“In the 24 years that I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be,” CJI Chandrachud said while speaking at an event organised in London.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Tuesday said that he has never experienced political pressure from any government during his 24-year-long tenure as a judge.
The Supreme Court judge made the comment while responding to a question posed during a discussion hosted in London by the Oxford Union Society, University of Oxford.
“Political pressure, if what is referred to is pressure from the government, I would tell you that in the 24 years that I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be because some of the democratic traditions that we follow in India include (sic) that we live lives that are relatively isolated from the political arm of the government,” CJI Chandrachud said.
The CJI, however, added that the judges face political pressure of a different kind when they are called to decide on politically sensitive cases.
“If you mean political pressure in a broader sense of a judge realising the impact of a decision which may have political ramifications – obviously, judges have to be conversant with the impact of their decisions on the polity at large. That is not political pressure, I believe. That is an understanding by the court of the impact or the likely impact of the decision-making process, which the judge must necessarily factor in into their considerations,” he said.
CJI Chandrachud added that courts also often face social pressure.
“Many of the cases that we decide involve intense societal impacts and as judges I do believe that it is our duty to be cognisant of the impact of our decisions on the social (group) that we are going to affect,” he explained.
The question and answer session was preceded by a speech by the CJI on the topic “Role of courts in humanising law.”
In his address, the CJI spoke about how law and court process may sometimes have a dehumanising effect on people and how the courts can step in to address such issues.
The judicial review process, which focuses on the effects a law may have on individual freedoms and dignity, is one way in which courts can humanise the law, he noted.
Parliament should decide, not courts, on recognition of same-sex marriage: CJI Chandrachud
A question linked to the Supreme Court’s decision to turn down a prayer for legal recognition of same-sex marriages later led CJI to comment that while he was not defending the judgment, there were limits to the court’s powers of judicial review.
“It is the duty of the judiciary to humanise the law, but equally when you humanise the law, you cannot disregard the law unless you strike down the law. (The Special Marriage Act) contemplates a marriage in a heterosexual relationship … Can the courts then override the provisions of that law and read that as “man and man” and “woman and woman”? We said, we can’t do it. Another aspect is that the entire gamut of the domain of marriage is governed by legislation in India, across communities. Therefore, we (Supreme Court Bench) felt that if we have to recognise same-sex marriages, this is something which has to be done by the parliament, which is entrusted with the duty of law-making,” he said.
He also reiterated his view that the Court should at least recognise the right to form civil unions for same sex couples until the Parliament steps in.
Social media criticism sometimes unfair but judges can handle it: CJI Chandrachud
In the Q&A session, CJI Chandrachud was also asked a question touching on the advent of social media criticism of courts.
“In our courts today, you have live tweeting by the minute. Every remark which is said by a judge is conveyed on social media. That is something which we cannot stop. Obviously, we are on the receiving end on occasion. Sometimes, the criticism is fair; sometimes the criticism isn’t fair. I do believe, as judges our shoulders are broad enough to accept the critique that people have on the work that we do,” he said, in response.