Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, who retires on Sunday (10th November), has been the ‘blue-eyed hero’ of the left-liberal ecosystem since at least 2017.
Unable to ensure a democratic ouster of the Modi government despite relentless propaganda, the ecosystem had been harping on the Judiciary to engage in ‘activism’ and do the work of the clueless Opposition.
Given the overwhelming support for the incumbent government among the public, left-liberals had been hoping to exploit the judgments of the Supreme Court to their advantage and paint a ‘doomsday image’ of the state of affairs in India.
In that sense, the cabal had high hopes from various CJIs including DY Chandrachud. Those hopes were dashed sometimes when the apex court would find merits in the arguments presented by the government, prompting the left-liberals to cry ‘democracy in danger.’
On other occasions, the Supreme Court lived up to their expectations, reprimanded the Modi government and thus reposed their faith in democracy (which was otherwise ‘endangered’ until then due to unfavourable and inconvenient verdicts).
In that sense, DY Chandrachud had a promising start since his elevation as a Judge to the apex court in May 2016.
The peak of left-liberal fandom
Within a year into his tenure, he appealed to the hearts and minds of the left-liberal ecosystem by upholding ‘privacy’ as a fundamental right (K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India).
In the following year, DY Chandrachud wrote verdicts that catapulted him to the stature of a ‘messiah’ within the cabal.
He upheld the validity of the marriage of Akhila Ashokan (converted to Hadiya) to Shafin Jahan, which the girl’s father Ashokan K.M claimed to be a case of deceitful conversion and grooming. The left-liberal coterie hailed DY Chandrachud for upholding the ‘right to choose one’s partner.’
He also ruled in favour of the Delhi government in 2018, emphasising that the centrally appointed Lieutenant Governor cannot act ‘independently’ and is bound by the Delhi Chief Minister’s advice.
In the same year, he upheld the decriminalisation of homosexuality (Navtej Johar v Union of India) and adultery (Joseph Shine v Union of India), called for protecting fundamental rights in the Bhima Koregaon case and penned a scathing dissenting verdict on the Aadhar Act.
“Passing of the Aadhaar bill as money bill when it does not qualify as a money bill is a fraud on the Constitution. It violates the Basic Structure,” DY Chandrachud had opined.
Although his minority verdict had no bearing on the constitutionality of the Parliament-approved legislation, he became an instant hit for standing up to the Modi government.
In 2019, DY Chandrachud ruled in favour of women’s entry (those between menarche and menopause) into the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha temple, thereby undoing 1000 years of tradition and culture. It was hailed as a decisive moment in India’s history of ‘women empowerment’.
He was elevated to the post of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on 9th November 2022. A year later, CJI ruled in favour of the Delhi government and held that the State and not the Lieutenant Governor had the ultimate control over the ‘administrative services’.
This verdict also drew praise from the left-liberal nexus until the Modi government issued an ordinance and nullified it in its entirety. Dy Chandrachud also attempted to legalise same-sex marriages in India but it was in vain.
The Chief Justice of India became a true darling of the ecosystem when a Bench led by him declared the electoral bond scheme as ‘unconstitutional’ (Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India).
This was perhaps the zenith of DY Chandrachud’s fandom in the left-liberal coterie. He was hailed as the ‘saviour’ of Indian democracy against the ‘fascist’ BJP govt, even though almost all major political parties benefitted from them.
The vocal ecosystem was hopeful that the CJI would resort to activism, play the role of the Opposition and give verdicts favourable to their political dispensation.
The beginning of character assassination
Whenever their sinister ambitions remained unfulfilled, the left-liberals would resort to character assassination of judges, attribute motives to their verdicts and cry hoarse about the state of Indian democracy.
Even the blue-eyed liberal hero in the form of DY Chandrachud had to face their wrath. In 2018, he was villainised for not giving into conspiracy theories of ‘murder’ and ‘foul play’ in the death of Justice Loya, as raked up by the cabal.
The outgoing Chief Justice of India was part of the 5-Judge Bench that unanimously ruled in favour of the Hindu side in the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict.
For those who have been questioning the existence of Lord Ram and denying Hindus the right to reclaim their temple destroyed by Islamic invaders, the 2019 verdict was certainly a jolt. It was thus obvious that the ecosystem would demonise him in some form or other.
DY Chandrachud was also targeted for upholding the abrogation of Article 370 and not letting tensions in Kashmir simmer indefinitely. For those who have consistently benefitted from conflict in Kashmir, peace and territorial integrity certainly meant ‘bad business.’
As such, seperatist rhetorics, casting aspersions on the integrity of the Supreme Court became the new ‘normal.’
The ecosystem employed pressure tactics, and social media intimidation in the hopes of coercing the apex court into granting bail to Delhi riot accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. However, their plans failed to materialise.
They saw ‘hope’ in Indian democracy when Alt News co-founder and fake news peddler, Mohammed Zubair was granted bail by the Supreme Court. The same people alleged a ‘danger’ to democracy when the apex court gave bail to journalist Arnab Goswami.
The mental gymnastics of the left-liberals did not end here.
DY Chandrachud was explicitly targeted for not assigning crucial cases to Judges of their liking, entrusting the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to investigate dubious claims made by ‘Hindenburg Research’ about the Adani Group and reopening the doors of the Gyanvapi mosque and exposing the tyranny of Islamic invaders.
Hit piece by Indira Jaising
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who served as additional solicitor general during the Congress govt, has written a vicious piece targeting DY Chandrachud. The article published in The Leaflet made several borderline, contemptuous comments about the outgoing CJI.
At the very onset, Indira Jaising claimed that DY Chandrachud subscribed to ‘Hindu right-wing ideology’ and did not stop alleged violence against minorities and human rights defenders.
She claimed that the outgoing CJI ‘consciously abandoned’ his commitment to the values of the Indian Constitution. Indira Jaising continued on the path of more word salad, making outlandish conclusions about the establishment of ‘de facto Hindu State’ under the CJI’s watch.
She reiterated the usual talking points about the now-shut Justice Loya case and cast aspersions on the integrity of Justices MR Shah and Bela Trivedi to the extent of painting them as pro-Modi.
Will the real Dr D Y Chandrachud please stand up?
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) November 5, 2024
Does the outgoing Chief Justice of India represent the emergence of a New Right in India. https://t.co/RGtRAex88U
Indira Jaising accused DY Chandrachud of assigning them important cases and thus ‘ensuring’ a favourable verdict for the Modi government.
“Under the watch of Chief Justice of India Chandrachud, the country saw judges of various high courts and the Supreme Court delay bail hearings and deny bail to human rights defenders,” the senior advocate made sweeping claims albeit without evidence.
She thereafter resorted to blatant guilt-tripping for not granting bail to Chief Ministers arrested over corruption. Indira Jaising made false assertions that Article 370 was abrogated through ‘unlawful means’ and cried foul over the completely legal visit of PM Modi to the residence of DY Chandrachud on Ganesh Chaturthi.
The former UPA-era additional solicitor general resorted to caste baiting, accusing the outgoing CJI of choosing a ‘savarna woman’ as the mrable lady of justice and ensuring 1/3 of all Supreme Court judges are ‘Brahmins.’
Indira Jaising concluded her atrocious rant by implying that DY Chandrachud is somehow devoid of constitutional morality.
Hit piece published by The Caravan
On 1st November, the leftist propaganda magazine ‘The Caravan‘ published a long piece (equivalent to 44 pages of a PDF), essentially raking up the same issues targeting the outgoing CJI DY Chandrachud.
Unlike the diatribe of Indira Jaising, The Caravan article relied primarily on anonymous sources to reach the same conclusion. To lend credence to the elaborate ‘character sketch’ of the outgoing CJI, 2 alleged Supreme Court judges and their supposed comments were also incorporated.
The piece began with claims of DY Chandrachud allegedly not entertaining politicians during the 150th anniversary of the Allahabad High Court in 2016 but taking a U-turn in 2024 by allowing PM Modi to visit his official residence during Ganesh Chathurthi.
Performative Justice: The equivocations of DY Chandrachud
— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) November 1, 2024
Read our October cover story by @SauravDassss:https://t.co/JDNTdU1B1o
The objective was to suggest a breach of constitutional principles, diluting the long-drawn lines of the Judiciary and the Executive.
The only thing that was breached that evening was the convention, set up by the ecosystem, to intimidate Hindus in positions of power from exercising their Right to Religion.
The liberal heartburn was evident, given that the two powerful men in their respective spheres were united in their devotion to Lord Ganesha. Just recently, DY Chandrachud was targeted for acknowledging that he sought spiritual guidance from the Almightly prior to the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict.
The article by The Caravan then followed the usual course of fearmongering, aimed at creating mass hysteria, by suggesting India’s plunge into theocracy (Hindu Rashtra). The whitewashing of Islamists such as Umar Khalid as ‘activists’ followed soon after.
The piece went on to highlight how the left-liberal ecosystem expected former CJIs and outgoing DY Chandrachud to toe their line but was let down by their verdicts (most of which have already been discussed).
One of them included asking all govt institutions (including madrasas) to unfurl the Indian tricolour on Independence Day. “The order came at a time when India was grappling with jingoism, following Modi’s election victory, and Muslims were regularly being questioned about their loyalty to the nation,” the article read.
The Caravan alluded that DY Chandrachud facilitated judgments in favour of the Centre by handling cases to ‘pro-Modi’ Judges.
The leftist propaganda magazine further suggested that the outgoing CJI got an easy entry to the Supreme Court owing to nepotism and engaged in ‘bench-fixing’ by handling important cases to judges, not aligned with its ideology.
The article highlighted the writer’s prolonged meltdown over the handling of the Justice Loya case, the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict of 2019 and the decision to kick open the Gyanvapi mosque to the Archaeological Survey of India.
“Despite the early hope, several judges and lawyers expressed becoming “extremely disappointed” with Chandrachud’s leadership. They described a failed balancing act in which Chandrachud tried to live up to his progressive image while avoiding moves that would upset the government,” the article claimed.
The Caravan accused DY Chandrachud of succumbing to government pressure during the appointment of Judges to the apex court as well as the High Courts, thereby not inducting many of those that align with the political antecedents of the leftist rag.
It villainised other Judges for not granting bail to Islamists in the anti-Hindu Delhi riot case and those accused of conspiring against the nation.
“This will also be part of his legacy—a mismatch between his stated ideals and how he allowed state persecution to persist,” The Caravan causally mocked the outgoing CJI.
DY Chandrachud also had to face the ire of the leftist propaganda magazine for not safeguarding the Maha Vikas Aghadi government led by Uddhav Thackeray in Maharastra.
He was also demonised for supposedly leaving loopholes in the 2023 verdict that gave powers to the Delhi government instead of the Lieutenant Governor over ‘administrative services’ and ‘allowing’ the Centre to overrule it through Parliamentary legislation.
The article concluded with more virtue signalling and hints to the upcoming CJI – Be prepared to tow our line or get your character assassinated by the might of our pen.
Scathing counter by outgoing CJI
A week before his retirement, DY Chandrachud gave a 100-minute interview to The Indian Express and silenced the propagandists who were cherry-picking his judgments and notoriously attributing motives to them.
On being confronted by two 2 equally left-liberal ‘journalists’ about not granting bail to Umar Khalid and Bhima Koregaon rioters, the outgoing CJI stated, “For the one or two cases, which you did mention, I can tell you at least a dozen cases, sensitive cases, somebody will call them politically sensitive cases…where we’ve dealt with those cases and bail has been granted.”
“When a judge applies their mind to the record, what emerges from the record may be very different from what is portrayed in the media on the merits of that particular case. And the bench of the court which deals with that case and decides, in your example as to whether to grant bail or not,” he added.
CJI Chandrachud slams Media
— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) November 5, 2024
Indian Express- Why Bail not granted to Umar Khalid, Stan Swamy, GN Saibaba?
CJI Chandrachud-
"Media creates an Atmosphere about a case, when a Judge looks at the merits of the case, it is very different from what Media portrays" pic.twitter.com/6cTU9NA9Lw
DY Chandrachud emphasised, “So ultimately, the judge has to apply their mind to the record of that particular case. Whether they are right, whether they are wrong, is something for everybody else to critique. But the judge looks at the record and then decides what to do.”
“I have always said that I’ve granted bail from A to Z, from Arnab to Zubair. So, that’s my philosophy,” he jokingly added.
CJI Chandrachud (on Umar Khalid's Bail):
— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) November 5, 2024
"I’ve granted bail from A to Z — from Arnab to Zubair. That is my philosophy."
"There is an ordered procedure. Someone directly approaches SC only because they're resourced and access to certain lawyers. We won't make EXCEPTIONS. First… pic.twitter.com/ZtOKkVfo2t
He also talked about the concept of the ‘independence of the Judiciary.’ The outgoing CJI had highlighted, “Independence of the judiciary, even now, means independence from the government. But that’s not the only thing in terms of judicial independence.”
“Our society has changed since the 1950s or 1970s, particularly after 1990, when the market reforms took over. And particularly with the advent of social media, you see the growth of interest groups, pressure groups, and groups which are trying to use electronic media to sort of put pressure on the court to arrive at certain outcomes,” he stated.
DY Chandrachud raised alarms, “What you increasingly find is that a lot of segments of these groups say that if you decide in my favour, you are independent. If you don’t decide in my favour, you are not independent.”
CJI Chandrachud:
— The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️) (@Indian_Analyzer) November 5, 2024
"Independence of Judiciary doesn't mean constantly deciding against Govt. It also means Independence from "PRESSURE GROUPS", & "INTEREST GROUPS."
~ If you decide on ELECTORAL BONDS, you are very Independent but if verdict favours the Govt, you're not?"🔥👌 pic.twitter.com/MqlDi6arR1
“And that’s what I have an objection to. To be independent, a judge must have the independence to decide what their conscience tells them. Of course, a conscience which is guided by law and the Constitution. When you decide electoral bonds, oh, you’re very independent. But if a verdict goes in favour of the government, then you’re not independent. That’s not my definition of independence,” the outgoing CJI shut down the likes of The Caravan.
DY Chandrachud concluded, “Well, in cases which have to go in against the government, we decide against the government.But if the law requires a case to be decided in favour of the government, and I’m not just talking about, you know, the big ticket cases, but a taxation case, a service case, you have to decide in accordance with the law.”
