By God, What Have You Said And Done, Milord!

Justice Chandrachud is the greatest proponent of ‘bail as a rule and jail as an exception’ principle. He has even come down heavily on the lower courts for refusing bail pleas which lead to the rising burden on the top court. But the fact is that even in the Supreme Court, bail applications are not being heard, say critics

"I will ensure the trust of citizens not only through words but through my work," thus spoke Chief Justice of India (CJI) when he assumed office on November 9, 2022.

And now, as he is about to retire, on November 10 this year, he wondered as to what legacy he would leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals!

His mind, he said, is ‘heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties’ about the future and the past as his tenure comes to an end. “I find myself pondering: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?” he said speaking at JSW Law School in Paro, Bhutan.

I am not sure if any other CJI or for that matter President or the PM ever pondered over the legacies that they would leave while speaking publicly. I am not aware if any US President was worried about his legacy. But now that Justice Chandrachud has spoken his mind, all hell broke loose. He was already under attack for having Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his residence during the Ganesh Puja. The video and visuals of this visit, with Modi in Maharashtrian attire, was already a subject of heated debate among politicians, lawyers and the media. Maharashtra is in an election mode and Justice Chandrachud hails from that State.

Never in the history of India has a sitting CJI been subjected to such a bashing over his statements.

The CJI defended the PM’s visit to his official residence for the religious occasion stating that there is nothing unusual about such visits. Chief justices and judges keep meeting PMs and CMs. But the question remained as to how many PMs and CMs visited the top judges at their homes for private events.

Religion is a private affair and there could be nothing wrong in private visits. But then the PM and the CJI lose their privacy when they come into public glare. PM Modi is not certainly the man who loses even the slightest opportunity to seek publicity. For him, there is no difference between his meeting with Donald Trump and his visit to the CJI’s house. A shrewd politician that Modi is, he would like to derive mileage out of such photo-ops. But the CJI was not expected to be part of such self-publicity. Though there was no media present at CJI, it was obvious that Modi had his media arrangements. While Modi posted the “event” in his social media account, justice Chandrachud got entangled in an unsavoury controversy? Chandrachud’s visits to Dwarka and Tirupati were also well publicised.

This takes us to the criticism by veteran Supreme Court advocate Dushyant Dave, former SC Bar Association President, that Chandrachud seeks publicity in whatever he does. “I have no doubt he’s suffering from delusions of grandeur”, Dushyant Dave told.

This was also with regards to Justice Chandrachud’s revelation that he had sought divine help when the Supreme Court Bench was in a fix over the Ayodhya temple Vs Mosque controversy. Again, his religious belief was brought into public glare - an avoidable controversy that Chandrachud has stirred up. Till then, the nation was under the impression that the Ayodhya verdict was dictated by the Constitutional values and the evidence on record. “God” was also a petitioner in the case and hence, a question arose, if Justice Chandrachud was involved in a clash of interest by seeking God's help? Even if this question was in a lighter vein, it poorly reflected on the conduct of the Chief justice. As Dave said: The CJI has become “the subject matter of vilification, criticism and ridicule”. He has “seriously eroded the office of the Chief Justice of India and the image of the Supreme Court of India”.

Moreover, we were told by none other than the Shankaracharya of Jyotish peeth Swami Avimukteswaranand that the Shankaracharyas arrived at a compromise formula with the UP Sunni Wakf Board that the Muslim community would forego its claim over the disputed site. The Sunni Board had even filed an affidavit in the top court to this effect, and this paved the way for the SC ruling. The Sunni Board had also accepted the verdict in favour of the Hindu groups with ‘humility’ without even a murmur. It is in this context that one must view Justice Chandrachud’s claims of “divine blessings” and the rain of criticism that he is subjected to. Was it necessary for him to make such a statement, that too during an event in poll-bound Maharashtra?

Justice Chandrachud is the greatest proponent of ‘bail as a rule and jail as an exception’ principle. He has even come down heavily on the lower courts for refusing bail pleas which lead to the rising burden on the top court. But the fact is that even in the Supreme Court, bail applications are not being heard, say critics. Some cases like the one filed by a top journalist were heard and decided upon promptly while pleas by the likes of Umar Khalid are subjected to tareeq-pe-tareeq syndrome. The bail application of Khalid, accused in Delhi riots case and languishing in jail for four years, was not even taken up by the top court and the hearing was adjourned 14 times in 11 months.

The death of 84-year-old Fr Stan Swamy in jail, fighting for a straw to sip water as he was a patient of Parkinson’s disease, is a slap on the legal system. Swamy was accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence along with 15 others. It has taken six years for the courts to hear the bail pleas and release six of them stating that there was no evidence, against them, of instigating violence. In the Delhi liquor scam, three top Aam Aadmi Party leaders were granted bail after initial rejections.

CJI Chandrachud was hailed for intervening in the infamous Chandigarh mayoral election in which officer Anil Masih defaced some ballot papers and declared the BJP candidate victor. This incident was caught on camera and Justice Chandrachud said the court would not allow murder of democracy and that Masih needed to be prosecuted. Though the court set aside the election, nothing happened to Masih.

The electoral bond case is yet another instance of the Supreme Court not acting against the government for “unconstitutionally” allowing collection of money by maintaining the donors’ anonymity. The top court set aside the bonds with strictures. But the CJI and other judges did not entertain pleas for a probe into allegations of quid-pro-quo or the Chada-Do-Dhanda-Lo scam.

The CJI made damning remarks against the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari for sidestepping the Constitution in asking the then CM Uddhav Thackeray to face the floor test when the Eknath Shinde faction revolted. But the Shinde government is allowed to continue to function.

Now, who is to blame if Justice Chandrachud’s mind is ‘heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties’ about the future and the past?

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a youtube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging.)