Assessing the Tenure of India’s Outgoing Chief Justice

“How will history judge my tenure?” This question was posed by Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud, who concluded his term as India’s 50th chief justice on Sunday, just weeks before his retirement. Justice Chandrachud revealed that his thoughts were “heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past”. He elaborated, “I find myself pondering: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?” This period of introspection coincided with a broader national discussion in India regarding his legacy. Justice Chandrachud served for over eight years as a top court judge, including the last two years as chief justice. In this capacity, he presided over one of the world’s most influential Supreme Courts, exercising jurisdiction over India’s 1.4 billion citizens. The top court serves as the ultimate court of appeal and the final interpreter of the constitution. Its judgments, which are binding on all other courts in India, regularly attract media attention, a phenomenon rarely associated with judges themselves. However, Justice Chandrachud, sometimes referred to as India’s “first celebrity judge” and a “rockstar judge”, frequently appeared in headlines. According to Arghya Sengupta of the Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy, the jurist was India’s most prolific chief justice, authoring 93 judgments—a number exceeding that of his last four predecessors combined—including several on matters of seminal importance. He also made significant advancements in digitisation and livestreaming of court hearings, thereby enhancing accessibility for citizens. Despite these achievements, some recent media coverage has been critical, with detractors suggesting he was not sufficiently assertive and that his tenure proved disappointing. The Harvard-educated judge holds several unique distinctions: he was the youngest to head a high court, his two-year term was the longest for a chief justice in over a decade, and he is the only chief justice whose father also served in the role. During his time on the Supreme Court, he cultivated a reputation as a progressive, liberal judge, recognised for his nuanced and thoughtful judgments pertaining to liberty, freedom of speech, and gender and LGBT rights. He was involved in landmark rulings that decriminalised homosexuality and permitted menstruating women entry into Kerala’s Sabarimala shrine. His pronouncements on the right to privacy and the right to dissent garnered extensive praise. Consequently, his elevation to India’s top judicial position in November 2022 was met with approval from senior lawyers, activists, and citizens, many of whom expressed a “strong hope that under his leadership the court will rise to greater heights”. This occurred at a time when India’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government was preparing to seek a third term in the 2024 general election. Opposition parties, activists, and segments of the press were accusing the government of targeting them, while global rights organisations indicated that Indian democracy was under threat. Although the government denied any wrongdoing, many of India’s leading academics, rights activists, and prominent opposition leaders were incarcerated, and the country’s standing on the global press freedom index continued to decline. (The government has consistently rejected such ratings, asserting they are biased against India.) Senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal stated that Justice Chandrachud’s appointment came at “a crucial juncture as some of the last chief justices had left under a cloud of dark spots and the position had been denigrated with serious allegations”. “So, we thought Justice Chandrachud would use his erudition and brilliant mind to do a lot of good for the citizens. But he has been disappointing,” she remarked. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Chander Uday Singh described his record as “a mixed bag”. “In his judgments, he would lay down the law brilliantly which could be used as a precedent for future cases. But whenever the state was heavily invested in any issue, he failed to hold power to account, so the state got away with what they had set out of achieve.” For instance, Singh highlighted that the court invalidated a government scheme allowing anonymous donations to political parties, declaring it unconstitutional and illegal. “But then he did not hold anyone accountable for the illegality.” Similarly, in cases concerning a political crisis in the western state of Maharashtra or Delhi’s power struggle with the federal government, his judgments tended to favour the government, Singh added. “There was hope that through his judgments, he would set things right in a country that is under a strong majoritarian government. But he fell short.” Several prominent lawyers also criticised Justice Chandrachud for his actions as the “master of the roster”, specifically for failing to effectively prevent the prolonged incarceration of political prisoners, which led to the death of some without ever receiving bail. This occurred despite Justice Chandrachud’s earlier statement that bail should be the norm and not the exception. As his retirement approached, Justice Chandrachud also attracted headlines for actions taken outside the courtroom. In September, a viral video depicting him praying at home with PM Modi during a Hindu religious festival caused an uproar. Ms. Jaiswal commented that by publicising the photo, “a message was being sent that the chief justice is close to the PM”. Lawyers, former judges, opposition politicians, and many citizens also voiced criticism, asserting that “the presence of a politician at a private event erodes the perception of impartiality of the judiciary”. Another wave of criticism met Justice Chandrachud’s comment last month when he stated he had sought divine intervention for a solution to the contentious Babri Mosque-Ram temple dispute. “I sat before the deity and told him he needed to find a solution and he gave it to me,” he recounted. This comment ignited a firestorm of criticism, which was not entirely unexpected given that the mosque-temple dispute has been one of modern India’s most contentious and religiously polarising issues. The mosque was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992. A five-judge bench, which included Justice Chandrachud, ruled in 2019 that the demolition was illegal, but still allocated the disputed land to Hindus and a separate site for the mosque to be constructed. Earlier this year, PM Modi inaugurated a grand new temple at the site, fulfilling a longstanding promise by his party. Therefore, it was unsurprising that Justice Chandrachud’s comment, widely perceived as religious, drew extensive criticism. Retired high court judge Anjana Prakash told HW news that his comment was “dramatic, filmy and laughable and it had brought down the level of judiciary”. She questioned, “A judge has to decide cases on principles of law. Where does God come into a judgement? Besides, people have different gods. And if a justice from another faith had said this, would the reaction be the same?” Justice Prakash and other critics speculated whether he was seeking favour with the government for a post-retirement assignment. In the days leading up to his retirement, Justice Chandrachud addressed some of these criticisms during interactions with the media. At an event hosted by the Indian Express newspaper, he stated, “The separation of powers doesn’t mean antagonistic relations between the executive and the judiciary, it doesn’t mean that they cannot meet,” adding that such meetings were not used “to cut deals”. He further asserted, “The ultimate proof of our good behaviour lies in the written word – in our judgements. Is it consistent with the constitution or not?” Regarding his comment on seeking divine guidance, Justice Chandrachud explained it was because “I am a person of faith” and that “to impute motives to judges is not right”. He also noted that courts faced pressure “from lobbies and pressure groups”, observing that while decisions critical of the government were praised, rulings in favour of the government led to questions about judicial independence. At his farewell on Friday, the outgoing chief justice remarked that he was perhaps India’s most trolled judge, but affirmed his “shoulders are broad enough to accept all criticism”. And over the weekend, he informed the Times of India that he believed he had “left the system better than I found it”. “I’m retiring with a sense of satisfaction,” he concluded.