Independence Of Judiciary Doesn't Mean Constantly Deciding Against Government : CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday (November 4) said that independence of the judiciary does not mean that judgments must be delivered always against the government.

The outgoing CJI, who is due to demit office on November 10, said that with the advent of social media, several "pressure groups" have emerged, who would cry foul if a matter was not decided as per their interests. Judicial independence means independence not just from the government but also from such "pressure groups" and "interest groups."

Speaking at a discussion hosted by The Indian Express, CJI Chandrachud said that the Court's role is not that of a "political opposition."

"Traditionally, judicial independence was defined as independence from the executive. Independence from the judiciary even now means independence from the government. But that is not the only thing in terms of judicial independence. Our society has changed. Particularly with the advent of social media, you see the group of interest groups, pressure groups, and groups which are trying to use electronic media to put pressure on the Courts to arrive at certain outcomes. What you increasingly find is that a lot of segments of these groups say, well, 'if you decide in my favour, you are independent. If you don't decide in my favour, you are not independent.' That's what I have an objection to. To be independent a judge must have the independence to decide what their conscience tells them, of course, the conscience which is guided by the law and the Constitution," CJI said.

CJI said that when he struck down the electoral bonds, he was hailed as independent, but when he decided another case in favour of the government, he was criticised.

"When you decided electoral bonds, "Oh, you are independent!". But if a verdict goes in favour of the government, then you are not independent. That is not my definition of independence," CJI said to the applause of the audience.

"You must give the judges the leeway or freedom to decide as they feel where the balance of justice lies, irrespective of whom the verdict goes in favour of. This is truly my concern, that today, it is expected that, you are treated as an independent court provided you constantly hold against the government. The cases which have to go against the government, we decided against the government. But if the law requires a case to be decided in favour of the government, you have to decide in accordance with the law. That message has to go across which is crucial to the existence of a stable and vibrant judiciary."

When asked if the Lok Sabha election result has changed the approach of the Court, CJI said, "The atmospherics may suggest that these things make a difference. We decided the electoral bonds case even before the June 4th verdict. We decided the matter even before the country went into elections. These are not issues which affect judges. But building a consensus within the court, building a direction in which we should be going requires certain degree of deliberations. You don't suddenly change track overnight in cases. They decide cases in incremental changes. That incremental change coming in from the Court is very crucial to maintain the stability of our jurisprudence, to ensure there is no radical shift from the left to the right or up to the bottom."

Also read - Couldn't Appoint Women Judge To Supreme Court As There Was No One Senior Enough For Elevation : CJI DY Chandrachud

Absolutely Nothing Wrong In Prime Minister Visiting My Home For Private Event : CJI DY Chandrachud

Live updates from the discussion can be read in this 'X' thread.