On His First Day, CJI Bobde Shares Bench With Judges Of Supreme Courts Of Jamaica And Bhutan

Chief Justice S. A. Bobde's first day at the helm of the affairs in Court room no.1 also witnessed the presence, as guests, of his Jamaican counterpart and a senior judge of the Supreme Court of Bhutan.

Taking the dais with Justices Surya Kant and B. R. Gavai, and observing the proceedings, were Chief Justice of Jamaica Justice Bryan Sykes and Bhutanese Justice Kuenlay Tshering.

 Justice Bobde was sworn in as the 47th Chief Justice of India by the President on Monday morning, following the retirement of ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi on November 17.

An unexpected event for most in the brimming Chief Court on Monday, it is a fairly common practice for several constitutional courts across the world (particularly, the Commonwealth) to appoint foreign judges on their bench.

Notably, the Supreme Court of Jamaica had extensively followed Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgement to declare that its National Identification and Registration Act is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect.

Some observations made by CJ Sykes on the dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Chandrachud:

"From reading the judgments, in this case, Dr Chandrachud J, in my respectful view, demonstrated a greater sensitivity to the issues of privacy and freedom that is not as evident in the judgments of the majority of the other judges who delivered concurring judgments. His Lordship had a clear-eyed view of the dangers of a state or anyone having control over one's personal information and generally, I preferred his approach to the issue over that of the other judges."

"Unlike the majority in Puttaswamy (September 26, 2018) who seemed to have taken a rather benign view of this aspect of the matter, Dr Chandrachud J destroyed the notion that merely because similar or identical information is already in the possession of the state that in and of itself makes taking of such information again legitimate. His Lordship clearly understood the implication of collecting biographical information, combining it with biometric then automating the process with supporting algorithms."

"What is important to note is that the majority and Dr Chandrachud J proceeded on the premise that oversight of the data controller was necessary. The difference was that the majority thought that the existing structure was sufficient and Dr Chandrachud J thought that it was not. While respecting and understanding the view of the majority, I prefer Dr Chandrachud J on this aspect. "

"Respectfully, the majority in Puttaswamy (September 26, 2018) did not seem to have a full understanding of this and its implications in the say that has been demonstrated by Dr Chandrachud."