In an interview with BBC’s HARDtalk⛎, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, offered a candid reflection on the Indian judicial system, its transformation over the years, and his tenure at the helm of the Supreme Court.
ꦕFacing tough questions from veteran journalist Stephen Sackur, the 65-year-old former CJI addressed some pressing issues such as the representation of women in the judiciary, his role in landmark judgments, and the controversial Article 370 decision.
Here are the highlights of the interview:
Judiciary safeguards personal liberties, says Chandrachud
One of the central points made by the former CJI was the Indian judiciary’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding personal liberties. He asserted that higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have sent a clear message to the public that they are dedicated to upholding individual freedoms. “The judiciary has the faith of the people because we are here to safeguard personal liberties,” he remarked. The former CJI also emphasised that, despite differing opinions in individual cases, the Supreme Court consistently defends fundamental rights.
🐻When asked about the alleged political influence on the judiciary, particularly under the current ruling government, Chandrachud pointed to India’s democratic diversity. He highlighted the success of regional political parties in various states, arguing that India is far from evolving into a one-party state. He further explained that judgments like the ones in the electoral bonds case and the conviction of political leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, followed by bail, demonstrate the judiciary’s independence.
Article 370 – a 'transitional provision' in the Constitution
🃏A significant portion of the interview focused on the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the abrogation of Article 370, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019. Chandrachud, who authored one of the judgments in the case, defended the decision by stating that Article 370 was always intended to be a “transitional provision” in the Indian Constitution. He questioned whether 75 years was too short a time to abrogate such a provision, noting that the article was always meant to fade over time and merge with the larger constitutional framework.
🌺“The assumption was that what was transitional would eventually fade away and merge with the overall context of the Constitution,” he said. He also reassured that the Supreme Court ensured the restoration of democratic processes in Jammu and Kashmir, with an elected government now in place.
🎀Chandrachud emphasised that the criticism against the ruling for failing to uphold the Constitution was unfounded, as the Court had prioritised the restoration of democracy in the region.
Chandrachud says women are rising in judiciary
ꦚOn the topic of gender representation, Chandrachud was unequivocal in his stance that the Indian judiciary is undergoing a transformation. While acknowledging that the higher judiciary was traditionally male-dominated, he highlighted that significant progress is being made at the district level, where more than half of the new recruits are women. He also pointed out that the legal profession’s reach to women has translated into a gender balance in the judiciary, especially in law schools.
👍“Now what happens is this, if you look at the lowest levels of recruitment to the Indian judiciary, the district judiciary, which is the base of the pyramid, over 50% of the new recruits coming into our states are women. There are states in which the recruitment of women goes up to 60% or 70%,” he said.
𝔉“What's happening now is that as the reach of education, particularly legal education, has reached out to women, that gender balance which you find in law schools is now reflected in the lowest levels of the Indian judiciary,” Ex-CJI further said.
𝕴As an example of this transformation, he mentioned the recent appointments of women judges, such as Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, to the Supreme Court during his tenure. These developments, he noted, reflect the changing demographics of India’s legal system, where women are increasingly filling roles at every level.
Is there a ‘dynasty problem’ in the Indian Judiciary?
🦂A key segment of the interview delved into the claim that India’s judiciary is plagued by a “dynasty problem,” with an overrepresentation of male, upper-caste Hindus. Chandrachud rejected this assertion, stating that the makeup of the judiciary has evolved significantly.
𒊎He pointed out that over 50% of new recruits to the Indian judiciary are women, particularly at the district level—the foundational tier of the legal system. “If you look at the lowest levels of recruitment to the Indian judiciary, the district judiciary, which is the base of the pyramid, over 50 per cent of the new recruits coming into our states are women. There are states where the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70 per cent,” he said.
🐎Chandrachud elaborated that while the higher judiciary may still reflect a system from two decades ago, the shift toward a more inclusive representation is undeniable. He also spoke about his own background, addressing questions about the legacy of his father, former CJI YV Chandrachud. The former Chief Justice clarified that he waited until his father's retirement to enter the courtroom, emphasizing that the judiciary is increasingly being shaped by first-time entrants from diverse backgrounds, not dynastic legacies.
Judiciary faces pressure from the govt?
💎Chandrachud was also asked about the political pressures faced during his tenure as CJI. He acknowledged the challenges but firmly stated that the judiciary remained independent. He dismissed claims that the ruling party had influenced court decisions, pointing out that the judiciary had consistently delivered judgments that went against the government, such as in the case of electoral bonds.
﷽Regarding his own faith, which was questioned in the context of the Ram Temple case, Chandrachud clarified that being a person of faith does not hinder judicial impartiality. He explained that his meditation and prayer helped him maintain equanimity, which was crucial for dispensing fair and even-handed justice.
