Never Faced Political Pressure From Govt In My Life As Judge: CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud recently said that he has never faced political pressure from any government in his 24-year long term as a judge. 

At a Q&A session organized by the Oxford Union earlier this month, CJI was asked about the "political pressure on the judiciary, particularly in the past few years."

In response, CJI said, "Political pressure, if you ask me in the sense of pressure from the government, I would tell you that in the 24 years I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be."

CJI also added that as per the conventions in India, "judges live a life isolated from the political arm of the government."

At the same time, CJI stated that judges are often conscious of the likely political ramifications of their decisions. 

"If you mean "political pressure" in a broader sense of a judge realising the impact of a decision which may have political ramifications, obviously, judges have to be conversant of the impact of their decisions on the polity at large when you are deciding constitutional cases. That is not political pressure I believe. That is an understanding by the Court of the likely impact of the decision, which the judge must necessarily factor-in in their consideration."

He also talked about the "social pressure", in the sense that the judges often think about the societal impact of their judgments.

"Many of the cases we decide involve intense societal impacts. As judges, I believe it is our duty to be cognizant of the impact of our decisions on the social ordering which we are ultimately going to affect."

Replying to another question as to how the Indian judiciary can balance independence, social justice and minority rights in a "politically charged atmosphere", CJI said, "When you have trained judges deciding disputes, that allows for courts to decide on the basis of settled traditions based on Constitutional precepts as opposed to the passions of the moment."

Interpreting the Constitution not activism

In the session, CJI DY Chandrachud responded to several questions regarding judicial activism, public confidence in the judiciary, problem of case pendency, social media pressure on the judges etc.

When judges are interpreting the law to give effect to constitutional values, they are not being "activists", clarified the CJI. He went on to add that it is "plain duty" of the judges to interpret the Constitution and the law and discharging of such a duty cannot be termed as "judicial activism."

"When judges are interpreting the Constitution, they are not being activists. It is their duty. The work we do is a matter of plain duty and nothing more than that," CJI said underscoring that the judges are conscious of the separation of powers and the specific roles assigned to each organ of the State by the Constitution.

Addressing the issue of case pendency, the CJI said that the underlying cause was the lack of sufficient number of judges. "Judge to population ratio in India is amongst the lowest in the world. We simply need more judges. We are engaging with the Govt to increase the strength of the judiciary at all levels," he said. He added that efforts are also being made to ensure the speedy filling up of vacancies in the judiciary. 

CJI also elaborated on the steps taken to employ technology and Artificial Intelligence to make the judiciary more transparent and accessible. 

He opined that the huge number of cases being filed in the courts in India was an indicator of the level of public trust in the judiciary. However, he admitted that a lot more needed to be done to increase the public trust in the system. The best way to achieve this is by increasing the transparency and accountability of the judiciary.

"We can do a lot more and we are trying to do a lot more to entrench public confidence in the judiciary. The best way is for the Courts to be transparent and accountable to the people. We are not accountable in that sense to democratically elected institutions like Parliament. We can do a lot more to be transparent which we are trying to do and we can add a lot more to our accountability," he said.

Excerpts from the session can be found in the Twitter (X) thread below :