Alina
CJI Defends Modis Ganpati Visit
CJI Defends Modi’s Ganpati Puja Visit Amid Political Controversy
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud addressed a controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to his residence for Ganpati puja, asserting that there was “nothing wrong” with the visit. Opposition parties and some legal circles raised concerns, arguing that the visit could compromise the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. However, CJI Chandrachud emphasized the need for maturity in political debates and clarified that inter-institutional interactions are part of a healthy democratic setup.
Importance of Judiciary-Executive Dialogue
In response to criticism from some opposition parties and a section of lawyers, CJI Chandrachud explained that dialogue between the judiciary and executive is integral to an effective governance system. According to him, this does not conflict with the separation of powers—a foundational principle in the Indian Constitution. He clarified that routine meetings between judiciary and executive officials are essential, especially for discussions on budgeting, judicial infrastructure, and technology.
“The concept of separation of powers does not suggest that the judiciary and executive should operate in silos,” CJI Chandrachud stated. “On various occasions, judiciary officials, including high court judges, meet chief ministers to discuss administrative matters.”
In reinforcing this perspective, CJI Chandrachud said that judiciary-executive meetings, such as at the Rashtrapati Bhavan or during Republic Day celebrations, are social interactions rather than judicial ones. The presence of dignitaries from both branches at events fosters understanding but does not impact judicial independence.
Cultural and Social Visits in the Judiciary
CJI Chandrachud described PM Modi’s Ganpati visit as a continuation of this cultural tradition, asserting that such engagements reflect Indian cultural values. The focus keyword, “CJI Chandrachud defends Modi visit,” was addressed as he noted that interactions with members of other branches of government have long been part of India’s democratic fabric.
“We meet socially for events like Ganpati puja, and such interactions are common. However, the nature of these conversations does not touch upon judicial cases,” the CJI clarified. “I firmly believe there should be a sense of trust in our judiciary and its ability to remain objective.”
Clarifying the Role of Personal Faith in the Judiciary
CJI Chandrachud also addressed concerns regarding his own religious beliefs and their possible influence on his judicial responsibilities. He shared that as a person of faith, he respects all religions and emphasized that his personal beliefs do not impact his ability to deliver unbiased judgments. Referencing the Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute, CJI Chandrachud said he prayed for a peaceful resolution but that his role as a judge was grounded strictly in law and the Constitution.
The CJI urged the public to recognize that personal faith does not interfere with judicial decisions, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to objectivity. “CJI Chandrachud defends Modi visit,” he said, but also defends the principle that every judge’s decisions are “evaluated by our written words,” which are open to public scrutiny.
Media’s Role in Influencing Public Perception
Touching on the role of media in shaping narratives, CJI Chandrachud pointed out that media coverage often highlights specific cases, creating pressure on the judiciary. He remarked that sometimes media discussions are based on incomplete understanding of cases, which may mislead the public about judicial processes.
The focus keyword, “CJI Chandrachud defends Modi visit,” reappeared as he cited examples where media coverage shaped perception about judiciary-executive relations. He shared statistics to show the judiciary’s commitment to justice, mentioning that the Supreme Court disposed of over 21,000 bail cases since he assumed office, underscoring his philosophy that cases are handled without bias.
Assuring Judicial Independence in High-Profile Cases
In discussing high-profile bail cases, CJI Chandrachud assured the public that judicial independence is maintained, regardless of political implications. He emphasized that dialogues on policy matters with executive members are purely administrative and unrelated to case deliberations. Highlighting prominent cases from the recent past, CJI Chandrachud explained that political personalities are neither privileged nor targeted by the court.
“We have granted bail in a wide spectrum of cases, from media personalities to prominent political figures,” CJI Chandrachud explained. “The judiciary respects personal liberty, and every case is examined on merit.”
Institutional Discipline and Collegiality in the Judiciary
CJI Chandrachud concluded by addressing the 2018 incident where four Supreme Court judges publicly criticized then-CJI Dipak Misra. He emphasized the importance of institutional discipline within the judiciary and the need for internal dialogue before resorting to public forums. He commended his successor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, describing him as an objective and calm leader, instilling confidence in the future of the Supreme Court.
CJI Chandrachud underscored that judiciary-executive dialogues are necessary for tackling judicial issues but do not impact legal verdicts. His assurance aimed at quelling doubts surrounding PM Modi’s Ganpati visit, and fostering trust in the judiciary’s ability to act impartially and uphold the Constitution.
Disclaimer: This article provides information based on statements by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The content reflects his views and is not intended to influence public opinion or court proceedings.
