The Mixed Legacy Of CJI DY Chandrachud

Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, who had a relatively long tenure of two years as the Chief Justice of India, held the mantle of the judiciary when the Indian Republic was at a crossroads. The judiciary was suffering a major public trust deficit due to the blatant inactions and transgressions during the terms of some of the previous CJIs, though some degree of mitigation happened during the immediately preceding terms of NV Ramana and UU Lalit. A majoritarian government was at its peak, unhesitant in its direct onslaughts on some of the most important ideals of the Constitution, particularly federalism and secularism. Instances of infringement on the liberties of journalists, activists, opposition leaders, and minorities became alarmingly frequent, signalling a broader backsliding of democratic values. There was also a growing perception that the balance of power had shifted too heavily in favour of the executive, which seemed determined to capture independent institutions. It was a crucial juncture where the country, its people and its Constitution needed an independent and fearless judiciary the most.

Shortly before he took charge as the CJI, this author had commented that Justice Chandrachud, who was known for his liberal and progressive views as well as the vision of a transformative Constitution, would face significant challenges, particularly in a political climate dominated by the Hindutva ideology. Did he rise to the challenge and administer justice without yielding to pressures? Did he restore the balance of power and enhance judicial independence? At the risk of sounding too simplistic, one can say, there are some shining achievements and some disappointing failures.

In a candid display of vulnerability- rare for those in positions of power -CJI, a few weeks before his retirement, openly admitted in a public address that he was anxious about how history would judge his tenure. He then followed up the comment with his own subjective assessment that he has given the job his fullest and served with utmost dedication. However, from an external perspective, his legacy appears to be a mixed one.

'Served Country With Dedication': As Retirement Nears, CJI DY Chandrachud Says He Is Thinking About How History Will Judge His Tenure

Unparalleled Erudition

Even the harshest critics of Justice Chandrachud will agree that he is an intellectual giant, having a great mastery over all fields of law. Of all the subjects, Constitutional law must have been closest to his heart. Apart from law, he had a deep understanding of history and society and a clear awareness of how law operated in Indian society—still influenced by its feudal past and plagued by various hierarchies related to caste and gender. Equality is not the inherent order of the Indian society and it is a value which has to be ingrained and enforced through the application of law, he knew. This understanding guided his interpretation of the Constitution, which is evident in some of his landmark judgments in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which addressed women's entry into temples; Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which decriminalized adultery; and Navtej Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.

Beyond the erudition in law, Justice Chandrachud possessed an impressive mastery over language, which made his judgments a delightful read. They had a remarkable style and had none of the pretensions which some judgments indulge in to appear literary. This made them an engaging and lively read, even when they are dealing with technical and complex issues like the interpretation of legislative entries of the seventh schedule of the Constitution. An example is the recent judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority, which dealt with the state's power to tax mineral rights. The manner in which he explained and applied the principle of 'double proportionality' in the Electoral Bonds judgment, elucidated upon the intersectionality principle in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 'triple chain of accountability' in Delhi Govt v. LG case etc. are further instances of his accurate legal reasoning. His judgments addressing the issue of caste, State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (which allowed sub-classification of castes), Sukanya Shanta v. Union of India (on caste discrimination in prisons) show his rich sociological perspective.

Due to the limitations of this short article, it is impossible to list all the landmark judgments authored by him. 

Constitution Bench Judgments Of Justice DY Chandrachud

Judicial compassion

He knew that the administration of justice should be tempered with judicial compassion at times. The manner in which he invoked the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to allow IIT admission for a Dalit boy who lost the chance due to a delay in paying the fee was a heartwarming instance.

Child rights and disability rights were other areas which were close to his heart. The judgments in Just Rights for Child Alliance which tightened the loopholes in the POCSO Act for stern treatment of child sex abuse materials, Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures in which guidelines were issued for the sensitive portrayal of persons with disability in visual media, Rajive Raturi v.Union of India which issued directions to make public spaces more accessible for persons with disability,  and in Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action where guidelines to prevent child marriages were issued deserve special mention.

Heralding the technological reforms in the judiciary

CJI Chandrachud's legacy will be particularly remembered for the technological reforms he pioneered, including the institutionalization of virtual hearings, live streaming, and the ambitious e-courts project to modernize the judiciary. Key initiatives of his tenure include the eSCR project (digitizing Supreme Court reports), digiSCR (a free online search database for Supreme Court judgments), the use of AI to transcribe Constitution Bench hearings and translate judgments into regional languages, the implementation of a neutral citation system, and the integration of Supreme Court statistics into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Towards the end of his tenure, live streaming expanded beyond Constitution Bench hearings to include regular hearings of all benches. 

Justice Chandrachud did not merely initiate these reforms; he actively guided and encouraged judges across the High Courts and District Judiciary to ensure their proper implementation He acted strongly against the High Courts discontinuing hybrid hearings and issued judicial directions (Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General) that all Courts must make these facilities available to all litigants.

It would be a mistake to dismiss these technological reforms as mere cosmetic changes, as they significantly increased the judiciary's accessibility to the common people. Moreover, they helped democratize the legal profession, with virtual hearings proving to be a boon for young lawyers, particularly women lawyers.  

His efforts to make the adjudication process more transparent and accessible, such as live-streaming and publication of case disposal statistics, are laudable. Even when video clips showing unsavoury remarks of judges became viral, CJI Chandrachud took a firm stand that such controversies cannot be a reason to stop live-streaming. “The answer is more sunlight,” he said, stressing that judges should learn to conduct themselves appropriately, instead of drawing a curtain over court proceedings. His judgment advising judges to shed prejudices against gender and communities as well as the publication of handbooks on gender and disability stereotypes are notable steps in the right direction to sensitize the judiciary. 

Deciding long pending CB cases and contentious issues

Several previous Chief Justices faced criticism for their refusal to hear and decide on constitutionally important matters like Article 370 and Electoral Bonds, with many observers interpreting it as a reluctance to tackle politically sensitive issues. In contrast, CJI Chandrachud took a bold stance, addressing these long-pending disputes head-on, including the contentious issues of Article 370 and Electoral Bonds. He took a bold stand by striking down the anonymous electoral bonds scheme and by ensuring that the ECI and the SBI complied with the directions to ensure proper disclosures of the donor data. The judgment is a milestone in enhancing the voters' right to know.

He also delivered judgments in politically charged cases like the Shiv Sena dispute and the power struggle between the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor.

His tenure saw the disposal of several larger bench references, including 9-judge and 7-judge bench matters, which had been pending for several years. These include the issues relating to States' powers to tax mineral rights, sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, States' power to regulate industrial alcohol,  immunity for bribery in the legislature, Aligarh Muslim University minority status, unstamped arbitration agreements, group of companies doctrine, LMV driving licence, automatic stay vacation, Article 39(b) and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. However, the issues regarding CAA and Sabarimala reference remain unresolved. Though CJI promised many times that the money bill matter (which has a bearing on the contentious Aadhaar Act and PMLA amendments) would be listed soon, it never happened.

Upholding Fiscal Federalism, Reining in Governors

CJI Chandrachud has delivered certain notable judgments upholding fiscal federalism. In Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, while holding that GST council recommendations are not binding on state legislatures, he expounded an interesting concept of “uncooperative federalism”. The 9-judge bench judgments upholding the powers of the States to tax mineral rights and regulate industrial alcohol enhance the role of the federal units within the Constitutional contours. CJI Chandrachud also came down heavily on the Governors who were assuming extra-constitutional powers to scuttle the role of the elected governments. An order was passed in the case against the Telangana Governor stating that the Governors have to decide on bills within a reasonable time. A strong judgment was passed in the case against the Punjab Governor holding that Governors cannot sit on bills indefinitely to veto the legislature. The Governors of Kerala and Tamil Nadu also had to face strong verbal reprimands from the CJI for delaying bills. The TN Governor also faced the music of the Court for refusing to swear in a Minister whose conviction was stayed by the Court. In GNCTD v UoI, the CJI's judgment made a categorical statement that the governance of states can't be taken over by the Union by undermining federal principles.

Upholding media freedom

In Madhyamam Broadcasting, quashing the telecast ban imposed by the Centre on Malayalam news channel MediaOne, CJI Chandrachud wrote that the press has the duty to speak truth to the power and that critical views expressed by a channel would not make it "anti-establishment." The State can't simply invoke the ground of "national security" to curb press freedom, he asserted. The judgment is also notable for denouncing the "sealed cover procedure."

In Bloomberg TV v. Zee, CJI Chandrachud held that Courts should not ordinarily grant injunctions against media publications at the pre-trial stage.

The order preventing the Centre from notifying the Fact Check Unit, which would have curbed social media dissent, was quite substantial and timely.

 No relief, only obiter - Judgments with paper relief in politically sensitive cases

In many politically contentious matters, it appeared that CJI Chandrachud took a bizarre stand, since his judgments, despite finding several illegalities, did not pass any substantive directions to undo them. So the judgment remained a paper relief, giving only a moral consolation to the affected party, and the transgressor got to reap the benefits of the illegalities. In the Maharashtra Shiv Sena dispute, the judgment found the Speaker's decision to recognize the Eknath Shinde group as the official Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Governor's decision to call for a floor test unconstitutional. Yet, the Court refused to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray as the Chief Minister on a weak reasoning that he had resigned before the floor test. CJI also did not resolve the challenge to the ECI's decision to recognize the Shinde faction and the Speaker's refusal to disqualify the Shinde group MLAs, although he orally expressed doubts about the legality of the Speaker using the “legislative majority” test.

This example set by the CJI was followed by other Supreme Court benches in certain other cases too, giving rise to a pattern, about which this author had commented in an article titled “Supreme Court's 'Illegal But Permissible' Jurisprudence”.

Likewise, in the Delhi Government- Union dispute, the judgment favouring the primacy of the elected government in regulating services was short-lived, as the Union Government soon brought an Ordinance to negate the judgment. Although the Ordinance (and the Act which replaced it), suffered from various patent infirmities, CJI Chandrachud did not decide the challenge to its validity, and referred the issue to the Constitution Bench, setting the ground for another sequel to the Delhi Government-LG fight. His stand in the related issue regarding LG's power to nominate aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is also debatable. During the hearing, CJI said that giving such powers to the LG can destabilize the elected body. The judgment was reserved on May 17, 2023 and was delivered nearly 15 months later, upholding the LG's powers. The judgment was quite surprising as it was contrary to the judgment in the Delhi Government-LG matter (more explained in this article). The overall effect is that, the primacy of the elected government of Delhi in matters over which it has jurisdiction, which was judicially upheld by the Supreme Court, was undermined by the Court itself through its subsequent acts.

In the Article 370 matter, the judgment did not address the challenge to the downgrading of a State into a Union Territory. This constitutionally significant issue was left unresolved simply based on an assurance given by the Solicitor General that the statehood of J&K would be restored though no timeline was specified. The Court's refusal to answer the issue whether a Parliamentary law passed under Article 3 can convert a State into a Union Territory can only be termed as an abdication of the judicial power (more explained in this article). 

Article 370 Judgment Constitutionally Flawed, Bad In Law : Fali S Nariman

Allowing mandir-masjid disputes to linger; refusal to douse the fires against Places of Worship Act

A major failing of CJI DY Chandrachud, which will haunt the social fabric of our nation for generations to come, is the manner in which he allowed the Gyanvapi mosque dispute to fester. The judgment in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, widely believed to have been authored by Justice Chandrachud, categorically stated that the present-day legal regime cannot be used to correct the alleged historical wrongs committed by medieval rulers. The judgment also upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, terming it as the State's commitment to protect the basic Constitutional feature of secularism. Yet, in the Gyanvapi case, Justice Chandrachud took a technical stand, which can only be described as convenient and evasive, allowing the suits against the Gyanvapi mosque to continue. Compounding this, Justice Chandrachud made a damning oral remark during the case hearing, that the Places of Worship Act does not bar suits which seek to ascertain the religious character of a structure. Subsequently, the trial court and the High Court adopted the same reasoning expressed by the CJI to uphold the maintainability of the suits in the Gyanvapi matter. A similar pattern was followed by the trial court in the Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute as well.

Given Justice Chandrachud's intellectual prowess, keen social awareness and foresight, it was expected of him to understand the political machinations behind these suits and their potential to harm our communal fabric. Therefore, Justice Chandrachud's approach seemed all the more disappointing. Even when unusual events happened in the Gyanvapi case- such as the last-minute transfer of the case from the HC judge who had reserved judgment or the rapid manner in which a puja was allowed overnight in the cellar of the mosque soon after the HC order- Justice Chandrachud preferred to look the other way.

Furthermore, it remains puzzling why Justice Chandrachud allowed the continuation of the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, despite the Act being previously upheld by a 5-judge bench. With one word, Justice Chandrachud could have laid the matter to rest. He allowed the sparks to fly, creating a cloud of smoke over the Constitutional ideal of secularism. The pattern of Justice Chandrachud undermining the Constitutional values which he himself extolled in his judgments can be seen in this instance also. This failure will remain as arguably the biggest blot on his legacy.

Towards the end of his tenure, he made a startling remark that he prayed to the deity to find a solution to the Ayodhya dispute. While a judge certainly has the right to practice religion(CJI Chandrachud's temple visits and performances of rituals attracted wide publicity), the judge has to also ensure that faith does not influence adjudicatory duties, especially in sensitive matters involving one's own religion.

Not deciding the validity of 'Love Jihad' laws

CJI did not decide the validity of the 'love-jihad' laws enacted by States of UP, MP, Gujarat, Uttarakhand etc. which curb religious conversions and inter-religious marriages, despite the petitions being pending before him for over two years. A straightforward application of his own judgments in the Hadiya case (Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM) and the Puttaswamy case would render the provisions of these laws, which interfere with an individual's choice of faith and life partner, constitutionally suspect. CJI also avoided deciding the Karnataka Hijab issue, which was referred to a larger bench in October 2022 following a split in the 2-judge bench.

At the same time, CJI's decisions in the UP Madarsa Education Act and Aligarh Muslim University cases boosted minority rights.

Adani-Hindenburg matter

In the Adani-Hindenburg matter, CJI Chandrachud began with a position of unquestioning trust in the SEBI, treating its version as the gospel truth. The report of the SC constituted committee opined that the regulatory changes made by the SEBI itself undermined its own probe against the Adani group of companies. According to the committee, the SEBI's probe was bound to reach a dead-end. Despite this, the Court refrained from questioning SEBI's approach and gave its approval to the ongoing investigations.

The direction in the judgment to investigate the short-selling activities of Hindenburg seemed puzzling, as it was based on an unsubstantiated premise that Indian investors incurred heavy losses due to the short-sellers activities, although the expert committee's finding was that the Indian market as a whole did not experience any volatility due to it. The Court refused to accept the reports published by newspapers and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to doubt the SEBI probe. The Court's unwavering trust in the SEBI appeared to lack a concrete basis, resting solely on the fact that it was a statutory regulator. Even after the publication of a second Hindenburg report, which raised serious allegations of conflict of interest against SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch, the Court did not deem it necessary to revisit the matter to address public concerns about the fairness of the investigation. Moreover, despite suggesting a timeline of three months in January 2024 for SEBI to complete its pending investigations—a deadline that lapsed in April—the Court did not inquire into SEBI's progress. The Court's continued faith in SEBI seems to have no clear justification beyond a desire to trust the regulator, despite growing doubts about the transparency and effectiveness of its investigation.

Handling of the Manipur issue

Severe ethnic clashes erupted in the State of Manipur in May 2023 and as per some reports, the situation is far from normal even now. Soon after the violence started, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by tribal groups, seeking protection by the armed forces. The bench led by CJI Chandrachud chose to go by the statements made on behalf of the Union and the State in early May 2023 that normalcy was being restored. In early July 2023, the Court refused to accept the tribal group's plea to deploy armed forces in Manipur for security, saying that the Court cannot run the law and order. Interestingly, Justice Chandrachud had earlier passed directions to deploy the CAPF for Tripura local body elections in November 2021. The Supreme Court in June 2023 affirmed the High Court's direction to deploy central forces for West Bengal panchayat elections. Manipur's situation was far more alarming as there was a virtual breakdown of the State's law and order machinery, which the Supreme Court itself was forced to acknowledge a few weeks later, when certain horrific videos showing sexual assault of women in Manipur became viral in the social media. On July 20, 2023, a week after the Court refused to order the deployment of security forces, it took suo motu cognizance of the viral video(which showed an incident which happened in May). In a subsequent hearing, the CJI verbally blasted the Manipur administration and went to the extent of saying that there was “absolutely no law and order” and the “state police has not been in charge for at least two months” - concerns which the petitioners had been raising since May 2023, which the Court chose not to heed. As far as enforcing the accountability of the State was concerned, the Court stopped at these verbal outrages. The hearing ultimately led to the Court transferring the investigation of cases of sexual violence to the CBI and the constitution of a judges panel to oversee issues related to humanitarian relief for the survivors. The entire episode raises questions about whether the CJI could have taken more proactive measures to protect civilians and enforce stronger accountability. The Court's responses seemed a late afterthought, prompted by the public outrage caused by the viral videos.

The curious RG Kar suo motu case

The Supreme Court taking a suo motu case over the rape-murder of a doctor of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata appeared to be an ill-timed move. By that time, the Calcutta High Court had already transferred the investigation to the CBI and had decided to monitor the probe. Therefore, the suo motu intervention amounted to taking away the High Court's jurisdiction, something the Supreme Court is loath to do in ordinary circumstances. Saying that it wanted to address the broader issues regarding safety of medical professionals in hospitals across the country, the Court constituted an expert panel to submit suggestions. Interestingly, another bench of the Court, a month ago, had dismissed a similar petition seeking security measures for doctors, saying that laws were already in place. Be that as it may, security of medical professionals is a matter of serious concern and the Court should be lauded for taking up this issue. However, the matter did not end there, as the Supreme Court continued scrutinizing the pending investigation (which the High Court was already doing). Moreover, as the case took on political dimensions, the court found itself in the midst of a political battleground, with allegations and counter-allegations flying between parties.The Court also was constrained to manage the local issues regarding law and order and doctors' protests, things which it would have normally left for the jurisdictional High Court. The hearing in this sensitive case unfortunately turned into a national spectacle. The lawyers appearing for the State were targeted through vicious online trolling. With the CBI ultimately affirming the state police's findings about the accused, the suo motu case now seems poised for a quiet closure, despite the initial sound and fury.

Judicial appointments

At one point of time during CJI Chandrachud's tenure, there was acrimonious friction between the judiciary and the executive regarding the primacy over judicial appointments, especially when Kiren Rijiju was the Union Law Minister. Comments attacking the collegium system were a regular fare from the executive functionaries. At the time, a bench led by Justice Kaul passed certain strong observations condemning the Centre's delay in approving the collegium resolutions. The bench's strictures produced some results, as some appointments were notified.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court collegium, in an unprecedented move, publicized the reasons for rejecting the IB objections to the proposals to elevate Saurabh Kirpal, John Satyan, Somasekharan Sundaresan. The Collegium's publications revealed that the Centre's objections were based on the sexual orientation of Kirpal and the critical views expressed by Sathyan and Sundaresan. In a subsequent resolution, the Collegium criticized the Centre for approving fresh proposals while keeping the reiterated names pending.

However, beyond these statements, the Court did not take any judicial action to ensure timely action by the Centre. The judges' appointment matter was suddenly taken off the list of Justice Kaul shortly before his retirement, about which Justice Kaul himself expressed surprise in the open court. After Justice Kaul's retirement, this matter was not pursued by CJI DY Chandrachud. Towards the fag end of his term, CJI Chandrachud took up another matter regarding judicial appointments, and asked the Centre to explain the reasons for not notifying the reiterated proposals. However, it came as an action too late(the matter did not get listed after that before CJI's retirement). Several reiterations, including the proposals to elevate Saurabh Kirpal, John Sathyan and some transfer proposals made way back in 2023 are pending with the Centre.

The omission to elevate an independent judge like Justice Muralidhar, despite his seniority, was glaring(more detailed in an earlier article).

A major blemish on CJI Chandrachud's legacy as the head of the Collegium will be the Justice Victoria Gowri episode. When a petition challenging her appointment was filed, CJI Chandrachud claimed that the Collegium was not aware of the materials showing alleged hate speeches made by her. However, the CJI could not ensure a timely hearing of the petition before the oath was administered to the judge in question. The petition was ultimately dismissed by another bench which rejected the argument that "the facts were not known and considered by the Collegium." The whole episode was a major embarrassment casting the Collegium in a poor light. What is troubling is that, in a public interaction at the Harvard Law School, CJI attempted to downplay the issue by saying that judgeship cannot be refused merely on the basis of one's political views, conveniently forgetting that the objection to this appointment was on the ground of hate speeches made against religious minorities.

The failure of the Supreme Court collegium to nominate a single woman judge during this term also stands out.

Opaqueness of the Master of Roster powers

CJI Chandrachud's tenure also witnessed several controversies regarding the listing and allocation of cases, raising concerns about the opaqueness in the exercise of powers as the “Master of Roster”. There were complaints that sensitive matters were being allocated to benches which are perceived to be favourable to the executive, bypassing the listing rules. Senior Advocate and former SCBA President Dushyant Dave wrote an open letter to the CJI raising this issue. “Why should some kinds of cases go only to a particular judge who also does not happen to a senior judge?”, former SC judge MB Lokur commented on this phenomenon.

In the context of Umar Khalid withdrawing his bail application from the Supreme Court, Justice Lokur said that there was a perception that “when the case goes before the particular bench, this is going to be the result."

However, towards the second half of CJI's tenure, whether as a result of the public criticism or not, certain improvements happened, as a result of which, certain independent benches of the Supreme Court started getting more voice. The judgments granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, highlighted the potential of abuse inherent in the money laundering law and diluted the stringency of bail conditions to a certain extent. Judgments such as Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Anil Tuteja, Pavana Dibbur, Prem Prakash, Tarsem Lal etc placed some safeguards against the abuse of PMLA/UAPA. The Court also made a strong intervention to halt the trend of “bulldozer actions”, whereby the houses of those accused in crimes were demolished as a punitive action. In his last working day, CJI passed a strong order against illegal house demolitions and directed disciplinary action against erring officials, with grant of interim compensation of Rs.25 lakhs to the affected party. "Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law," he wrote in his last uploaded judgment.

Curious stay on Ritu Chhabaria decision

Despite being a votary of personal liberty, it was quite startling to see CJI Chandrachud staying the operation of the judgment delivered by a coordinate bench in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India And Ors. In Ritu Chhabaria, a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and CT Ravikumar held that an incomplete chargesheet filed by the investigating agency without completing the investigation will not defeat the right of the accused for default bail. Few days after the judgment was delivered, CJI Chandrachud passed an order effectively suspending its operation. This was done on an oral mentioning of the Solicitor General with respect to another petition filed by the ED. A two-judge bench led by CJI ordered that no court should consider default bail applications based on Ritu Chhabaria judgment. There were several procedural infirmities in the CJI's order. Firstly, there is no intra-court appeal in the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Court can be reconsidered only in review or curative jurisdictions. Secondly, a coordinate bench cannot nullify the operation of the judgment of another bench. Thirdly, on a mere oral mentioning, the order was passed. If at all there was a recall application, it ought to have been listed before the same bench which passed the judgment. It is a matter of regret that CJI did not constitute a bench to settle the issue and the Ritu Chhabaria judgment remains ineffective till date.

Judicial independence is not judicial balancing

It can be seen that wherever Justice Chandrachud faltered, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it ended up, whether coincidentally or otherwise, to the benefit of the Union Government or the political position of the party in power at the centre. CJI Chandrachud himself has said that public trust is important for Courts to enjoy legitimacy and authority. Many of his failings have the effect of eroding public trust. Instances such as allowing a puja by the Prime Minister at the CJI's residence did great damage to the public perception of judicial independence. In one sense, CJI changing the statue of Lady Justice by removing the blindfold and replacing the sword with a book is quite symbolic -the Court sees everything yet its grand judgments remain as bookish declarations lacking enforceability. A two-year tenure was a golden opportunity to transform the standing of the judiciary in the public eye. That opportunity was perhaps squandered. While there were many technological reforms and notable judgments, nothing much was gained as far as the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. It appeared that throughout his tenure, he was attempting to play a balancing act- maintain a persona of being liberal and progressive while ensuring not to upset the government. Thus, the glaring illegalities in cases involving the ruling party's political interests were condoned.

In his last week at the office, the CJI gave a press interview, where he appeared defensive while responding to public criticisms. When Electoral Bonds' judgment was delivered, the Court was hailed as independent but when some other judgment was given in favour of the government, it was decried, the CJI lamented. He also attributed motives to critics, denouncing them as "pressure groups" and "interest groups" who cry foul if a judgment was not in their interests. The public defence was quite uncharacteristic of a CJI and perhaps made his public image worse, as many of his explanations did not cut the ice. For example, his explanation that Chief Justices and Ministers often meet for administrative purposes was not a defence for the PM's visit for Ganesh Puja, which was a private religious event. Also, what was the administrative exigency for such a meeting at the fag end of the term, one wondered. The CJI's comment that he has granted bail from Arnab to Zubair was also quite unbecoming, as judges ought not to take public credit for protecting personal liberty. Also, the irony of the comment, when many political prisoners like Umar Khalid and Bhima Koregaon accused are still languishing in prisons, was not lost on many.

It appeared that under the guise of judicial independence, the CJI was advocating judicial balancing. Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice in some cases cannot be offset by the justice delivered in others.

CJI Chandrachud's silences at crucial junctures demanding action - like the silence of Bhishma when Droupadi was subjected to injustice- speak louder than his illustrious instances of administering justice in individual cases. His failings - which overshadow his achievements- seem like the unkindest cut of all, for he knew what he was doing.

The author is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He can be reached at manu@livelaw.in.

The article was updated to include the CJI's judgment against 'bulldozer justice', which was uploaded after the publication of the article.