Full Text | 'I Hope History Does Not Remember CJI D.Y Chandrachud': Dushyant Dave to Karan Thapar

In a 45-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, one of India’s foremost lawyers, Dushyant Dave assessed Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s performance both as a judge and CJI, as well as the administrative head of the Supreme Court.

In Dave’s disappointment, he is articulate. The following is the full text of the interview, transcribed by Manya Singh.

Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. On the 10th of November, Justice Chandrachud will retire after completing two years as Chief Justice of India. How should we look back on his term of office, both as a judge and also as the administrative head of the Supreme Court? In a recent speech, Justice Chandrachud asked how history will remember him and how it will view the legacy he leaves behind.

What is the answer to his question? Joining me is one of India’s foremost lawyers and a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dushyant Dave. Dushyant Dave, on the 10th of November, Chief Justice Chandrachud retires after serving two years as Chief Justice of India, one of the longest tenures in recent times. There were great expectations of him when he took over.

Has he lived up to them or has he disappointed you?

Well, I must confess that he has disappointed me very deeply and I must tell you that I did write to Chief Justice Chandrachud a congratulatory letter on his appointment in 2022 and did say that he has great qualities and abilities which he must exploit to really make his tenure successful and I wished him lots of good luck and I even suggested some pointers to him. I mean, with my experience as a lawyer for almost 44 years then and I thought that perhaps Chief Justice would end up really making an extremely successful tenure as the Chief Justice of India.

But I must say that my expectations have been seriously belied and as I had in fact told you in an interview before he took over the office, I think 10 days before he took over the office, I did express some apprehensions that he may not be able to really fulfill his task successfully.

So, I think in posterity I have been proved to be right.

Let me come to what you said in that interview. It was October 2022, just a couple of weeks before Justice Chandrachud took over as Chief Justice.

You said, ‘Justice Chandrachud can be disappointing in politically sensitive matters.’ Your precise words were ‘in politically sensitive matters, he has not risen to levels expected of him.’ Has that proven to be the case?

Well, I would definitely say yes because there are a large number of cases one need not go into details of those cases.

But let us understand one thing Karan that rule of law is the basic structure of the constitution. Independence of judiciary is equally the basic structure of the constitution. Today, what really is challenging this country the most, is everybody going gaga over the economic progress and several trillion dollar economy, etc., etc.

But if you do not have a very healthy, strong and robust rule of law, then the democracy will be in peril. And that is where really the challenge before the judiciary is because it is judiciary alone, which can ensure a strict adherence to rule of law. Now, this is the area where I must say with great regret that Chief Justice Chandrachud not only failed, but did not even attempt to succeed.

I will give you four figures. For example, when he took over in October, November of 2022, the total number of pending cases in India were 4,50,36,071 as per the National Judicial Data Green. In 2024, when he is now leaving, those cases have risen to 51 million.

And out of those 51 million, 180,000 cases are those which are pending in various courts in India, which are pending for more than 30 years. Now, let’s look at Supreme Court of India. When he took over as Chief Justice, the total pendency was 69,647 cases.

But when he is leaving today, those cases are as much as 82,989 cases. Now, this is something which is bothering me a lot, that as a Chief Justice of India, did he make any serious effort to really have the judiciary deal with these cases to ensure justice is delivered as quickly as possible? Because if you do not have quick disposal of cases, if you do not give justice to the people, besides the quality of justice, which is the next issue I’ll come to, there is an abject failure of rule of law. And this is where Chief Justice Chandrachud did not make any serious attempt.

He’s like Indian cricketers, who are very successful in media. But when it comes to the test matches against New Zealand, they fail miserably. So, Chief Justice Chandrachud was a media’s favourite.

Every media wanted to interview him. And he was very liberal in giving his interviews and having a public image. But nobody in media questioned him about his actual role as Chief Justice of India.

Nobody really critically evaluated him. And this is where I feel that Chief Justice Chandrachud, with his competence, with his ability, could have genuinely contributed. And he failed miserably.

Let’s at this moment, focus on some of the significant judgments passed by the Supreme Court while Chief Justice Chandrachud was Chief Justice of India. First, there’s the Article 370 judgment. The court upheld the government’s abrogation and although it had concerns about the removal of statehood, it didn’t order its restoration. Instead, it was prepared to trust the government to do that. How do you evaluate that judgment to start with?

Well, I appeared in that case, on behalf of certain petitioners.

And I must say, with a sense of deep disappointment, that the five learned judges of the Supreme Court misdirected themselves in law. Frankly, if you look at Article 370, and I read this before the five learned judges, the author of that article, explained the scope and ambit of that article during the Constituent Assembly debate. And I said, this is the purpose for which the author said that I have drafted Article 370.

It was not supposed to be temporary in the sense that some 77 years later, the president can issue a proclamation and say, oh, now this article is abrogated. That was not the purpose. The purpose was that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was given an option that do you want this article to continue or you want without modification or you want this article to go.

The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in 19, I think, within two years of the constitution coming into being said, we want this article to remain, but with a slight modification, which modification then President of India accepted in the article. Now, once that happened, the power to recall that or abrogate that provision had come to an end. And there was no power in the president of India to have touched that, which was really the purpose, which this author explained.

Unfortunately, in their judgment, the 500 judges do not deal with this aspect at all. Now, secondly, look at similar provisions for states of Nagaland and other states like Manipur, all these states have been given special status, their customs have been protected. Today, they can enjoy eating beef, whereas the rest of the country can’t eat it because the constituent framers said that their customs and their traditions must be kept alive.

Their independence must be kept alive. Now, nobody has touched those provisions. So, I feel that judges perhaps were not right in the approach they took.

To my mind, I think it was a serious miscarriage of justice.

You said something very important. I’m simply repeating it because I think the audience will want it underlined.

You said the five judges of the Supreme Court in the article 370 case, and that was a bench presided over by Justice Chandrachud himself, first of all misdirected themselves in law. And you then said it was a serious miscarriage of justice that emerged as a result. That’s a very serious indictment.

It’s not an indictment. It’s my interpretation as a lawyer. It’s my observation as a lawyer.

I’m entitled to say that judgment is wrong. I mean, I’m not saying anything else. Judges sometimes do make mistakes.

And this is a classic example where learned judges have indeed made a very serious mistake. Frankly, it was a case where it would have taken extreme form of courage on the part of the judges to have gone against a powerful executive. Because the entire, as you know, that abrogation of article 370 was part and parcel of BJP’s manifesto in 2014.

And as part of that manifesto, they really went ahead and did this, which is what I had pointed out to the judges, that this was a political act. This was not an administrative act exercised bona fide by the government. But unfortunately, the judges don’t really give any importance to that.

This is where, Dushyant Dave, if I can point out to the audience, what you said in October 2022, just before Justice Chandrachud took over, actually rings very true. You said in politically sensitive matters, he has not risen to levels expected of him. This article 370 case was definitely a politically sensitive one, and he shied away from overturning what the government had done.

This is where your prediction, this is where your apprehension rings very true. Let me come at this point to a second big judgment. And this time I’m talking about electoral bonds. The Supreme Court got a lot of praise for declaring them unconstitutional and striking them down. But it stopped short of recovering the money. It didn’t punish anyone for the guilt. How, again, do you view this judgment?

Well, what Supreme Court did was very clear. Operation successful, patient dead. There is no doubt about the fact that electoral bond was a scheme which may have been good, but it was seriously misused, especially by party in power.

And we have seen that there were a number of instances which appeared in newspapers where the Enforcement Directorate or CBI carried out raids and raids were followed by contributions to the Bharatiya Janata Party through electoral bonds. And many of the cases were allowed to be therefore either compromised or weakened or not prosecuted properly. Now, those facts were in public domain.

Media carried out this campaign in a big way to show that this scheme was abused by party in power at the centre. So, when Prashant Bhushan went back to the Supreme Court before Chief Justice Chandrachud and sought an appointment of SIT to go into these allegations, the Chief Justice simply said ‘no, dismissed.’ Now this shows that what was the point in giving an academic lecture and  winning brownie points when you had no courage to really go deep into the matter and find out whether the party in power had really abused and misused its position or not.

I think that’s where I would say Chief Justice Chandrachud has really deeply disappointed and distressed people like me.

So, this is another instance where to use the phrase you used a moment ago, lack of courage was the inhibiting factor. He didn’t have the guts, if I can use that colloquial phrase, to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion.

See, what is really troublesome is this, Karan, that Chief Justice after Chief Justice, especially since 2014 when Prime Minister Modi took over, has not been able to withstand the powerful persona of the Prime Minister. And this is what happened when Mrs. Gandhi was in power. We have seen that.

So, whenever powerful Prime Ministers are in power, the judges have succumbed as they did during emergency in famous ATM versus Jabalpur case. Now, we expect that they must adhere to the Constitution oath. The Constitution oath tells them that you will only abide by the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour, without ill will.

Now, if you are not willing to do that, or if you’re not able to do that, then I respectfully feel that you as the Chief Justice of India, when you have nothing to fear about, you’re constitutionally protected, you’re untouchable, you should therefore really lean in favour of the Constitution, in favour of the citizens of India and against those in power who are abusing the power.

You’re saying, because you almost said it in so many words, that Chief Justice Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India was intimidated by the powerful personality of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which is why he fell short of going to the logical conclusion.

Well, I must say that in many, we have seen, as I have told you earlier also, for example, in Judge Loya’s case, when Judge Loya died in suspicious circumstances, all that we argued before a bench of Chief Justice Mishra, Justice Khanvilkar and Justice Chandra Choudhury was that please appoint an independent inquiry.

If he died of a heart attack, the inquiry will say so. And we, I said, we as the Supreme Court or you as the Supreme Court owe a duty to the judges at the lowest level that we are here to protect you in case you have died while hearing a sensitive case, but they failed to do so. Another example is when he tweaked a three-judgment judgment in BCCI case and allowed Mr. Jai Shah to become Secretary of BCCI by saying that pooling of period will not apply in a particular manner.

Now, that was done by him in a very questionable way, because you can’t do that against a three-judgment judgment. And what is the result? You have today  a cricket body, which has now been selecting cricketers who are not able to who are only playing in media, but are not playing on the ground.

Can I interrupt? Can I say that once again, you’re saying something that is a very serious criticism of any Chief Justice.

To say that Justice Chandrachud was intimidated by the powerful personality of Prime Minister Modi is a very serious criticism. That’s something you expect judges not to be. You don’t expect them to be intimidated.

I am not saying that he got intimidated. Those are your words. What I am saying is that when it came to the crunch, Chief Justice Chandrachud or Justice Chandrachud did not really, I think, rose up to the standards expected of him.

He should have been. For example, I’ll give you one more example. In that famous Hadiya case, where this Hindu girl had married a Muslim boy, the Supreme Court bench presided by Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Chandrachud directed an NIA investigation into a marriage of an adult girl.

And they kept that girl away from her husband for a number of months. And ultimately, she came to the Supreme Court and said, ‘I am married of my own volition and I want to live with my husband.’ It was a complete egg on the face of the Supreme Court.

And they had to ultimately close the inquiry. Now, what does it show in the first instance, judges should never have touched that case. Just because a Hindu girl has married a Muslim boy, Supreme Courts don’t start appointing NIA investigations.

I feel that judges have definitely pandered to the party in power since 2014.

Okay, I’ll take that. Pandered to the party in power since 2014. Not intimidated, that’s my phrase, but pandered to the party in power since 2014.

Frankly, if anything, that sounds worse than being intimidated. But let’s move on. Let me raise a third judgment. Although Justice Chandrachud was not Chief Justice when it was delivered. I’m referring to the Ayodhya judgment.

We now know he authored it. And we also now know where the inspiration and the wisdom for the authoring came from. But the key question I want to ask you is this, did that Ayodhya judgment deliver justice? Or do you agree with the criticism that it was one sided and it found in favour of those it deemed guilty of illegally demolishing the mosque?

Well, the judgment is a bundle of contradiction.

Frankly, if you look at the facts and the law, the judgment really is based on emotions and religious fervour rather than law. And the judgment has been therefore criticized widely, of course, in a country where majority of us are Hindus, and I’m a proud Hindu. And I also worship Lord Ram.

It’s not that I don’t worship. But I do feel that Supreme Court should have had the sagacity. And if  Kamal Ataturk could do it in the 20s in Turkey, that let us declare this as a national monument and allow side by side construction of a mosque and a temple rather than allowing on the demolition of the mosque, a temple to be built.

So I think that sagacity was expected from the five judges. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. And as I said, look, the fact is that each of these judges have been rewarded in one form or the other who presided on that bench.

And they have all government has been extraordinarily kind to them post their retirement. So, it really raises a very serious apprehension in the mind, anguish in the mind that, it’s one thing for judges to really give the judgment, but then openly accept post retirement, these kind of bounties with the government party in power confers. Second, let’s remember that building of a Ram temple was also part of the manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014 election.

And so was it in 2019 election. Now, therefore, you have to be very careful about these things that when there are political statements being made by party in power in its manifesto, I mean, judiciary should be circumspect. What about the other promises that manifesto has given? Nothing has turned out, nothing has been worked.

Why are judges not taking the responsibility of ensuring that each of those promises are really adhered to and implemented by the party in power?

So, while we’re talking about Justice Chandrachud’s earlier judgments, let me ask you, how much credit do you give Justice Chandrachud for publicly announcing in 2017 that he disagreed with his father’s judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case? And he called it, I believe, seriously flawed. And what about the stand he’s taken in his judgments on homosexuality, adultery and Sabarimala? How much credit you give him for that package?

Well, there is no doubt that his judgments in these cases that you are referring to are in the right direction.

Nobody’s saying that. But I do feel that Justice Chandrachud has been sailing with the wind. He knew that the winds are flowing in this particular direction.

And therefore, I would be absolutely not become a poster boy of the media if I were to decide against this kind of. And these judgments have been received worldwide. He ensured that they are spread across the world and they received.

So, nobody says that. As I said, in October 2022 to UN, I have repeatedly said Chief Justice Chandrachud is an intellectually brilliant man. There’s no doubt about it.

And he knows how to mould the law. But unfortunately, he has not been able to mould the law when it comes to strengthening the democracy, when it comes to strengthening the rights of the people and when it came to really curtailing the abuse of power by the party in power today. That’s where I feel that he has not been able to really do what he should have done.

So, on issues like homosexuality, adultery and Sabarimala or on the way in which he criticised his father’s judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case, you’re saying he did it knowing that this would be widely applauded. As you put it, he was sailing with the prevailing wind of the day.

Absolutely. And he had no business to criticise his father’s judgment, especially after his father had died. He should have done it when he was alive and he should have publicly talked about it.

But the other thing is this, that look, as Chief Justice of India, you are responsible of trying to reform the judicial system from within. You have to therefore make sure that what are the problems which are aiding the judiciary across the country? What is it that we as Supreme Court judges or as Chief Justice of India, we can do together? Now, that’s where I feel and I did write in my letter to him when I congratulated him that he should constitute a group of top judges, top lawyers, other stakeholders like litigants and court staff, and of course, the management experts to find out as to what is really aiding the judicial system. And he should get a report of this expert body or expert group within three or six months and should start correcting measures.

Because I do believe that executive is not interested in ensuring that judiciary is able to discharge its functions efficiently. So judiciary has to work from within itself.

And he failed to do that.

Absolutely, barring some academic discussions with the district judges here and there. He did precious little while he had time to go and give lectures in Harvard and Oxford. He had very little time to go and visit the judges and talk to them at the lowest level across the country.

So, earlier in your beginning answer, you pointed out that the pendency in the Supreme Court under Justice Chandrachud had increased from 69,647 to 82,989. But there’s one very important case that was pending long before he became Chief Justice, which he could have many people thought he should have taken up, but he didn’t bother to take it up. And I want to come briefly to that.

I’m talking about the challenges to the Citizenship Amendment Act. What message did his decision not to take it up during his tenure send out?

Well, it’s a politically sensitive case.

And he ducked it. He ducked the issue..

Absolutely. He ducked the issue. And there are many such issues. Take, for example, these love jihad cases.

Can a democracy like India have any word called love jihad? And can executive have the power to arrest people and ruin their families because a Hindu girl has decided to marry a Muslim boy, which world we are living in? Why did he not decide that? Take hijab case. Why did he not? I mean, two learned judges deferred, and he has not even bothered to send it to a three judge bench for two years. There are many such cases where Chief Justice Chandrachud has ducked and deliberately ducked because those are politically sensitive cases.

He did not have courage to do it. See, there are many issues where, unfortunately, Chief Justice Chandrachud outside the court talks a lot. He talks about women’s rights. He talks about human rights. He talks about fundamental rights. But when it comes to really implementing them through his judicial power, he has, I think, not been able to exercise that power as meaningfully as he should have.

You’re saying there are many issues on which he talks a lot outside court, but in court as a judge, he falls short. His action doesn’t match up to his words.

Absolutely. And this is troublesome. For example, he has been speaking about status of women and how he feels that women should really have an active role in society and even judiciary.

He made 17 appointments to Supreme Court. Not one woman was appointed by him.

Absolutely. That is on the front page of the Hindu newspaper today. In fact, not only has he not appointed a single woman to the Supreme Court, but many of the recommendations that the collegium made whilst he was heading the collegium have either been stymied by the government or not acted upon. Even reiterations have been stymied by the government.

And the Supreme Court collegium has been unable to do anything. So has it been a very weak collegium under him?

See, there is successive collegiums and that’s why I am a very fervent advocate that the collegium system must go because the judgment under which the collegium system has got the power under the Chief Justice of India really says that you will only appoint best from those amongst available. Now, have they been doing that? History will tell us.

And this is where collegiums have really not been, I would say, have not done justice to that judgment or the power that they are wielding today. The power must be exercised absolutely for the object and purpose for which that judgment was written.

But that power has not been exercised by the collegium under the headship of Justice Chandrachud.

Many recommendations have been held up and he’s done nothing about it.

No, I’ll come to that. Every collegium, including under Chief Justice Chandrachud, unfortunately has done lip service to that judgment.

When they want to grab the power and exercise, they are happy to recite that judgment. But when they want to implement that judgment in letter and spirit, they are silent about it.

Two, Chief Justice Chandrachud did something worse. When Justice Kaul’s bench was hearing a case in which Justice Kaul was asking government as to why you are not implementing the recommendations of the collegium and you went, please tell us when you will do so. Government was deliberately sitting on many fines. We know that the government didn’t want to appoint those judges whom government didn’t want, while government was very active in quickly appointing judges whom it wanted.

I know of judges whose files were cleared in less than 12 hours. Now, Justice Kaul’s bench was asking these questions and unfortunately, Chief Justice Chandrachud withdrew that case from him, which was an act to my mind amounting to virtual contempt of court. No Chief Justice has power as master of the roaster to withdraw a case which is being heard by another bench. And this was done by him deliberately to save embarrassment to the government. And this is where I would say Chief Justice Chandrachud pose an explanation to the country. He is appearing today before express attack.(30:20)

I’m sure he will have many explanations as he’s trying to explain himself in media for last 2 weeks after our last interview and many people’s criticism across the country. Unfortunately, he is resorting to press explanation. But I feel that this was an act which really created a very, I would say, very sorry state of affairs in the functioning of the Supreme Court. And justice Kaul said, ‘I cannot say anything more about this except express my regret as to what is happening.’

But, sir, I’m going to repeat what you said In withdrawing the case from justice Sanjay Kaul, when questions that would have embarrassed the government were about to be pressed ahead with, you say that Justice Chandrachud acted to save embarrassment to the government.

You say he owes an explanation to the country. He’s now at the cusp of retirement. This is his last week in office. He retires on 10th. If that explanation is never given, how serious a lapse will that be?

There can be no explanation. Let’s understand that. What happened that day was absolutely shameful. It was against every canon of judicial power being exercised. See, Chief Justice Chandrachud, when he exercises powers as master of the roaster, he’s not acting judicially.

He’s acting administratively. And administratively, he had no, authority, jurisdiction, business, or morality to really touch that matter. Period. So whatever he says, it would only further his serious dereliction of duty on that subject.

Also read: Supreme Court Bar Association Questions CJI Chandrachud-led SC’s Administrative Decisions

In fact, you said, and I’m quoting you again, the way he behaved was virtually contempt of court.

Absolutely. And I can assure you that the judge whom I have treated as my hero, Chief Justice PT Desai, who became chief justice of Himachal, Calcutta, and Bombay courts and who originated from Gujarat, under whom we learned the law. So, he declined to come to Supreme Court because his junior was first brought there. He would have definitely initiated a contempt against him.

Moving away from judgments, let’s come to the behaviour of the judicial system under Justice Chandrachud’s chief justiceship.

People like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam continue to languish in jail for years without bail. That’s also true of many of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case. How much of the responsibility or blame for the way they’ve been treated rests ultimately with Justice Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India?

I must say, it’s a very sorry state of affairs that people who are entitled to justice and quick justice are not getting justice in the judicial system. And chief justice has definitely a great responsibility for that.

But having said that, I must also say that as master of the roaster, Chief Justice Chandrachud has exercised his powers rather subjectively and in manner, which really raises far more questions than answers. One never expected Chief Justice Chandrachud to really act so arbitrarily as a master of the roaster. And this is where it leaves a very sour taste in our mouth that he should have done something which was really unbecoming of him as the Chief Justice of India considering that he really came with greater expectations.

So, according to the number of times, Umar Khalid’s bail has been postponed and not acted upon. Is that what you have in mind?

No. I have in mind many cases. There are large number of cases which have gone to certain benches for some specific reasons. We know that chief justice has been marking some matters which is not what should be done. Ultimately, once you have, as master of the roaster, fix the benches and allocated the business to them subject wise, then automatically the computer should list the matters.

Why is it that the matters are taken by registrants again and again before successive chief justices for last 10 years so that they can be marked before certain judges or certain benches? Now, this happens in politically sensitive matters. This happens in matters of opposition states and opposition leaders. This happens in matters of civil right activist. This happens also in matters involving large corporates.

 And the responsibility and blame is directly on Justice Chandrachud.

It is only the Chief Justice who exercises that power. And successive Chief Justices, if I say so with respect to them, have abused this power. And Chandrachud is no exception.

Let’s come to the case of the election officer in Chandigarh. He was found guilty of criminal misbehaviour, but no action was taken against him.

That’s also true of the Shinde, Fadnavis, Ajit Pawar government in Maharashtra, which was deemed to be illegal, but the matter was tossed back to the speaker who did nothing, and the government ended up serving its terms. How do you view these two outcomes?

I’ll give you an example of what Chief Justice Chandrachud did. In a fight involving a corporate entity and two cousins, Chief Justice Chandrachud one day summoned the members of the national NCLAT, which included a former judge of the high court, to his court, and did not even offer them chairs. And took them to task, alleging that his order was not properly implemented by them, assuming they were guilty of contempt.

Now, this was the worst form of, I would say, brinksmanship on the part of the Supreme Court of India. And little did Chief Justice Chandrachud realise that while he did set aside their judgment, the order which was obtained by the party who succeeded before Chief Justice Chandrachud from the NCLAT was an order which was absolutely procured order. Because the NCLAT had set on that order for one year.

The learned member was retiring on 1st January of a particular year. And on 31st December, while the NCLT was in recess during vacation, the order was pronounced. And yet Chief Justice Chandrachud set aside the order of the appellate court and damned these members. One of them had was also forced to resign.

Now he never did so against the political brass. He never did so against the bureaucratic brass. He certainly should have done this when it came to non appointment of judges or transfers of judges on which the government set on files for months years years.

Now why would he not do that if he could conduct in such harsh manner against his own judges.

 It sounds to the audience that you’re suggesting that Chief Justice Chandrachud often acted in ways, often gave judgments and took decisions in ways that would benefit him or look pleasing and acceptable to the executive rather than deliver justice per se.

Well, I don’t know. I can only say that his his judicial approach has been inexplicable.

You mean that? It’s not it it cannot even be explained. It is so bad.

Yeah, it’s a very judicial approach. I find it very difficult because as a judge, you have you are entitled to your own ideology and philosophy. Nothing wrong about that. But you must be consistent in your approach, and you must not disregard the constitution and the laws.

Now, Dushyant Dave, we’ve talked about two critical aspects of the handling of the administration of justice, not the judgments given by Chief Justice Chandrachud or the Supreme Court under his headship, but the administration of justice under Chief Justice Chandrachud. You’ve spoken extensively about the collegium system and the way he’s failed to live up to expectations. And as you said, he’s even guilty of contempt of court in this Justice Sanjay Kaul case.

You’ve also spoken about the way pendency has increased under him particularly at the Supreme Court level. And he said, as you pointed out, not only has he failed, but he did not even attempt to succeed in trying to bring it down. But there’s one other aspect which has been in the news about his administrative handling that I want to bring up with you.

He’s given India a new symbol of justice, he removed the blindfold from the lady, and he’s replaced the sword with the constitution. Are those appropriate changes, or do they garble what should be a key clear message?

Well, I can only characterise Chief Justice Chandrachud’s actions as an administrator absolutely symbolic. They are not, fundamental. They are not substantial.

They were only geared towards media and media alone. And this is where I feel extremely sad that a judge of his caliber has allowed himself to be viewed in media as if he’s the messiah of the judicial system giving lectures here and there. Sometimes even missing the court to deliver those lectures. While a very few people would know that his judicial approach or for that matter, his approach as the master of the roaster has, left much to be desired. So I think he was perceived or rather he appeared in media, as much, or maybe second only to the honourable prime minister, which is unbecoming of a judge.

No chief justice of India has been media savvy as Justice Chandrachud has been. And I don’t know why. What what was the need for him to do this? Everybody knew that he is intellectually of a very strong caliber. He did not have to prove to the country.

In fact, people have been critical of his conduct in media far more than appreciating that he has been appearing in this media and giving these lectures across the country. So I think these are all these are all acts or gestures which really have no, I would say no lasting effect.

Are are you also are you also suggesting that the redesign, if I call it that, of Lady Justice’s face and the way in which the blindfold was removed and the way in which the sword has been removed and replaced with the constitution? Again, that this is designed to attract attention from the media.

Absolutely. He also had screening of a film, and Aamir Khan also came for that film, Laapataa Ladies. So, this is not what the Chief Justice of India does. It is really shocking. The number of inaugurations that he has done is mind blowing. He wants his nameplate everywhere.

 You’re saying that he sought publicity.

Yeah. Absolutely. There is a building of Supreme Court which was existing, which is sought to be renovated, not demolished. And he had a ‘bhoomi pujan’ of that.

There was already a clinic, in the Supreme Court for the benefit of lawyers and litigants. He had even that clinic renovated. Again, he inaugurated and put his own plaque. You don’t do these things. You must give some respect to your predecessors and make sure they put, for example, in the launch of Supreme Court, the word ‘Supreme Court of India’.

Now Supreme Court of India is not known with those words. Supreme Court of India is known because the Supreme Court of India is on Tilak Mag in New Delhi. Everybody in this country knows what Supreme Court is. So, these kind of gestures or actions didn’t defeat the office of a Chief Justice of India.

There are also things that Justice Chandrachud has said and done whilst he was chief justice. Let me first turn to those. I’m referring to inviting the Prime Minister to his home for Aarti on Ganapati pooja and the claim that God gave him the solution to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute.

We’ve discussed both of these in an earlier interview, so I’m not repeating the discussion by any means. I simply want to ask you this. How will this be remembered when people recall and assess Justice Chandra Choo’s tenure as chief justice?

Both these have really left a lot to be desired and have really portrayed or rather exposed Chief Justice Chandrachud in a very poor light. He what he has done is really bringing the image of judicial or tarnishing the image of the judiciary very badly.

And he should have really stayed away from either inviting the Prime Minister for that Aarti, which is subsequently described as a meeting between prime minister and chief justice. Now if you meet, you must at least have some agenda. You must have some record of the meetings. You must tell the country as to what that meeting was about.

You can’t explain away that aarti by giving subsequent media interviews saying that, ‘no, it was an official meeting.’ Nobody minds, chief justice and the prime minister meeting, but they meet only for official reasons for which meetings are fixed in advance. And they are not on these holy occasions where along with the meeting, you perform the artist and then explain to the country why the aarti was there. And his explanation has made it worse.

Equally, the statement that ‘he derived strength from god to decide the case’, is really shocking because all that he can really get strength from is the constitution and the laws and nothing else. And, therefore, he really has done a great disservice to judiciary and made judiciary portray in a very poor light amongst the citizens and across the world, I would say.

 Finally, in a recent speech in Bhutan delivered just a couple of weeks ago, Justice Chandrachud asked this question himself and I’m going to quote him, he said, ‘How will history judge my tenure? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?’

So let me ask you to answer that. How do you think history will remember Justice Chandrachud, and what sort of legacy does he leave behind?

I hope history does not remember Chief Justice Chandrachud, and I hope his legacy is completely forgotten as quickly as possible.

Again, that is pretty damning. You hope history does not remember Justice Chandrachud , and you hope his legacy is forgotten as quickly as possible.

And I say so with great sense of responsibility. Although I have known him as a friend, I have respected him as a judge in the past, but his tenure as chief justice also sometimes as a judge has really been a matter of grave concern to me as a lawyer and somebody who loves the rule of law, respects judges, respects the Supreme Court and loves the institution of judiciary. So I say so with all respect that it’s better that we forget what has happened in last two years in the office of the Chief Justice of India.

It is better that Justice Chandrachud is forgotten.

Absolutely.

So, Dushyant, thank you very much for the time you’ve spent for me, for your candor and for your openness. And I will repeat your last words, ‘I hope history does not remember Justice Chandrachud and I hope his legacy is forgotten as quickly as possible.’ And then you agreed. You hope history does not remember Justice Chandrachud. You hope he is forgotten as quickly as possible. Thank you very much indeed. Take care. Stay safe.