The recent interview of former Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with the BBC and other Western media outlets has stirred significant debate, drawing criticism from renowned jurist Harish Salve. Salve, known for his legal acumen and international standing, has raised concerns over the former CJI’s decision to discuss judicial verdicts, particularly the abrogation of Article 370, which led to the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India.
In an exclusive interview with Republic TV, Salve expressed his reservations about judges discussing their judgments publicly, whether during their tenure or after retirement. He asserted that judges should limit their public discourse to matters such as advancements in legal technology and improvements in the judicial system. However, delving into specific judgments, particularly on sensitive constitutional matters, could potentially undermine the independence of the judiciary. According to Salve, such explanations to Western media serve no real purpose and could even pose risks to India’s broader interests.
Justice Chandrachud, while being credited with several landmark rulings, has also faced criticism for decisions that some believe were politically charged. His stance on jurisprudence, particularly in cases like the bail granted to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, sparked controversy. The principle that “bail is a right and jail is an exception” was debated intensely, with many perceiving it as an attempt to challenge the ruling government rather than uphold judicial neutrality. While his judgments have drawn mixed reactions from both the ruling party and the opposition, there remains an underlying sentiment that some of his rulings were aimed at embarrassing the Modi-led NDA government rather than ensuring judicial balance.
Salve’s criticism of Chandrachud’s media engagement is particularly significant given his own role in defending the government’s stance on Article 370 before the Supreme Court. The decision to engage with foreign media outlets, especially those with a history of controversial reporting on India, has only fueled concerns about the implications of such discussions. Western media, often accused of pushing narratives that undermine India’s sovereignty, hardly seems like the right platform for a former Chief Justice to justify his judicial reasoning. Salve’s strong disapproval of this move raises pertinent questions about the necessity and appropriateness of such interviews.
This is not the first time Salve has taken issue with Chandrachud’s actions. Earlier, as King’s Counsel, he criticized the former CJI’s decision to alter the traditional depiction of Lady Justice, replacing the blindfold with an open-eyed figure. Salve called the change unnecessary and argued that such paradigm shifts should be subject to broader public discourse. Chandrachud defended the modification, citing evolving times, but Salve countered by emphasizing the significance of traditional symbols in judicial representation.
As someone who holds the highest respect for our judiciary and its esteemed judges, I firmly believe that sitting and former Chief Justices should refrain from publicly dissecting their judgments. Offering detailed justifications, particularly to foreign media, risks jeopardizing the sanctity and credibility of India’s judicial system. Such revelations create opportunities for external forces to question and potentially weaken our institutions, which is neither in the interest of national security nor sovereignty. India’s judiciary must remain independent and above external scrutiny, standing firm in its commitment to the Constitution without the need for external validation.
