Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, set to retire on November 10, recently addressed concerns over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presence at a Ganesh puja event held at the Chief Justice’s residence, explaining the context and purpose of these interactions. Speaking at the prestigious Loksatta lecture series in Mumbai, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that meetings between leaders of the judiciary and executive branches are routine and necessary for discussions on judicial infrastructure, which is critical for ensuring the efficient operation of the justice system across the country.
He assured the public that discussions during such meetings are never about judicial decisions or specific cases, stating, "There is enough maturity among judges of constitutional courts and the heads of the executive to firmly keep aside judicial matters out of the purview of any discussion." These gatherings, he clarified, are designed to foster a constructive and transparent dialogue between the judiciary and executive branches, with the sole purpose of addressing practical needs such as new court buildings, accommodation for judges, and other infrastructure requirements. Chandrachud underscored that these interactions do not involve "deals," as suggested by some, but are essential for building a supportive judicial environment.
Opposition leaders raised concerns following PM Modi's visit, suggesting that the event could create a perception of a conflict of interest. Prominent Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders, including Sanjay Raut, argued that Chief Justice Chandrachud should consider recusing himself from the ongoing case involving the Shiv Sena factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde, alleging that the Chief Justice's association with the Prime Minister could give rise to questions about judicial impartiality. Further, Shiv Sena’s Priyanka Chaturvedi and RJD leader Manoj Jha expressed discomfort with the publicized event, noting that such highly visible interactions between the executive and judiciary could inadvertently send mixed signals to the public. Jha remarked, "Ganpati puja is a personal issue, but you are taking a camera. The message it sends is uncomfortable. The Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister are tall personalities. So what can we say if they agreed to put out these photographs in the public domain?"
Chief Justice Chandrachud, in response, reiterated that judiciary members understand the importance of maintaining boundaries in a democratic system, where each branch of government has a distinct role to play. He emphasized that the judiciary and executive have a long-standing practice of engagement in multiple states, where Chief Justices regularly meet with Chief Ministers, primarily to discuss logistical and operational needs. Reflecting on his tenure in various High Courts, he explained that these meetings were always focused on ensuring the judiciary had the necessary resources to serve the public effectively.
The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time when maintaining the independence and impartiality of the judiciary remains a focal point of national discourse. Chandrachud reminded the public that the judicial branch’s integrity remains steadfast, stating, "No judge, least of all the Chief Justice of India or Chief Justices, can even remotely invite any threat, actual or perceived, to the independence of the judiciary." He pointed out that the judiciary’s unique role requires interactions with the executive, which should not be misconstrued as compromises to judicial independence.
Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla defended the Chief Justice, suggesting that such interactions are not unprecedented. Poonawalla cited a 2009 Iftar gathering hosted by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, attended by the then Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan, where similar social engagements had not sparked political controversies. Poonawalla asserted that criticism of the Ganesh puja event is politically motivated and not grounded in any real concerns about judicial independence.
Chief Justice Chandrachud concluded by encouraging the public to have faith in the democratic process and to trust in the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining a constructive relationship with other government branches while preserving its autonomy. He stressed the need for a “robust dialogue” between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, all of whom are dedicated to the same overarching goal—the betterment of the nation. "We have to understand that the work of all three arms is dedicated to one and the same goal—the betterment of the nation. So long as we trust this process, I think we must accept that there has to be continuing dialogue," Chandrachud noted. He also affirmed that social engagements between judicial and political figures are limited to personal connections and never include discussions of ongoing cases or judicial work, preserving the sanctity and independence of judicial processes.
