Judiciary’s independence doesn’t mean deciding against government: Chief Justice

Outgoing Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is set to demit office on November 10, said.

That independence of the judiciary does not always mean deciding against the government. He also urged people to trust judges when it comes to taking decisions on cases. Addressing an event in Delhi, the Chief Justice said that when he struck down the electoral bonds scheme and ruled against the Centre, he was called “very independent”.

“When you decide electoral bonds, then you are very independent, but if a verdict goes in favour of the government, then you are not independent… That is not my definition of independence,” he said.

On February 15, the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, terming it “unconstitutional”. In a unanimous decision, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, put an end to a contentious method of political funding that has been under scrutiny since its inception in 2018.

The Chief Justice went on to say that traditionally, judicial independence was defined as independence from the executive.

“Independence of the judiciary even now means independence from the government. But that is not the only thing in terms of judicial independence. Our society has changed. Particularly with the advent of social media… Interest groups, pressure groups and groups which are trying to use electronic media to put pressure on the courts to get favourable decisions,” he said.

He said a lot of these pressure groups term the judiciary independent if judges decide in their favour. “‘If you do not decide in my favour, you are not independent’, that is what I have an objection to. To be independent, a judge must have the independence to decide what their conscience tells them. Of course, the conscience, which is guided by the law and the Constitution.”

The Chief Justice said that people must give judges the “freedom to decide as they feel where the balance of justice lies, irrespective of whom the verdict goes in favour of”.

“The cases which have to go against the government, we decided against the government. But if the law requires a case to be decided in favour of the government, you have to decide in accordance with the law. That message has to go across which is crucial to the existence of a stable and vibrant judiciary.”