On 4th November (Saturday), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud opined that there should be a dividing line between what the legislature can and can’t do when there is a judgment of the court. He argued that if a judgment points out a deficiency in law, it is always open for the legislature to enact a fresh law to cure the said deficiency. He, however, stressed that in that case the legislature can’t term the judgement as ‘wrong’ and ‘overrule’ it.
In a conversation with Utkarsh Anand, national legal editor of Hindustan Times, the CJI further argued that while pronouncing judgements, the Justices are guided by constitutional morality rather than public morality. He emphasised that judges decide cases, they don’t think about how the society would respond. According to him, that is the difference between the elected arm of the government and the judiciary.
At the Hindustan Times Leaders Summit, the CJI Chandrachud said, “There is a dividing line between what the legislature can do, and what the legislature can’t do when there is a judgment of the court. If a judgment decides a particular issue and it points out a deficiency in law, it is always open for the legislature to enact a fresh law to cure the deficiency.”
The CJI added, “What the legislature cannot do is to say that we think the judgment is wrong and therefore we overrule the judgment. The judgment of a court cannot be directly overruled by the legislature.”
He also said judges are guided by constitutional morality and not public morality while adjudicating cases. “We have disposed of at least 72,000 cases this year and there’s still a month and a half to go,” the CJI noted.
Regarding the retirement age of judges, CJI said that it is for Parliament to decide, however, he maintained that it is important that judges must retire. He highlighted the difference in the Indian judicial system vis-a-vis the American Supreme Court. Notably, unlike India, the American judicial system has no age of retirement for judges.
CJI Chandrachud said, “The retirement age of judges is for Parliament to decide. American Supreme Court provides judges have no age of retirement. We follow a different model. It is important that judges must retire. It is too much of a responsibility for human beings. Judges are human beings…you must pass on the mantle to succeeding generations as issues change. Source of change and transformation of legal principles develops that way.”
Explaining the challenges faced by judges, the CJI said, “Judges of the Supreme Court here decide 200 cases in a week. The real challenge of a judge is to balance competing requirements. On one hand huge inflow of work and the need to create mental space to decide seminal issues. That’s the challenge before a contemporary judge.”
Redefine ‘merit’ in an inclusive way, asserts CJI DY Chandrachud
Regarding participation of women in the judicial system, CJI asserted that more women will enter into judiciary if there is a level playing field. He emphasised that there is need to redefine “merit” in a more inclusive sense and ensuring opportunities for the marginalised.
CJI said, “We need to redefine merit in an inclusive sense… If you open a level playing field for entry, you will have more women in the judiciary. Unless we start increasing the inflow of marginalised persons at the entry level, we cannot achieve their fair share.”
Speaking on barriers for LGBTQI and women, CJI noted, “We recently prepared two handbooks – one for LGBTQI…barriers they experience in courts. Second, a handbook on the language we employ against women… This handbook is on gender stereotypes to ensure there is some form of discourse that is just not acceptable in our judicial system.”
During the conversation the Chief Justice also highlighted the push for the usage of regional langauges and technology in the justice delivery system.
Meanwhile, he also extended best wishes to the Indian men’s cricket team for the World Cup and said that they inspire him.
