TeaThe elevation of Justice DY Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India on 9 November and immediately following it were three developments – which appear to be unconnected. First, it was Law Minister Kiren Rijiju who cautioned the judiciary against crossing the ‘Lakshman Rekha’.
Addressing a media conclave five days before the new CJI took charge, Rijiju said the “opaque” and “non-accountable” collegium system- a way by which the five-member body headed by the CJI and the Supreme Court The four senior-most judges are included. Making appointments to the higher judiciary—there was “a lot of politics” involved. The government will not sit silent forever, Told The tough-talking minister—quite unusual from an otherwise mild-mannered and sociable fitness guru who enjoys climbing ropes, riding snow scooters, and cycling in the mountains.
Second, a Mumbai-based man named RK Pathan wrote to President Draupadi Murmu complaining that the CJI, when he was a Supreme Court judge, had passed an order in appeal in a case where his son, lawyer Abhinav Chandrachud, were presented earlier. Bombay High Court. Pathan accused Justice Chandrachud of passing the order helping out His son’s client.
Several lawyers’ organizations came to the judge’s rescue. Bar Council of India (BCI) issues statement in support of Justice Chandrachud And called The letter “an outrageous and malicious attempt to interfere with the working of the judiciary”. It said that on the eve of his promotion as CJI, the note was “being made viral by some people” including 2-3 advocates from Mumbai. On the basis of that disputed letter, the Supreme Court later denied A petition to stop Justice Chandrachud from taking oath as CJI.
Third, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as CJI and sought an inquiry to find out whether his ” links with anti-national and Naxalite Christian terrorists”. Indian Express informed of,
The High Court dismissed the petition terming it as ‘publicity oriented’.
Read also:
Why the court dispute of CJI?
Prima facie all the three cases seem to be unrelated. There was a minister with a degree in law but no experience in legal matters when he announced his arrival 15 months ago.
He was joining the big league of ministerial-level colleagues who speak very tough in public, be it on finance, national security, foreign affairs or even urban development. The second case pertains to a man who was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court for filing a false complaint against a judge (now retired) as a Bar Council. Told,
And the third was pure nutcase, of course. So, what are we talking about here? Well, the Chief Justice of India is dealing with both political and non-political pressures.
See what happened in the weeks following Justice NV Ramana’s elevation as CJI in April 2021. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy wrote to the then CJI SA Bobde on 6 October 2020, making serious allegations against Justice Ramana. Line Reddy, seeking to become the CJI, alleged that Justice Ramana was influencing the process of administration of justice in favor of Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Chandrababu Naidu. Reddy referred to the probe by the state’s Anti-Corruption Bureau into land deals involving judges’ daughters. Incidentally, Reddy had also met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on October 6, the day he wrote the letter to the CJI, discussing central funding for an irrigation project in the state. For the record, the Andhra High Court later dismissed the Bureau’s case calling it a “blind shot in the dark”.
Bobde’s predecessor as CJI, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, when facing allegations of sexual harassment by a court employee, had said, as quoted by PTI: “There must be a bigger, bigger force behind this. There are two offices – one of the Prime Minister and one of the CJI. They (the people behind this controversy) want Deactivate Office of the CJI. ,
Gogoi’s predecessor, Justice Dipak Misra had courted controversy long before he was sworn in as the CJI. In March 2017, Dangwimsai, widow of the late Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Kalikho Pul, was first reported to have met the then Vice-President Hamid Ansari and handed over a letter and an alleged suicide note of her late husband, purportedly against the then There were explosive allegations of corruption. CJI JS Khehar and his successor Justice Mishra.
office of the vice president denied No meeting took place between Ansari and Dangwimsai, but by then the alleged note had already been widely circulated. Kalikho Pul died by suicide nearly a month after the Justice Khehar-led Supreme Court bench reinstated the Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh, allowing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form a Congress-led rebel government. The attempt was foiled. by bridge.
Read also: Chandrachud called for keeping ‘women’s talk’ in the court. Some Indians just can’t digest it
decoding the pattern
The examples cited above point to a pattern of attempts to defame the CJI or those who never become CJIs with proven charges. But he did the work of putting the country’s top judges in controversies. It was in 2016 that the SC Bench led by Justice Khehar struck down a constitutional amendment that would establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, which would replace the collegium system and give a greater role to the political executive in judicial appointments. The Modi-led government has never compromised on this.
Each CJI who presides over the collegium has to contend with the executive over the recommendations of his appointment. What should be troubling them is that since the time of Justice Khehar most of the Chief Justices and their successor successors have also had to look over their shoulders and be wary of attempts by political and non-political actors to malign their image. Is. Public perception does not influence their decisions, but it encourages the political executive to demand the supremacy of elected governments.
Newly appointed CJI Chandrachud has just had his baptism by fire and people have targeted him with wild allegations. But an uphill battle awaits him as India’s law minister signals government intent in judicial appointments.
(Aside: A few weeks after the famous press conference by four Supreme Court judges, I met a top BJP functionary. Talking about these judges, he said, “Look, you media people will never write, [See, you media folks won’t ever write about it] Do you know how many people control the judiciary of India? Only 60 people and their families. You can count them.” It seemed that the dynasties in the judiciary troubled them as much as in politics.)
DK Singh is the political editor of ThePrint. He tweeted at @dksingh73. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)