As Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud steps down, India bids farewell to a tenure marked by both fervent praise and pointed criticism. In the annals of the SC, few Chief Justices have captured the public imagination quite like Chandrachud, who emerged as both a judicial maverick and a figure ensnared in the contradictions of his own making. His legacy is a tableau of high-minded ideals clashing with the unrelenting weight of realpolitik and public perception.
His judgments often reflected an intent to advance the ideals of a modern democracy. From championing civil liberties and LGBTQ+ rights to affirming women’s autonomy through rulings that decriminalized adultery and supported equal abortion rights, Chandrachud projected himself as an arbiter of progressive constitutionalism. His vocal stance that dissent was the “safety valve of democracy” underscored an effort to restore faith in a judiciary tarnished by perceived inaction.
Yet, irony loomed large over his tenure. To Indian progressives, who initially lauded him as a ‘darling’ for his liberal judgments, the honeymoon was short-lived. The glow began to dim when Chandrachud was pictured participating in religious ceremonies that blurred the line between private devotion and public duty. The most notable instances were PM Narendra Modi’s visit to his home for Ganesh Puja and Chandrachud’s own pilgrimage to temples in Gujarat. Ironically, ‘liberals’ who once viewed him as a symbol of resistance against a majoritarian government now fiercely accused him of sacrificing judicial independence for the sake of congeniality.
The Chief Justice’s complex position was evident in his handling of high-stakes cases with implications for the ruling party. For instance, in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, Chandrachud’s initial faith in the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) investigation raised eyebrows. Critics claimed that the Court, under Chandrachud’s watch, appeared unwilling to push for deeper scrutiny.
His critics took umbrage at his photo-ops and interviews, questioning what would happen if judges began curating their own public personas with the zeal of social media influencers? They claimed that for every judgment that championed constitutional principles - such as the Puttaswamy case that established the right to privacy as intrinsic to the right to life - there was a moment where Chandrachud appeared overly accommodating to the government.
Chandrachud’s judgments on women’s rights, such as those in the ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala’ and ‘Joseph Shine v. Union of India,’ underscored his commitment to dismantling patriarchal norms. His rulings often empowered marginalized communities, infused progressive values into the legal system and reaffirmed rights that many thought had been suppressed. In the end, Justice Chandrachud’s story is emblematic of the dilemmas faced by modern jurists: the challenge of upholding constitutional values in a climate where public opinion and political realities create a high-stakes balancing act.
Comments