India
‘Should one party decide which case SC should hear?’ Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud on Shiv Sena’s (UBT) ‘blame’ for Maharashtra election loss | India News – Times of India
CJI Chandrachud (Credit: ANI)
In an exclusive interview with ANI, Justice Chandrachud dismissed these allegations, highlighting the Supreme Court’s focus on important constitutional cases during its tenure. “All year long we were dealing with landmark constitutional cases, nine-judge decisions, seven-judge decisions, five-judge decisions. Should a party or individual decide which case the Supreme Court should hear? Sorry, that choice is for the chief justice,” he said.
Sanjay Raut had alleged that by not ruling on disqualification petitions filed by Shiv Sena defectors, Justice Chandrachud “eliminated the fear of the law” among politicians, leading to the collapse of the MVA government and their subsequent electoral loss.
In the November 20 elections, Shiv Sena (UBT) won only 20 of the 94 seats it contested as part of the MVA alliance, with Congress securing 16 of 101 seats and the NCP (Sharad Pawar) only 10 of 86 won seats. Raut accused the judiciary of delaying decisions, which affects their political fortunes, stating that “history will not forgive them”.
Justice Chandrachud, however, defended the priorities of the judiciary. “Important constitutional cases have been pending before the Supreme Court for 20 years. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court take up these twenty-year-old cases or hear some recent cases? You have a limited manpower and a certain number of judges, you have to take stock,” he said.
Responding to Raut’s claim that the court had postponed the Sena’s disqualification case, Chandrachud criticized the expectation that courts should align with political agendas. “The real problem is this, that a certain part of the polity feels that if you follow my agenda, you are independent… We agreed on electoral ties. Was that less important?” he said, listing other cases dealt with during his tenure, including the rights of the disabled, the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and key rulings affecting federal structures and livelihoods.
Speaking about the claims of his involvement in promoting a specific political agenda, Chandrachud also responded to Rahul Gandhi’s recent comment that the Opposition has taken up the role of the judiciary. The former CJI said, “People should not assume that the judiciary should play the role of the opposition in Parliament or the state legislature. We are here to scrutinize laws.”
The former CJI then defended his social interactions with political leaders, describing such gatherings as “basic social courtesy” that does not compromise judicial independence. He called on critics to assess the work of the judiciary rather than dwell on social engagements.
Chandrachud also reflected on the broader challenges of his role, particularly pressure from well-resourced litigants. “People with a lot of resources come to court and try to undermine the system by saying: my case must be heard first. Sorry, we are not going to give that priority,” he asserted, adding that the judiciary must resist such influences. to remain impartial.
He also rejected suggestions of political pressure on the judiciary, citing cases like Article 370, Ayodhya and Sabarimala, where decisions were taken without outside interference. “If there was pressure, why did the Supreme Court wait to make such a decision in this case?” he wondered, reiterating the independence of the judiciary.
However, Justice Chandrachud highlighted systemic problems within the judiciary and called for more investment in infrastructure and an All-India Judicial Service Examination to address the 21% vacancy rate in district courts. He noted the Supreme Court’s aim to address cases involving marginalized communities, citing more than 21,000 bail applications disposed of during his tenure.
Justice Chandrachud retired on November 10 after serving a two-year term as the Chief Justice of India. He left behind a legacy marked by important constitutional rulings and steadfast defense of judicial independence.
