New Delhi, 01-01-2024 : Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud dismissed allegations of a lack of transparency within the collegium system, where judges appoint judges to constitutional courts. In an extensive interview with news agency, the 50th CJI addressed various issues related to the judiciary, including criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Justice Chandrachud declined to respond to criticisms of the Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 and a five-judge constitution bench’s decision against legalizing same-sex marriage. He emphasized that the allocation of cases is not “lawyer-driven” and pledged to maintain the credibility of the Supreme Court.
In the context of recent remarks by retired Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressing concerns about the collegium system, Justice Chandrachud asserted that steps have been taken to enhance transparency. He acknowledged the need for privacy in discussions about judges under consideration for Supreme Court appointments but emphasized efforts to maintain objectivity in the decision-making process.
Regarding the unanimous five-judge bench verdict on Article 370, the CJI asserted that judges decide cases based on the Constitution and the law. He refrained from responding to criticism, stating that the judges’ opinions are reflected in the signed judgments, which become public property.
On the denial of same-sex marriage rights to the LGBTQIA++ community, Justice Chandrachud acknowledged the community’s hard-fought battle for rights but stressed that judges do not associate themselves with causes. Once a case is decided, judges distance themselves from the outcome, and the decision is not personal.
Explaining the anonymity of the 2019 judgment on the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, Justice Chandrachud stated that the five-judge bench unanimously decided that the judgment would be attributed to the court as a whole, without individual authorship. The historic verdict allowed the construction of the temple and mandated the allocation of an alternative five-acre plot for a mosque in Ayodhya.