Judges Called Pro-Govt If They Don’t Follow Social Media Ideology: Ex-CJI Chandrachud

At the St. Regis in Mumbai, former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud pushed back against the charge that the higher judiciary tilts towards the government. In conversation with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on the issue of judicial independence, Dr. Chandrachud said that the concept is often reduced to simplistic binaries, especially on social media.

“Unless you decide every single case along the ideological lines of ‘I’ – the person on social media – then you are independent. The moment you decide a case against an ideology, you are labelled pro-government,” he said.

Ex-CJI revisited the Ayodhya case, often criticised as a majoritarian triumph. Calling it a property dispute rather than an ideological contest, Dr. Chandrachud said: “Read the judgment… The problem is, most of the people who attack us don’t have the time, the patience, or the inclination to read 1045 pages judgment. Why was it 1045 pages – because the record was 30,000 pages.”

While the court rejected the claim of adverse possession, it directed that five acres of land be allotted for a mosque to balance equities, he emphasised.

Independence, he underlined, lies in fidelity to the Constitution rather than in aligning with political expectations.

Moreover, Dr. Chandrachud spoke candidly about the role of personal faith in his life as a judge, describing it as a source of inner balance rather than ideological influence; “My religion allows me to pray across religions… This is the broad diversity of my own faith. A faith which accepts the fact that just as I believe, I must have faith in other people’s right to believe and to respect their faith. I don’t think there is anything wrong in doing what I did every single day of my life as a judge – namely, spending my moments in quiet reflection and prayer in the morning so that the work which I do as a judge, work which is in a zone of intense conflict, does not end in injustice to anybody. The Constitution allows me to do it".

This response came after he was questioned about moments when he had offered prayers in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and about remarks suggesting he prayed before delivering the Ayodhya judgment.

Dr. Chandrachud made it clear that such practices were not signs of blurred lines with the executive but expressions of personal reflection, constitutionally permissible so long as they did not influence the discharge of judicial duties.

The former CJI highlighted several judgments during his tenure that ran counter to government interests. He highlighted the Supreme Court’s intervention against arbitrary demolitions, recalling that his was the first judgment where the court held that homes cannot be destroyed by bulldozers without due process.

On bail, Dr. Chandrachud refuted allegations that sensitive matters were routed to specific judges; “In the two years that I was the CJI, we granted bail in 21,000 cases - over 21,000 individual citizens of India got bail,” he said firmly. He clarified that bail cases are assigned randomly through computer allocation, and every bench of the Court hears criminal matters.

“Let’s not make a grievance about one case, into an issue about the system”, he added, responding to the specific question related to bail hearings of UAPA accused, Umar Khalid.

He also pointed out the verdict striking down the electoral bonds scheme, the decision restoring minority status to Aligarh Muslim University, and two consecutive constitutional bench rulings affirming the powers of the Delhi government over its administration.

He also underscored the court’s interventions to protect the vulnerable. 

Asked to name the judgment closest to his heart, he cited the judgment granting permanent commission to women in the armed forces. “The one judgment which I’m truly proud is of getting women as permanent members of our armed forces… that’s what my deed has done for the nation,” he said.

He also underscored the court’s interventions to protect the vulnerable. He recalled the case of a poor Muslim man imprisoned for 18 years for repeated electricity theft convictions, who was set free after the Supreme Court intervened: “Even if it’s a solitary voice, this person must have a voice in the system".