On 1st January (Monday), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud gave an exclusive interview to the News agency PTI on a host of issues, including prominent judgements like Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi, Article 370 and Same-sex marriage verdicts among others.
VIDEO | EXCLUSIVE: "We have taken some very unique initiatives in the last year. They are designed to ensure enhanced accessibility and transparency into the Indian judiciary. We have started live streaming of important cases emanating from the constitution benches," Chief… pic.twitter.com/SDVwUGCoiY
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 1, 2024
CJI Chandrachud told PTI that the Judges in the Ram Janmabhoomi case arrived at a unanimous decision that the authorship of the judgement will not be ascribed. According to him, the Supreme Court spoke in one voice on the Ayodhya judgement keeping the long history of the conflict and diverse viewpoints in mind.
He said, “Judges in the Ayodhya case unanimously decided there will be no authorship ascribed to judgment. Keeping the long history of conflict and diverse viewpoints in mind, SC decided to speak in one voice in the Ayodhya case.”
Judges in Ayodhya case unanimously decided there will be no authorship ascribed to judgement: CJI Chandrachud
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 1, 2024
Keeping long history of conflict & diverse viewpoints in mind, SC decided to speak in one voice in Ayodhya case: CJI to PTI
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 1, 2024
Regarding the five-judge constitutional bench verdict refusing to legalise same-sex marriages, the CJI opined that the outcome of a case is never personal to a judge. He asserted that one should never associate themselves with a cause. The 50th Chief Justice of India, however, acknowledged the “long and hard battle” queer couples fought for the realisation of their rights, PTI reported.
Same-sex marriage verdict: Outcome never personal to judge, no regrets, says CJI D Y Chandrachud to PTI
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 1, 2024
He said, “Once you decide a case you kind of distance yourself from the outcome. Outcomes are never personal to us as a judge. I never have any regrets. Yes, I have been in a majority in many cases and a minority in many cases. But the important part of the life of a judge is never to associate yourself with a cause. Having decided a case, I leave it at that.”
However, he didn’t comment on the merits of the judgement that refused to grant legal status to queer marriages. Notably, the Supreme Court in a 3:2 verdict had ruled against the bunch of petitions that sought legalisation of same-sex marriages.
Following the Supreme Court verdict on the revocation of Article 370 and a bunch of pleas related to it, some jurists and vested interest groups had criticised the judgement. The CJI refused to respond to the criticism of the verdict saying tersely the judges decide a case “according to the Constitution and the law”.
The CJI said, “So far as we are concerned we decide according to the Constitution and the law. I don’t think it will be appropriate for me either to respond to the criticism or mount a defence to my judgment. What we have said in my judgment is reflected in the reason present in the signed judgment and I must leave it at that.”
In the context of the Supreme Court’s functioning, the CJI hinted that there is a lobby involved that tries to dictate terms to the judges, particularly in the formation of cases to some preferential bench. Regarding bench hunting, the CJI asserted that the allocation of cases to judges can’t be lawyer-driven (activity). He added, “I am very very clear in my mind that the credibility of the institution of SC has to be maintained.”
He stressed that the Supreme Court has taken steps to enhance transparency and accessibility citing the example of living streaming of important hearings of the constitutional benches.
He said, “We have taken some very unique initiatives in the last year. They are designed to ensure enhanced accessibility and transparency into the Indian judiciary. We have started live streaming of important cases emanating from the constitution benches.”
