 |
|
Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, has vehemently rejected allegations made by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, who attributed the Maha Vikas Aghadi's (MVA) defeat in the recent Maharashtra Assembly elections to the Supreme Court's handling of disqualification petitions. Raut's assertion, that the perceived delay in addressing these petitions emboldened politicians and contributed to the MVA's downfall, has been strongly countered by Justice Chandrachud. He emphasized the Supreme Court's unwavering commitment to prioritizing significant constitutional matters, asserting that the choice of cases falls solely under the purview of the Chief Justice, not any political party or individual. This assertion underscores the crucial principle of judicial independence, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. The weight of constitutional cases, often spanning many years, necessitates a judicious allocation of resources and manpower. Chandrachud's explanation highlights the inherent limitations faced by the judiciary in addressing the vast volume of cases before it, with limited resources and a finite number of judges. The prioritization of cases, inherently involves difficult decisions involving the allocation of judicial resources to best serve the justice system, and does not represent any favoritism or bias towards certain political agendas.
The core of Chandrachud's defense lies in the rejection of the notion that the judiciary should bend to political pressures or expectations. He rightly points out the absurdity of a court's independence being defined by its alignment with a specific political agenda. His citing of examples, including decisions on electoral bonds, disability rights, Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, and cases impacting federal structures and livelihoods, serves to illustrate the breadth and depth of constitutional issues tackled during his tenure. These examples effectively demonstrate that the Supreme Court's workload is not limited to responding to the immediate concerns of any single political entity. The court's role encompasses a far wider responsibility, that includes upholding the constitution's mandate and protecting the rights of all citizens regardless of political affiliation.
Chandrachud's response to Rahul Gandhi's assertion that the opposition has assumed the judiciary's role is equally pertinent. He clearly distinguishes the roles of the judiciary and the political opposition. While the judiciary scrutinizes laws and ensures their constitutionality, the political opposition holds the government accountable through its legislative and electoral functions. Confusing these roles risks undermining the balance of power and jeopardizing the principles of separation of powers. Further, he addressed claims of political bias arising from his social interactions with political leaders, describing these as standard social courtesies, which should not be misconstrued as compromising judicial independence. He urges critics to evaluate the judiciary’s work on its merits rather than based on social interactions. The fact remains that the judiciary, particularly at the Supreme Court level, faces constant pressure from various stakeholders, often powerful and well-resourced litigants.
The issue of resource constraints and systemic problems within the judiciary also received attention. Chandrachud acknowledged the challenges presented by the 21% vacancy rate in district courts, advocating for increased investment in infrastructure and the establishment of an All-India Judicial Service Examination. The need to improve the efficiency and accessibility of the justice system is evident. Despite the systemic challenges, Chandrachud highlights the Supreme Court’s efforts to address cases involving marginalized communities, citing the resolution of over 21,000 bail applications during his tenure. This illustrates the judiciary's commitment to delivering justice, even within the context of resource limitations. The significant constitutional rulings handed down during his tenure, coupled with his staunch defense of judicial independence, leave behind a legacy that resonates well beyond his time as Chief Justice.
In conclusion, Justice Chandrachud's statements provide a robust defense of the Supreme Court's actions, emphasizing its commitment to constitutional principles and its efforts to overcome inherent systemic challenges. His strong rejection of claims of political influence and his clear articulation of the judiciary's distinct role underscore the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary in a democracy. While acknowledging the shortcomings within the system, he emphasizes the judiciary’s ongoing efforts to address the needs of all citizens and uphold the rule of law. The debate highlights the delicate balance between the judiciary’s independence and its accountability to the people, a challenge that will continue to shape the discourse surrounding the Indian judicial system.