The final week of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure is marked not just by reflection but intense scrutiny, as his departure from the highest judicial office draws near.
Chandrachud's two-year stint has evoked mixed sentiments—from praise for landmark rulings to criticisms about missed opportunities. On November 10, he will officially step down, leaving behind a legacy intertwined with significant judicial milestones and equally significant controversies.
At The Indian Express’s recent event, Chandrachud articulated his views on judicial independence, emphasizing the complex dynamics within the judiciary influenced by public expectations and social media pressures. He underscored the distinction between true judicial independence and the often misunderstood notion of favorably ruling against the government. "Traditionally, judicial independence was defined as independence from the executive... Our society has changed, with the rise of pressure groups leveraging electronic media to influence court outcomes," he remarked.
This notion came off as particularly relevant during Chandrachud's tenure where he navigated complex political waters. Critics have pointed out how the judiciary faced mounting scrutiny, not only from governmental quarters but from public sentiment, often amplified by social media. The outgoing Chief Justice outlined his definition of independence: judges upholding the law rather than catering to public or political pressures.
Throughout his tenure, Chandrachud has made headlines for both his rulings and his notable absence of female judges appointed to the Supreme Court, igniting discussions around gender representation. Although he led the elevation of 18 judges to the Supreme Court, he admitted, "I wouldn’t call it a regret... but the need for diversity is evident.” His awareness of judicial diversity has faced backlash for not translating effectively within actual appointments.
Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave expressed disappointment with the Chief Justice's tenure, emphasizing his concerns about politically sensitive judgments, the lack of judicial reforms, and questioned his media presence. "I hope history does not recall CJI Chandrachud and I hope his legacy is entirely forgotten as quickly as possible" Dave remarked, giving voice to those who feel justice wasn’t served under his leadership.
Conditional decisions—such as his oversight of judicial appointments and allocation of sensitive cases—became points of contention. Critics like Dave argue Chandrachud's decisions often appeared to appease the ruling party, casting doubt on the judiciary's neutrality. These criticisms stem from his choices about which cases advanced to the Supreme Court's agenda and which were delayed, thereby raising questions about fairness and justice.
Among the high-profile cases he presided over, several rulings have been deemed revolutionary. These included the verdicts on the decriminalization of same-sex relationships and the abolition of certain caste-based practices within the prison system. He has remarkably altered the judicial discourse around LGBTQ+ rights, asserting the need for legislative measures to ease discrimination and provide social benefits to same-sex couples.
Chandrachud also brought attention to electoral funding by dismantling the electoral bonds scheme, which many saw as shrouded with secrecy. He condemned the practice of funding political parties without public knowledge, arguing it fosters corruption. This decision was celebrated by proponents of transparency, marking it as one of the key achievements of his term.
Yet, his legislative achievements are shadowed by failures to address pressing issues. Matters of gender discrimination, such as the criminalization of marital rape and the challenge to triple talaq, languished without adequate hearing times, pushing advocates for women’s rights to lament the lack of leadership.
His legacy as CJI is also littered with unanswered questions: How will the judicial system transcend the challenges faced during his watch? Will the issues left unresolved shadow his significant achievements? Observers and critics alike await the historical narratives as he prepares to conclude his tenure.
The legacy he leaves is bittersweet—a blend of commendable judicial reform and missed opportunities. Moving forward, the new Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is faced with inheriting this legacy and the responsibility of reshaping the judiciary to meet the demands of modern India.
Chandrachud’s time also ushered notable advancements such as technological upgrades to the judicial system, facilitating significant reforms like paperless submissions and live tracking of cases.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's final days as Chief Justice are not just about reflection on what has been achieved but anticipation of what is yet to come. Ahead lies the task of assessing whether the increments brought forth during his era will hold up against the scrutiny of history, as he also ponders his own reflections about the legacy he leaves behind as he hands over the gavel.
With significant changes looming on the horizon of the Indian judiciary, all eyes are on the footsteps left by Chandrachud. His parting promises to be as complex and layered as his tenure, attracting both supporters and detractors, as the debate around his impact continues to resonate within the corridors of justice.
