Chief Justice Dy Chandrachud Claims: I've Never Faced Political Pressure from Government in My Judicial Career, is it?

nitu 0



In his 24-year tenure as a judge, India's Chief Justice, Dr. DY Chandrachud, declared lately that he has never encountered political pressure from any government. Earlier this month, during an Oxford Union-sponsored Q&A session, CJI was questioned regarding the "political pressure on the judiciary, particularly in the past few years."


The Chief Justice replied, "Political pressure, if you ask me in the sense of pressure from the government, I would tell you that in the 24 years I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be."

In accordance with Indian customs, CJI said, "judges live a life isolated from the political arm of the government." Judges are frequently aware of the potential political consequences of their rulings, according to CJI.

"Clearly, judges must be aware of the influence of their decisions on the polity at large when they are making constitutional case decisions. If by "political pressure" you mean a judge realizing the significance of a decision which may have political repercussions, then this is what you mean. I don't think that is political pressure. That is the court's recognition of the decision's expected consequences, which the judge must unavoidably take into account."

Additionally, he discussed "social pressure" in the sense that judges frequently consider how their decisions may affect society.

"We make decisions in a lot of circumstances that have significant societal effects. I think it is our responsibility as judges to consider how our rulings may ultimately affect the social order in which we find ourselves."

"When you have trained judges deciding disputes, that allows for courts to decide on the basis of settled traditions based on Constitutional precepts as opposed to the passions of the moment," Chief Justice of India (CJI) said in response to another question about how the Indian judiciary can balance independence, social justice, and minority rights in a "politically charged atmosphere."

Constitutional interpretation, not activism

CJI DY Chandrachud addressed a number of topics throughout the session, including social media pressure on judges, the issue of case pendency, public trust in the judiciary, and judicial activism.



Judges are not "activists" when they interpret the law to uphold constitutional principles, the CJI explained. He continued by saying that judges have a "plain duty" to interpret the law and the Constitution, and that carrying out this responsibility cannot be referred to as "judicial activism."

Judges are not activists when they interpret the Constitution. It is their responsibility. The judges emphasized that their work is limited to their basic duties and that they are aware of the separation of powers and the distinct functions that the Constitution assigns to each branch of government.

In response to a question about the backlog of cases, the CJI stated that there were not enough judges. India has one of the lowest ratios of population to judge in the world. All we need is more judges. He stated, "We are working with the government to strengthen the judiciary across the board. He went on to say that measures are also taken to guarantee that open positions in the judiciary are filled as soon as possible.

CJI went into further detail on the efforts made to use AI and technology in order to improve the accessibility and transparency of the legal system.



He believed that the enormous volume of lawsuits being filed in Indian courts was a sign of the public's confidence in the legal system. He did concede, though, that much more work was required to boost public confidence in the system. Increasing the judiciary's accountability and transparency is the greatest approach to do this.

"There is much more that we can and should be doing to strengthen public trust in the judiciary. Being open and answerable to the public is the best course of action for the courts. In that sense, democratically elected bodies like Parliament are not accountable to us. We can increase our accountability and be more transparent, both of which we are attempting to do," he stated.


Tags

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post