there’s a misconception that the judiciary has to play the role of the Opposition in legislatures, which is not so. We are here to scrutinise laws” he said.

“We are entrusted with the duty to scrutinise executive action on whether it is consistent with the law, and whether it is consistent with the Constitution. There’s a different space in a democracy for the political opposition. And what people try to do is to use the judiciary and to shoot from the shoulders of the judiciary and to try and convert the Court into a space for the political opposition,” former chief justice Chandrachud said.

Rahul Gandhi had earlier said, “We are alone working on the behalf of media, investigative agencies and judiciary also. This is the reality of India.”

When asked about intense scrutiny on social media on the duration of interactions with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, the former chief justice said as “human beings,” it is but natural to socialise during certain official meetings.

“Well, there are times when you interact with the leader of the Opposition as well. For instance, you know, in many of our statutes require that a selection committee for appointment to a particular post must consist of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition. Now, you know, you discuss what you have to discuss, and you arrive at your conclusions. And after you’re done with those conclusions, you are human beings, right? You’re going to spend 10 minutes after that having a cup of tea, talking about everything under the sun from cricket to movies to something,” the former Chief Justice said.

Responding to the controversy that erupted after Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended a Ganpati Puja at his residence, he said, that this was not “unique,” and that earlier too Prime Ministers had visited the homes of judges on social occasions.

“Look at the work which we have done. I think assess us in terms of the work which we have done. I think something which is, you know, a social visit, a sociable visit, and this is not unique. I’ve said this before, prime ministers visit people in the homes of judges on social occasions, sometimes on sad occasions as well. This is the element of elementary social courtesy which is followed within the system. And, you know, these social courtesies do not detract from the fact that despite these social curtsies which are observed at different levels of the government, in the work which we do, we are entirely independent of each other,” the former chief justice said.

In September, a row erupted after PM Modi visited the residence of the then Chief Justice of India for Ganpati Puja celebrations. The opposition, especially Congress and Trinamool Congress (TMC), criticised the visit, arguing that such meetings could raise questions on potential conflicts of interest.

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

New Delhi:

The society continues to view former judges as custodians of the law and their lifestyle must accord with the sense of faith the society has in the legal system, said DY Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India when asked if retired judges should join politics.

Asked if he would ever join politics himself, he asserted he would not do anything after the age of 65 which would cast an element of doubt on his work and the integrity of the judicial system.

“The society continues to look at you as a judge even when you lay down office. Therefore, things that are alright for other citizens, the society expects would not be alright for judges to do, even when they cease to be in office,” he said at NDTV’s Samvidhan@75 conclave.

Read: Judiciary Has No Exclusive Role In Collegium System. DY Chandrachud Explains

Justice Chandrachud, who retired earlier this month after serving as the country’s top judge for two years, clarified he was not casting an aspersion on judges who joined politics in the past.

“It is for every judge to take a call on whether a decision that they take after retirement will have a bearing on how people assess the work they did as a judge. If you join politics right after retirement, it may give rise to a certain perception on the members of the society on what was the extent to which his judicial work was influenced by the politics he adapted,” he added.

Acknowledging the role that the judicial institution has played in his career, he said, “Whatever a former judge does – his behaviour or personal lifestyle – must accord with the sense of faith the society has in your institution.”

Read: “Always Stable, Always Solid”: DY Chandrachud Praises This Retired Cricketer

He said judges are also private citizens and are entitled to the same rights that any other citizen gets, but society expects a higher standard of behaviour from them. “There should be some element of consensus within the judiciary on what is acceptable and what not is acceptable. That consensus has still not evolved,” he added.

He also suggested that sitting judges may discuss with former judges what is most appropriate for retired judges to do.

New Delhi:

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at NDTV’s Samvidhan @ 75 event, revealed his enduring love for cricket. Mr Chandrachud, who retired recently as the 50th Chief Justice of India, said that even though his schedule does not allow him, he tries his best to follow Indian cricket as much as he can. 

“My favorite game is, of course, cricket,” Mr Chandrachud said. “But I do not get the time to play. Also, I have become a bit old to play cricket these days.”

Mr Chandrachud confessed to following the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy Test series between India and Australia closely, albeit in bite-sized formats. 

“I don’t get to see the live broadcast, but I watch the 5-7 minute highlights every night to see how Virat Kohli has played, how Ravichandran Ashwin has bowled, or if Jasprit Bumrah has bowled well or not. Bumrah had bowled really well at Perth,” he noted, reminiscing about Bumrah’s match-winning five-wicket haul that skittled Australia for 104 in the first Test at Perth. 

When pressed about his favourite cricketers, Mr Chandrachud named Jasprit Bumrah and Virat Kohli among the current players. “Among previous cricketers, I am a fan of Rahul Dravid – always stable, always solid,” he said.

Mr Chandrachud was succeeded by Sanjiv Khanna as the Chief Justice of India on November 10. During his time in the Supreme Court, he delivered over 500 judgments and sat on 38 Constitution benches, delivering verdicts on issues ranging from the Ayodhya land dispute to the abrogation of Article 370 and the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relationships.

New Delhi:
Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take oath as the 51st Chief Justice of India at the Rashtrapati Bhavan today. He succeeds Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who retired on Sunday.

Here is all you need to know about Justice Sanjiv Khanna:

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.)

New Delhi:

On the final day of his tenure as the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud delivered a message from the ceremonial bench and acknowledged the reality that he would no longer serve as the country’s top judge. 

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

Chief Justice Chandrachud, who assumed office on November 9, 2022, bid farewell to his position today after his two-year term ended. Recalling a lighthearted moment with his registrar judicial the previous evening, he shared, “When my registrar judicial asked me what time the ceremonial should begin, I said 2 pm, thinking it would allow us to wrap up a lot of pending items. But I wondered to myself-will anyone actually be here at 2 pm on a Friday afternoon? Or will I just be left looking at myself on the screen?” 

Reflecting on his career, he described the role of judges as akin to pilgrims, coming to court each day with a commitment to serve. “The work we do can make or break cases,” he said. He paid tribute to the “great judges who have adorned this court and passed on the baton,” adding that he felt reassured leaving the bench in the capable hands of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, whom he praised as an able leader.

“If I have ever hurt anyone in the court, please forgive me for that,” he said, quoting the Jain phrase “Michhami Dukkadam,” which translates to “May all my misdeeds be forgiven.” 

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

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who has been nominated as his successor and will be sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India on November 11, said, “I never had the chance to appear in Justice Chandrachud’s court, but what he has done for the marginalised and the needy is beyond compare.”

He added a personal anecdote about Justice Chandrachud’s fondness for samosas, remarking that they were served in nearly every meeting, though the Chief Justice himself refrained from eating them.

Justice Chandrachud’s tenure saw many changes within the court, from the establishment of Mitti Cafe, a facility empowering individuals with disabilities, to a dedicated bar room for women lawyers, alongside other beautification projects for the Supreme Court premises.

In his two-year term, Justice Chandrachud authored a series of landmark judgments. Notably, he presided over the Constitution Bench upholding the revocation of Article 370, which redefined the politics of Jammu and Kashmir, ordering that elections be conducted by September 2024 and stressing the need to restore statehood “at the earliest and as soon as possible.”

In another significant judgement, Justice Chandrachud declined to alter the Special Marriage Act to recognise same-sex marriages, deferring to the legislature. However, he insisted on the right of the LGBTQ+ community to be treated with dignity, free from discrimination. 

Justice Chandrachud also led the decision to dismantle the controversial electoral bonds scheme, mandating greater transparency in political financing and ordering the State Bank of India to cease issuing electoral bonds.