Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud recently addressed a controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence for Ganpati prayers, defending the visit as entirely appropriate and urging “maturity in the political sphere” when it comes to such matters. After Modi’s visit, opposition leaders, especially from the Congress party, along with some members of the legal fraternity, raised concerns about maintaining a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and executive. The BJP, however, responded by characterizing the visit as a respectful and cultural gesture that aligns with India’s traditions.
During an event hosted by *The Indian Express*, CJI Chandrachud shared his perspective on the interactions between different branches of government, emphasizing that the concept of separation of powers does not necessitate isolation between the judiciary and executive. He pointed out that an open, constructive dialogue between these branches is not only normal but essential for addressing practical issues, especially on the administrative front. He noted that at the state level, high court chief justices frequently meet with chief ministers to discuss practical matters such as budgeting, infrastructure, and technological improvements in the judicial system. These interactions, he clarified, are purely administrative and have no bearing on judicial decision-making. He further explained that such meetings occur regularly at events like Republic Day celebrations or gatherings at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, underscoring the collaborative yet independent relationship that characterizes the judiciary and the executive.
Speaking specifically about the Prime Minister’s recent visit for Ganpati puja, CJI Chandrachud emphasized that such social interactions do not infringe upon judicial independence. He explained that judiciary members are expected to interact with government officials as part of institutional tradition, and the public must trust in the judiciary’s commitment to objectivity. He reassured that judgments are meticulously documented, allowing for scrutiny and transparency. This, he suggested, is why it is essential for political systems and society at large to show “a sense of maturity” in how they perceive the judiciary’s social and formal engagements.
The CJI also touched on a previous remark he made concerning his faith, which had stirred debate. During a visit to his village in Maharashtra, he had mentioned that he had prayed for a resolution in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir case, a remark that some perceived as controversial. Reflecting on this, he explained that his faith is personal and provides him with calmness and introspection, which in turn aids his judicial work. He assured that his beliefs do not interfere with his role as a judge and reiterated that his decisions are governed solely by the law and the Constitution. He emphasized that every case he adjudicates reflects a legal, impartial perspective, acknowledging the diversity of backgrounds and issues presented before the Supreme Court.
On institutional discipline, CJI Chandrachud responded to a question about the 2018 press conference held by four Supreme Court judges, who publicly voiced their dissatisfaction with the then-CJI Dipak Misra. He advocated for maintaining a disciplined approach within the judiciary, suggesting that internal dialogue is a more effective way to address institutional issues. Reflecting on his imminent successor, CJI-designate Justice Sanjiv Khanna, he described him as an individual with a composed demeanor and sound judgment, adding that he was confident in the future of the Supreme Court under Khanna’s leadership. He expressed his belief that Justice Khanna’s temperament and objectivity would ensure that the institution remained in capable hands post his retirement.
During a lighter moment in the conversation, CJI Chandrachud was asked if he would consider including the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in a hypothetical Ganesh Puja photograph alongside the Prime Minister. With humor, he remarked that the LoP would not be necessary in such a setting, though bipartisan representation is mandatory for certain formal committees, like those overseeing appointments to roles such as the Central Vigilance Commissioner or the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He further noted that judiciary members extend social courtesies like condolence visits, and that such interactions do not compromise judicial impartiality. He cautioned that casting aspersions on the intentions behind these interactions erodes societal respect for the judiciary and that the public should trust judges to act without personal agendas.
CJI Chandrachud also discussed the Supreme Court’s approach to handling bail pleas, especially in light of criticisms related to delays in high-profile cases, such as the bail plea of former JNU student Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots case. He underscored the court’s dedication to protecting personal liberty and noted that since he assumed office, bail cases have been prioritized, with each bench mandated to hear at least ten bail cases consistently. From November 2022 to November 2024, he reported that the court had processed an extensive volume, resolving over 21,000 bail cases and successfully handling 901 out of 967 cases filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
He observed that media portrayal of certain cases can create a perception that differs significantly from the facts and legal nuances. To illustrate his approach, CJI Chandrachud pointed out that he has granted bail in cases across a wide political and social spectrum, highlighting notable cases involving individuals like Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair. This, he said, exemplifies his commitment to upholding personal liberties irrespective of political or social associations.
Finally, reflecting on his tenure, CJI Chandrachud reaffirmed his belief in an open dialogue between the judiciary and executive on administrative matters, emphasizing that it remains separate from judicial responsibilities. He concluded by expressing pride in the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality, and he encouraged the public to appreciate the complex, challenging work carried out by the Supreme Court to uphold justice, as each decision is carefully crafted to reflect the law and the spirit of the Constitution.
