In a bold and timely statement, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud delivered a powerful message that addresses the escalating criticisms of the judiciary, particularly from the Opposition, led primarily by the Congress party.
As I see it, no Chief Justice in recent memory has spoken so candidly and decisively in defense of the institution.
This clear stand, coming just weeks before his retirement on November 10, represents a critical moment for the judiciary, reaffirming its independence and underscoring the need for respect toward its judgments, irrespective of political allegiances.
In recent years, the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court of India, has been subject to an unprecedented level of political scrutiny. Several verdicts that were handed down by the court have been met with sharp criticism, and the judiciary’s credibility has been unfairly called into question.
While public debate and dissent are integral to any healthy democracy, the nature and frequency of these attacks on the judiciary are troubling, particularly because they appear to be rooted in political frustrations rather than genuine concerns about the law or justice.
Never before, not even during the darkest days of the Emergency, has the judiciary faced such intense public pressure and allegations.
Much of this friction seems to stem from the Opposition’s inability to politically counter Narendra Modi and the BJP, particularly in the post-2014 era.
Since then, a pattern has emerged where the Opposition has repeatedly sought to involve the judiciary in what are essentially political battles. When they fail to challenge Modi’s government through democratic channels, they turn to the courts in a bid to embarrass the ruling party.
A clear example of this was the attempt to delay the Supreme Court’s judgment on the long-standing Ayodhya temple dispute until after the 2019 general elections, a move that was perceived by many as a way to prevent any potential political gain for the BJP.
This politicization of the judiciary reached new heights in the following years. The Opposition’s constant efforts to challenge key national decisions through the courts became a recurring theme.
Some of the most notable instances include the Opposition’s challenge to the Rafale jet deal, a critical defense procurement agreement between India and France. Despite the strategic importance of this deal for India’s national security, the Opposition continuously questioned it in court, accusing the government of wrongdoing without substantial evidence.
Similarly, cases such as the death penalty for Afzal Guru, a terrorist convicted in the 2001 Parliament attack, were repeatedly contested, despite the judicial process having run its full course.
Further complicating the political-judicial dynamic, the Opposition also fiercely opposed several legislative measures passed by the government. Among these were the contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the farm laws, which were met with widespread protests.
While dissent is a natural part of democracy, what was concerning was how the Opposition frequently sought judicial intervention, only to denounce the judiciary when the verdicts did not align with their political objectives. This pattern suggests that the judiciary is being used as a political tool, a trend that risks undermining its essential role as an impartial arbiter of justice.
One of the most egregious instances of this was the prolonged protests at Shaheen Bagh. Ostensibly a democratic protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the demonstration saw the blocking of major highways for an extended period, disrupting the lives of thousands of citizens.
While protest is a fundamental right, the methods employed in this case, along with the refusal to seek dialogue with the government, seemed to border on a strategy aimed more at destabilizing the country than advancing any real cause of justice. In such cases, the judiciary is often placed in a difficult position, having to balance constitutional rights with public order.
It is against this backdrop that CJI Chandrachud delivered his pointed remarks at the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) conference in South Goa.
For many, the tipping point was not just the Opposition’s critique of judicial decisions, but their reaction to CJI Chandrachud’s personal association with Prime Minister Modi.
The outrage from certain sections of the Opposition following Modi’s visit to the Chief Justice’s residence for a Ganesh Puja was telling. Personal interactions were politicized to an unhealthy degree, revealing a disturbing level of intolerance for personal or ideological differences.
Breaking from his usual restraint, CJI Chandrachud responded with a clear and firm rebuke. He reminded the political class that the judiciary cannot and should not be expected to act as a substitute for the Opposition in Parliament.
His words – “none can expect the Supreme Court to play the role of the Opposition in Parliament” – are a stark reminder of the dangerous trend of dragging the judiciary into political disputes.
In my view, this was a necessary assertion, as it underscores the importance of maintaining the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
CJI Chandrachud also called out the selective respect some political actors offer the judiciary. He highlighted the hypocrisy of those who praise the Supreme Court when it delivers verdicts that favour them but denigrate the institution when the judgments are unfavourable.
“There is this great divide,” he said, “between everybody who thinks that the Supreme Court is a wonderful institution when you decide in their favour, and it is an institution which is denigrated when you decide against them.” This conditional respect for the judiciary is deeply troubling because it diminishes the authority and independence of the institution.
The Chief Justice’s remarks serve as a strong defense of the judiciary’s autonomy. His assertion that “judges are entitled to decide with a sense of independence on a case-by-case basis” reaffirms the constitutional mandate of the courts to rule impartially, without fear or favor. This is an important reminder that the judiciary’s role is to interpret and uphold the law, not to bend to political pressures from any side.
It is also crucial to recognize that the judiciary has ruled against the government on several occasions. For example, the Supreme Court put the four farm laws on hold, despite the laws having been passed through the proper legislative process. The Modi government, rather than attacking the judiciary, respected the court’s decision, demonstrating a sharp contrast to the Opposition’s strategy of launching personal and institutional attacks when decisions do not go their way.
Thus far, CJI DY Chandrachud’s parting words are a much-needed reminder of the importance of judicial independence. His strong message is loud and clear: the Supreme Court is an independent institution, and its verdicts must be respected, whether they favour a particular political camp or not. Any attempt to politicize the judiciary threatens the very foundation of democracy, and CJI Chandrachud’s firm stance should be seen as a decisive moment in the defense of judicial integrity. Kudos to the CJI as his strong rebuttals indeed, to many law-abiding citizens, a tight slap on the discredited Opposition’s face.
