CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in a candid dialog with Utkarsh Anand, mirrored on his tenure and imaginative and prescient for India’s judiciary, outlining vital rules on independence, judicial appointments, and the function of the courts in upholding liberty. His insights seize each his legacy and the challenges that lie forward for India’s judicial panorama. Right here is the total textual content:
In your years on the Supreme Courtroom, you’ve gotten dominated on transformative circumstances in Indian jurisprudence. What key classes or shifts in perspective have you ever gained, and what do you suppose are an important takeaways for the Courtroom’s future?
During the last twenty years, the complexity of circumstances earlier than the Supreme Courtroom has grown immensely—not simply constitutional circumstances, however these coping with new laws reflecting India’s evolving financial system. We have now seen the rise of legal guidelines just like the Insolvency and Chapter Code, the Competitors Act, and particular regulatory legal guidelines. These modifications deliver distinctive challenges as they typically require area experience that judges didn’t sometimes encounter in excessive courts or earlier of their careers. It was a major work I did within the regulatory space of financial governance and to grasp the place of this laws; the broader context of Indian society and the financial system. However on the similar time, I’ve additionally handled circumstances which to my thoughts led to important social transformation within the society and the nation that we’re going to save for the longer term.
One other vital lesson is the Supreme Courtroom’s function as “a folks’s courtroom”. We don’t simply determine constitutional issues; we additionally deal with the problems confronted by particular person residents who come to us looking for justice. As an example, we now have dominated in circumstances as various as a pupil lacking an IIT admission deadline, a each day wage labourer’s youngster unable to afford IIT charges, and an aspiring choose with a excessive incapacity share denied entry to the judiciary. Dealing with these circumstances strengthens public confidence within the judiciary as an establishment dedicated to justice inside our democracy. My imaginative and prescient has been to outline the longer term within the sense of a extra inclusive plural and numerous society that we’re to provide formal recognition to it via the method of judicial interpretation.
How has being the Chief Justice of India modified you, personally and professionally? What have been essentially the most rewarding and difficult facets?
The function has supplied deeply rewarding experiences. On the judicial aspect, the chance to handle vital societal points and write judgments that affect each the current and future stands out. Deciding key constitutional circumstances permits me to contribute to societal transformation. Administratively, I’ve seen tasks come to fruition, just like the Supreme Courtroom’s knowledge centre and the free digital repository of judgments accessible to residents. Translation of SC judgments into Indian languages has impressed excessive courts to comply with swimsuit, enhancing judicial outreach.
A current spotlight is the Nationwide Judicial Museum, which paperwork India’s judicial historical past from historical instances to at present. Initiatives like the development of a futuristic Supreme Courtroom constructing are additionally underway, guaranteeing an enduring impression.
I feel the best problem which we face as an establishment is of constructing folks perceive the angle and context through which we work, notably within the backdrop of social media. What social media has performed is to remodel the informative house in our society. Every little thing boils down to twenty second shorts. There is no such thing as a time to analyse something in nice element. Because of that there’s a lot of misinformation which arises from the work which is finished by the courtroom. Significantly as a result of, we now have now been livestreaming essential circumstances in the complete work of the SC’s CJ’s bench it’s livestreamed. I feel it’s good as I’ve mentioned daylight is the perfect disinfectant. On the similar time, many individuals exterior after they see what is going on within the Courtroom, need to touch upon each little factor. Thus, the largest problem at present lies in managing public notion, particularly within the age of social media, the place nuanced courtroom discussions are sometimes decreased to soundbites. The courtroom’s work is deliberative, but public commentary on livestreamed proceedings will be hasty and generally uninformed, which provides strain to the establishment.
Because the CJI, balancing judicial duties together with your function because the “grasp of the roster” entails complicated selections on case allocations, particularly amid debates over transparency. How did you handle this twin function, notably with controversies surrounding case assignments and roster administration?
The Chief Justice doesn’t arbitrarily decide a courtroom; there are well-defined programs governing case assignments. It’s not true that circumstances are pulled from one bench to be reassigned to a different with out motive. For instance, within the Delhi Ridge case (alleging Delhi lieutenant governor allegedly ordered reducing of bushes), two benches have been listening to it, and there was concern about contradictory orders. The matter was then referred to the CJI, and I made a decision to listen to it personally in a three-judge bench to make sure consistency. Criticism on social media concerning that is largely unfounded. Judges have totally different approaches to the regulation, however no litigant ought to be allowed to decide on their choose. Permitting such energy would result in discussion board procuring and undermine the system. In circumstances like PMLA, knowledge exhibits how circumstances have been assigned diversely to varied benches. Attorneys should argue their case earlier than whichever choose it involves, whatever the choose’s perceived philosophy. I’ve knowledge to point how broadly and diversely circumstances have been assigned to totally different benches who got that roster. My concern is that no lawyer ought to say that ‘I cannot go earlier than a specific choose’ simply because that lawyer feels that the choose has a strict view of the regulation in that individual department. That’s unacceptable. Attorneys have to be free to go earlier than whichever choose {that a} case comes earlier than, and it’s their obligation to steer the choose to their standpoint. However to say that I cannot go earlier than a specific choose as a result of I don’t like that choose’s philosophy is plainly unacceptable.
What are your views on bail jurisprudence, particularly concerning criticism of the Supreme Courtroom for not issuing favorable orders in high-profile circumstances the place activists and pupil leaders have been incarcerated for a very long time?
From November 9, 2022, to November 10, 2024, 21,000 bail circumstances have been filed within the SC, and over 21,300 have been disposed of. This clearly exhibits that we’re delicate to bail purposes. Nonetheless, whether or not bail is granted in a particular case is as much as the bench to determine. I will not touch upon the end result of particular person circumstances, as it’s the courtroom’s discretion to use the regulation to the details. Usually, media portrayals, together with on social media, differ from the precise case data. Judges are seasoned minds, and they’re anticipated to use well-defined requirements of bail to the details of that case. In a given case, the end result is probably not acceptable to some however from the judges’ perspective, they’ve utilized the regulation. Folks say that on this delicate matter bail was not granted. Because the CJI, I don’t need to take the names of very delicate circumstances coping with folks in excessive locations or essential circumstances the place bail has been granted. So, if you happen to take a look at the general file of the courtroom, it has been a courtroom which is pro-liberty. Particular person circumstances could go somehow, however I don’t suppose you may choose the file of the entire courtroom by simply focusing on or pinpointing only one case and say why bail was not granted on this case. That’s a part of the system.
Why do you suppose the philosophy of bail because the rule and incarceration because the exception will not be percolating all the way down to the trial courts?
I’m involved as a result of, regardless of repeated emphasis from the Supreme Courtroom, together with myself because the CJI, that bail ought to be the rule and incarceration the exception, this message has not reached the district judiciary. In circumstances the place investigation is ongoing, custody could also be obligatory, however as soon as the investigation is over, bail shouldn’t be used as anticipatory punishment. The presumption of innocence is among the cardinal rules of our jurisprudence. Sadly, this message has not percolated all the way down to the district judiciary and one motive for that’s that we total reside in a tradition of mistrust the place we don’t belief public officers and judges holding public positions.The tradition of mistrust is a serious subject, the place judges in district courts worry allegations of bias in the event that they grant bail in delicate circumstances. The answer lies in defending district judges, who’re the primary level of contact for residents, and the duty for that lies with excessive courts and the Supreme Courtroom. If a bail order is fallacious, it may be challenged in a better discussion board. Nonetheless, this worry throughout the district judiciary have to be addressed, and excessive courts and the Supreme Courtroom mustn’t readily criticise a choose’s motives in the event that they differ on granting bail. If district judges deny bail when they need to grant it, or if excessive courts wrongly intervene, circumstances unnecessarily escalate to the Supreme Courtroom. It’s essential that judges recognise the worth of private liberty and guarantee undertrial detention doesn’t grow to be a part of the punishment, notably in circumstances the place trials are delayed. Folks can’t be stored incarcerated indefinitely except there’s a real threat of fleeing or non-availability for trial.
With the collegium system typically scrutinised for transparency and effectiveness, what enhancements would you advocate safeguarding judicial independence whereas adapting to up to date expectations? Ought to there be a timeline for the federal government to clear appointments?
The collegium system was rigorously designed by courtroom judgments and has been in place since. Over the previous two years, we now have taken a number of steps to boost transparency, equivalent to publishing collegium resolutions and the explanations for recommending judicial appointments on-line. We have now additionally outlined the parameters used to evaluate judicial candidates. The method is multilayered: for top courtroom appointments, the chief justice and senior judges seek the advice of extensively earlier than recommending candidates. For district judges, service data and judgments are evaluated by an evaluation committee, not the collegium. After suggestions attain the federal government, the method entails enter from the Intelligence Bureau and consultations with the chief minister and governor. If the federal government disagrees with the collegium’s suggestion, they need to present causes, and if we reaffirm our suggestion, the federal government should comply with it, as per the Memorandum of Process.
We have now additionally made efforts to make sure objectivity and transparency, equivalent to circulating judgments of potential Supreme Courtroom appointees among the many collegium members. Nonetheless, no system is ideal, and whereas enhancements will be made, the query stays: do we now have a greater system? One space that could possibly be improved is guaranteeing that after the collegium makes a suggestion, the method is accomplished in a well timed method. The federal government ought to adhere to the Memorandum of Process, guaranteeing appointments are made as soon as reiterated by the Supreme Courtroom.
It is also essential to make clear that the collegium has its veto energy. If the collegium doesn’t advocate a candidate, no appointment can proceed, even when the excessive courtroom has beneficial them.
The system works with each the collegium and the federal government as stakeholders, and any judicial intervention within the appointment course of have to be dealt with rigorously to keep away from criticisms of overreach.
We have already got the Memorandum of Process. My notion is that the Supreme Courtroom ought to be very cautious in utilizing its judicial powers to facilitate judicial appointments. And the explanation why I say so is, we’re one of many stakeholders within the system because the collegium. The collegium is a vital however one of many stakeholders within the system. The federal government is one other stakeholder. Now, if we have been to make use of our judicial powers to make sure that a specific appointment or a set of appointments is made, we might be open to the criticism that we’re utilizing our judicial powers to primarily facilitate the achievement of a suggestion which we now have made in constitutional capability. I’ve reservations on whether or not the ability ought to be exercised on the judicial aspect. After all, there have been instances when we now have needed to train the judicial powers within the case of NJAC when there was a constitutional problem to the constitutional modification, which was a operate of the courtroom. However in any other case, I really feel, that that is one thing which needs to be facilitated by a extra deliberative dialogue between the collegium of the Supreme courtroom, headed by the CJI, and the functionaries of the federal government who’re answerable for taking selections on the a part of the government- the Legislation Minister as an example. And that is one thing which needs to be achieved by strong lively structure statesmanship on the a part of the collegium of the Supreme Courtroom and the federal government.
Throughout your CJI tenure, the collegium appointed 18 judges, but no girl was amongst them. Given your said dedication to variety, what do you’re feeling have been the first obstacles to such appointments?
First, it is essential to notice that the CJI is only one member of a five-judge collegium, and appointments are in the end a collective choice. Earlier than I grew to become CJI, I used to be a part of a collegium that appointed three girls judges to the Supreme Courtroom, so it’s not that my tenure lacked such appointments.
Within the final two years, when contemplating appointments, we prioritise seniority alongside variety. Seniority is vital as a result of we’re coping with judges who’ve spent years in excessive courts. We will’t bypass extra senior judges except there’s a justifiable motive. Whereas variety is important, seniority and advantage additionally play important roles in selections. I’d choose to not touch upon particular person judges, as we’re coping with careers, nevertheless it’s not about appointing somebody solely for the sake of variety.
Nonetheless, there’s a constructive shift within the district judiciary, with extra girls becoming a member of. Over 50% of recruits to the district judiciary are girls, reflecting the success of an open recruitment course of. These girls will finally transfer as much as larger courts and, over time, grow to be Supreme Courtroom judges. The present state of ladies within the larger judiciary is reflective of the previous state of the authorized career. As extra girls be part of the authorized career at present, extra will finally make it to larger courts.
Moreover, lately, we have made strides in designating girls as senior counsels, with 12 girls designated in February and one other 10 in August this yr. These girls will mentor others, contributing to the expansion of extra girls in larger courts sooner or later.
The trail to growing feminine illustration within the judiciary can be about mentorship and making the authorized career extra equitable, recognizing the distinctive challenges girls face, equivalent to balancing work with household tasks. Initiatives like reside streaming have made it simpler for girls to handle courts remotely, contributing to higher productiveness. Making a extra equitable authorized office for girls requires a collective effort from each the judiciary and the authorized career as an entire. With 50% or extra of Nationwide Legislation College college students being girls, the longer term holds promise for remodeling the upper judiciary’s gender composition.
You may have typically been photographed and filmed expressing your religion, and a few would possibly say this might have an effect on perceptions of impartiality, particularly contemplating delicate circumstances like Ayodhya and Gyanvapi that you simply heard as a choose.
I don’t suppose both constitutionally or how our judicial establishments have developed that solely an atheist will be an unbiased choose. If folks consider {that a} choose, who’s unbiased, ought to be a non-believer then they’re fully fallacious. Judges are entitled to their very own private beliefs, their very own faiths. The Structure ensures a choose, like another citizen, the liberty to faith and the liberty of conscience. Ought to a choose be hypocritical by saying that I’ll shut myself up in my own residence, however I cannot go to a spot of religion of my faith? Once more, I really feel that’s not appropriate. Simply as each particular person citizen is entitled to go to their place of religion they consider in; a choose is entitled to go to a spot of religion. And consider me, judges don’t simply go to their very own locations of faith that are related to their religion, they go to locations which professes different faiths as nicely. To recommend {that a} choose can not impart justice just because they’ve religion is misguided. Judicial selections are based mostly on motive, regulation, and rules, and they’re documented in judgments which are open for public scrutiny. The regulation requires transparency, and any choice made by a choose will be assessed to see whether or not it holds up within the eyes of the regulation. We should acknowledge that judges, like all people, are entitled to their private beliefs or non-belief. Nonetheless, with regards to their judicial duties, they comply with the rules of regulation as established by statutes and the overarching Structure, which serves because the nation’s founding doc. Due to this fact, private religion shouldn’t be seen as an impediment to impartiality; the main target should stay on the authorized reasoning and the applying of regulation in every case.
In recent times, sure judges have confronted backlash when rulings don’t align with particular public petitions, and also you definitely are considered one of them. Have you ever skilled this strain, and what are your ideas on this development of focused criticism in the direction of the judiciary?
Within the early years after independence, the concept of judicial independence was primarily seen as freedom from the federal government, which, in fact, stays true. Judges have to be unbiased from the federal government. Nonetheless, over time, the sources of threats to judicial independence have developed. With the rise of social media, we now have strain teams which are keen to make use of these platforms to affect judicial outcomes. These teams typically consider that if a choose guidelines of their favor, they’re unbiased, but when a choose guidelines towards them, they query the choose’s independence.
It is a deeply problematic development. Judicial independence, in my opinion, signifies that a choose ought to be free to determine based mostly on their conscience, guided by regulation and the Structure. Judges should be capable to determine circumstances impartially, whether or not that call is in favor of the federal government, towards the federal government, or another occasion, based mostly on the place justice lies in a specific case. The notion {that a} choose is unbiased solely after they rule in favor of sure teams or outcomes is a misinterpretation of judicial independence, and that is one thing we’re seeing increasingly more at present.
As for myself, I wouldn’t say I’ve personally skilled this strain, however I’m definitely conscious of it. The essential distinction is that whereas we should pay attention to these pressures, we should not be vulnerable to them. If we have been to yield to such exterior pressures, that might mark the tip of judicial independence. Judges have to be vigilant and acknowledge that there are organized efforts geared toward influencing their selections to serve specific pursuits. Nonetheless, being conscious of this actuality is essential. The upper judiciary, with its expertise and resilience, is greater than able to dealing with this problem and persevering with to uphold its independence.
What rules do you consider are important to protect the separation of energy?
The precept of the separation of powers is key. It signifies that every department of presidency—the judiciary, the chief, and the legislature—ought to stick with its personal area. The courtroom doesn’t carry out the function of the chief, the federal government doesn’t carry out the function of the courtroom, and equally, the legislature doesn’t carry out the function of both. As an example, the making of regulation is solely a operate of the legislature, whereas formulating and implementing coverage is the federal government’s duty. The function of the judiciary, particularly, is to interpret the regulation and determine on the validity of legal guidelines or government actions, however to not lay down coverage.
Judges within the excessive courts and the Supreme Courtroom are totally conscious that policy-making will not be their operate. This was underscored in our current nine-judge bench choice on Article 39B and C, the place we emphasised that the courtroom can not undertake a specific financial ideology when decoding the Structure. The Structure, as envisioned by Dr. Ambedkar, grants successive governments the liberty to formulate financial coverage based mostly on the wants of the time. The judiciary’s function is to interpret, to not impose an financial ideology. So long as we keep these clear boundaries, the precept of separation of powers is revered.
That being mentioned, the separation of powers doesn’t imply full isolation. Judges can and do have interaction with the chief and legislature on non-judicial issues, and that’s not a violation of the separation of powers. For instance, many statutes have choice committees that contain members from each the federal government and the judiciary, such because the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, and the Chief of the Opposition. In such situations, the Chief Justice’s participation will not be inappropriate, so long as it doesn’t contain any dialogue about pending circumstances. We have to be mature and acutely aware of what’s acceptable to debate. If there’s a private or social engagement, equivalent to a household marriage ceremony or a bereavement, these events mustn’t grow to be alternatives for judicial discussions on pending circumstances.
Probably the most essential assure of judicial independence lies within the outcomes of circumstances, that are documented via detailed reasoning. This reasoning is the spine of our judgments. It ensures that our selections are clear, accountable, and never influenced by private beliefs or exterior pressures. The residents, in flip, can consider whether or not the reasoning is legitimate or invalid.
After we discuss in regards to the notion of independence, which is probably as essential as actual independence in present instances, the place a social media publish can stir large controversy? What recommendation would you supply to future judges, given the ability that social media has grow to be
Given the rise of social media, my key level can be to at all times be aware of the ability of public notion, however by no means to be swayed by it. Social media can amplify criticism or reward, however judges should stay grounded of their obligation to the regulation. Their function is to uphold justice impartially, and so they should make sure that their actions and selections are guided solely by the regulation and never by the calls for or pressures of the second. The integrity of the judiciary depends on its skill to function independently of transient public sentiments or exterior influences.
One problem social media presents is the tendency of citizen journalists—lots of whom are bizarre social media customers—to misconstrue or misrepresent the proceedings in courtroom. Usually, what is alleged in courtroom throughout deliberations will not be a judgment, however a part of an ongoing dialogue. Social media customers could incorrectly deal with preliminary statements or candid exchanges as remaining selections. That is harmful as a result of such exchanges assist judges make clear their ideas and achieve a greater understanding of the case. The power to talk candidly in courtroom is important for the right deliberation of circumstances, and we don’t need to discourage this by turning each offhand comment right into a social media controversy. Judges have to really feel they will specific themselves actually in the course of the deliberation course of with out the worry of judgment from public opinion or social media backlash.
Concurrently, given the huge attain of social media, judges should now be acutely conscious that what is alleged within the courtroom is now not confined to a small group of individuals—what’s spoken in courtroom can attain hundreds of thousands of individuals each throughout the nation and globally.
This consciousness requires judges to be notably aware of the language they use and the style through which they construction discourse. They have to make sure that their dialogue doesn’t unintentionally alienate or undermine marginalized teams, or violate rules of equality and justice, notably round points like gender rights. A choose’s phrases should align with the transformative function of the judiciary in society. As such, there’s a essential want for coaching, notably for judges who could not have grown up within the social media age.
Underneath your tenure, you championed technological modernisation. How do you consider these reforms have enhanced the judiciary’s accessibility and transparency? Extra importantly, have these instruments been useful in lowering the pendency within the Supreme Courtroom, which at the moment stands at over 80,000?
My ambition for technological change within the judiciary has been a vital a part of my initiative. We commenced video conferencing post-COVID-19, and now video conferencing has grow to be a everlasting a part of the system. It has made justice extra accessible, permitting hearings to happen remotely. Moreover, the e-filing of circumstances has revolutionized the method, enabling attorneys to file circumstances from anyplace, 24/7, with no need to submit paper recordsdata. Digitization of case data has additional ensured that circumstances can transfer in the direction of a paperless mode.
We have now additionally ensured that the web divide doesn’t have an effect on entry to justice. We have now established e-Sewa Kendras in over 3,000 courtroom institutions, giving residents entry to digital amenities even when they don’t have a smartphone, laptop computer, or web connection. Moreover, we’ve translated Supreme Courtroom judgments into a number of Indian languages and employed machine studying for higher case administration. We’ve entered into collaborations with IIT Madras and RailTel for improvements within the judiciary, and arrange an information middle and a conflict room within the Supreme Courtroom to retailer important case knowledge.
Expertise has additionally helped enhance the effectivity of the courtroom. For instance, we now have launched simultaneous transcription of oral arguments throughout constitutional bench circumstances, which boosts transparency. The motion in the direction of paperless courts, alongside AI-based improvements, has streamlined operations considerably.
By way of case disposal, from November 9, 2022, to November 1, 2024, we now have filed 111,498 circumstances, listed 533,142 for listening to, and disposed of 107,403 circumstances. The submitting of circumstances has doubled between 2020 and 2024, but regardless of this improve, pendency has decreased. Technological instruments equivalent to trendy case categorization, information administration, and higher case monitoring have performed a vital function in lowering the arrears. By re-categorizing circumstances based mostly on their nature and urgency, we now have been capable of prioritize and expedite circumstances, resulting in a extra environment friendly judicial course of. For instance, we have been capable of expedite circumstances below the TOLA statute and land acquisition circumstances, clearing 1000’s of pending issues.
In brief, the mixing of know-how has been key in each growing accessibility to the judiciary and lowering case pendency, making the method extra environment friendly and clear.
As you put together for retirement, what are your views on the involvement of retired judges in public service roles, and the place do you consider the judiciary can take advantage of constructive contributions with out compromising independence? Will you settle for a post-retirement project the federal government affords you?
Right this moment, parliamentary statutes require retired judges to serve in numerous tribunals, such because the Nationwide Inexperienced Tribunal, the Nationwide Shopper Disputes Redressal Fee, and the Telecom Disputes Tribunal, amongst others. These tribunals deal with circumstances of immense worth, notably because the financial system has liberalized and personal investments in sectors like electrical energy have elevated. As such, there’s a robust want for people with the best ranges of integrity and experience to preside over these issues. It is because of this that former judges, notably these from the Supreme Courtroom and Excessive Courtroom, are appointed to those roles.
Nonetheless, there’s a notion, particularly within the media, that when judges tackle these post-retirement assignments, it might be seen as a quid professional quo for his or her selections throughout their time in workplace. This notion discourages many judges from accepting such roles, which is unlucky, as a result of it undermines the need of getting skilled, moral people managing these vital tribunals.
The true impression of this unfavorable notion is that if we do not need judges with the best ranges of integrity and experience in these positions, we’re basically affecting the progress and transformation of the financial system. It is a critical concern as a result of the functioning of those tribunals is essential to dealing with disputes that come up from the more and more complicated authorized and financial panorama. Due to this fact, I consider the media ought to rethink the way it portrays retired judges accepting these roles. We want former judges in these positions to make sure that the method is honest and reliable.
If parliament has created an workplace the place a retired choose of the Supreme Courtroom ought to maintain that workplace why ought to we then castigate a choose who occupies that workplace after having seized to be a choose.
About my assumption of any workplace, I can guarantee you that my private perception is that even while you lay down workplace as a CJI or a choose, folks at all times look upon you as a choose or CJI. Society expects a sure commonplace of behaviour and I do consider talking for myself that I ought to be true to the workplace that I held and in all the pieces I do after retirement.
As somebody who has drastically impacted India’s judicial panorama, would you hope or encourage considered one of your sons, each of whom are within the authorized discipline, to contemplate a future as a choose?
I’m very clear on this – it’s for them to make that call, if and when that decision of obligation comes. In the event that they ask me, I’ll solely share my perspective, which they already know to some extent. Being a choose is not any small matter. It entails years and years of back-breaking work, requiring deep mental utility and dedication. Turning into a choose calls for sacrifice, not simply in financial phrases, however when it comes to way of life. The life-style and the expectations do not finish while you step down from workplace. It requires great dedication and a willingness to reside with sure limitations. I might by no means affect my household on this matter. If the decision of obligation comes, it will likely be for them to determine. It’s in the end their alternative, and I respect that.
As you go on the baton to Justice Sanjiv Khanna, what’s it that you simply count on from his tenure?
Justice Khanna is a rare, seasoned choose with lengthy years of expertise and broad expertise in each regulation and administration. As I lay down the workplace, I’m assured that the way forward for my establishment is in secure arms. I’ve little question that he’ll proceed to uphold the values of justice and integrity, and lead with knowledge and a deep understanding of the regulation.
After 24 years as a choose, marking the longest tenure in India’s constitutional courts, how do you’re feeling in regards to the legacy you’re abandoning, and what do you hope will outline your time on the bench in future judicial and public discourse?
In the beginning, the Chief Justice is a choose, and in that sense, he’s like another choose—he’s the primary amongst equals. I’ve at all times believed that whether or not as Chief Justice of a excessive courtroom or the Supreme Courtroom, you’re revered for the work you do as a choose. Throughout my tenure, each as chief justice of the Allahabad excessive courtroom and a choose within the Supreme Courtroom, my strategy has been to tackle the total load of judicial work assigned by regulation, contribute to the evolution of the regulation, and, in fact, deal with the executive tasks important to the function of the CJI.
I had sure priorities as a choose. One key precedence was to take care of the stability between two facets of my work: one, guaranteeing the well timed disposal of circumstances as a result of, whereas high-profile judgments are essential, we can not enable routine circumstances to build up; and two, addressing the extra complicated, thought-provoking circumstances which have the potential to remodel society. Discovering this stability has been each essential and difficult. On one hand, the sheer quantity of circumstances requires consideration, and on the opposite, there are circumstances that demand deep thought and should change the way forward for regulation.
As for my legacy, I don’t consider it’s for me to touch upon what that will likely be—that’s for posterity to guage. What I do know is that I’ve at all times tried to handle the circumstances that got here earlier than me with utmost integrity and diligence.
