Independence Of Individual Judges Vital For Independent Judiciary, Beyond Executive & Legislative Insulation: CJI DY Chandrachud

In the Ceremonial Bench proceedings held today (January 28) to mark the Diamond Jubilee of the Supreme Court (beginning of 75th year since its inception), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud notably remarked that insulation of judicial institutions by constitutional safeguards was not enough to ensure independence of judiciary from Legislature and/or Executive branches of the government.

Emphasizing that individual judges need to be able to independently perform their roles as judges, the CJI said,

"The Constitution entrenches several institutional safeguards for an independent judiciary such as a fixed retirement age and a bar against the alteration of the salary of judges after their appointment. However, these constitutional safeguards are not in themselves sufficient to ensure an independent judiciary.

An independent judiciary does not merely mean the insulation of the institution from the executive and the legislature branches but also the independence of individual judges in the performance of their roles as judges. The art of judging must be free of social and political pressure and from the inherent biases which human beings hold. Efforts are being made from within the institution to educate and sensitize judges across courts to unlearn their subconscious attitudes inculcated by social conditioning on gender, disability, race caste and sexuality."

In the beginning of his address, CJI recounted the inaugural sitting of the court back in 1950, when Chief Justice HJ Kania emphasized 3 principles necessary for the court to function according to the constitutional mandate. The first being independence of the judiciary from executive and legislative branches of the government; the second, that Constitution be interpreted by the court not as a rigid document but as a living organism and the third, that the court must secure the respect of citizens for it to establish itself as a legitimate institution.

Adding that much has changed in the 75 years since the inaugural sitting, the CJI commented that the 3 principles highlighted by CJ Kania continue to remain as relevant today to the functioning of an independent Supreme Court.

He asserted that commitment to human dignity, liberty, equality and fraternity forms the core of the court's ideals and the same remain valid even today. The aspect of divergent views being taken by judges in significant cases was addressed, by suggesting that through a dialogical process between different Benches, a conclusion closest to constitutional framework is reached.

"We may be as it is sometimes called, a polyvocal court. But the strength of our polyvocal nature lies in its ability to adapt dialogue as a processual instrument in bringing together a synthesis of ideas. The synthesis in our court brings together diversity and respects inclusion. That is the true social ethos of the court, its social conscience."

The CJI took this occasion to impress upon his audience that though the top court derives its legitimacy from the Constitution, the same cannot rest solely on it. "The legitimacy of this Court is also derived from the confidence of citizens that it is a neutral and impartial arbiter of disputes which would deliver timely justice", he said.

As an indicia to common man's faith that he would be able to get justice from the court, the CJI drew a contrast during his address between the number of letter petitions received by the top court in 1985 (24,716) vis-a-vis 2022 (1,15,120). Calling it an exponential surge, he cautioned that while sitting on letter petitions, judges must be able to see what lies within the realm of judicial function and what does not.

Further, he underlined that the top court may be final, but not infallible. It was remarked that to enhance people's faith in the justice delivery system, the court has remained open to critique and taken positive steps to create spaces for critique of its work.

Before parting, CJI urged that the Supreme Court is not the sole guarantor, but a final arbiter that power may be used to liberate, emancipate and include, but never to oppress or ostracize.

"The novel challenges of today must never distract us from this most sacred duty of the Court. The framers of the Constitution clothed the Judges of the Supreme Court with immense power and independence and cast upon them the task of restricting the exercise of unbridled power."