Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has dismissed allegations that the Supreme Court has been swayed by political influence, asserting that the judiciary remains steadfast in upholding personal liberty. In an interview with the BBC India, Chandrachud cited the court’s record of granting bail to political leaders and activists as evidence that due process and the rule of law remain intact.Responding to claims that India’s judiciary is being used to serve political interests, Chandrachud pushed back, stating that the Supreme Court had disposed of 21,300 bail applications last year alone. “I’m not going to name the political leaders who have been granted bail by the Supreme Court, but this just is an indicator that due process of law, the rule of law, does govern,” he said. “The higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have sent out a clear message that we are here to safeguard personal liberties.”
Chandrachud rejected international criticism of India’s judicial independence, particularly a 2023 New York Times editorial that suggested Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government was using the courts to target political opponents.
“The New York Times is completely wrong,” he said, arguing that India’s 2024 general election results had disproved claims that the country was shifting toward a one-party state. He pointed to the success of regional political parties across various states as evidence of India’s thriving democratic structure.Addressing concerns over gender and caste representation in the judiciary, Chandrachud acknowledged historical imbalances but highlighted progress at the lower levels of the judicial system. “If you look at the lowest levels of recruitment in the Indian judiciary, over 50% of the new recruits are women,” he noted. “That gender balance, which you find in law schools, is now reflected in the lowest level of the Indian judiciary.”On the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the abrogation of Article 370, which removed Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, Chandrachud defended the ruling, saying it was in line with the Constitution’s original intent. “Article 370 was introduced as a transitional provision,” he explained. “At the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and merge with the overall text.”He also dismissed criticism from civil rights lawyers who accused the court of capitulating to majoritarianism. “We set a timeline for the restoration of the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court’s directive that elections be held by September 30, 2024. “A democratically elected government is now in place, and there has been a peaceful transfer of power.”First Published: Feb 12, 2025 11:56 PM IST
