In an interview with BBC journalist Stephen Sackur in Hard Talk, former president of the Supreme Court of India DY Chandrachud He shared ideas about the challenges and complexities of his mandate leading the Judiciary of India. He discussed the responsibility of supervising a legal system that impacts 1.4 billion people, the relationship between policy and the judiciary, and its commitment to constitutional principles.
Chandrachud reflected on his legacy as president of the Supreme Court. When Sackur asked him if he had achieved everything he set out to do, Chandrachud explained that he had presented a plan for his time in office, with the main objective of being the judgments he would deliver. He emphasized: “A President of Justice is first and foremost a judge and then second, you are also the administrative chief of the Indian Judiciary. So before and more important I wanted, in my judgments, to realize the total transformative potential of the Constitution , What I think we try to do. “
The conversation then changed to the most controversial issue of political pressure on the Judiciary. Sackur pointed out the concerns raised in a New York Times The editorial, who suggested that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had used the courts to obtain political advantage, bringing India closer to a “unique state.” Chandrachud disagree with the editorial, stating: “I think that the New York Times is completely wrong because they could not anticipate what would happen in the elections that took place in 2024, which at all discredits the myth that we are moving towards a single -game state. “
Sackur continued, citing examples such as the defamation ruling of the Superior Court of Gujarat against opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, which led to his disqualification of Parliament. While the Supreme Court maintained the decision, Sackur questioned whether the Judiciary was sometimes complicit in political agendas. Chandrachud defended the impartiality of the court, arguing that although individual cases can generate different opinions, the Supreme Court has constantly protected personal freedoms. “The fact is that the Supreme Court of India has been at the forefront of personal freedom,” he said. It also provided statistics, including the elimination of more than 21,000 bail requests, to reinforce the statement that the rule of law actively maintains in India.
Also addressing the perception of a dynastic judiciary, Judge Chandrachud refuted the claims of nepotism, particularly in relation to his own promotion to the highest judicial position, pointing out: “By the way, my father had said that I will not enter a court of justice provided he was president of the Supreme Court of India. And that’s why I spent three years at Harvard’s Law Faculty doing my studies. Second, I entered a court for the first time after retiring. Gender diversity.
Judge Chandrachud also rejected the claims that the Judicial Power of India is an exclusive institution for the superior caste men, which reinforces that “most lawyers and judges … are participating for the first time in the legal profession in the legal profession “
The conversation also touched the abrogation of article 370, which revoked the special state of Jammu and Kashmir. When Sackur asked why Chandrachud had supported the controversial movement, he explained that article 370 was originally a “transition disposition.” “My warning, which is this, that article 370 of the Constitution, when it was introduced into the Constitution, at the birth of the Constitution, was part of a chapter entitled Transition arrangements or transition provisions. It was later renamed as temporary and Transition provisions.
Sackur also referred to Chandrachud’s statement about seeking religious guidance in the matter, but the former president of the Supreme Court clarified that this was a misinterpretation. “I do not do any bone of the fact that I am a man of faith. Our Constitution does not require that you be an atheist, that you are an independent judge. And I value my faith. But what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion. It was this, That is my faith.
The interview also saw a discussion about the stability of Indian democracy. Chandrachud expressed his confidence in the durability of the political system of India declared: “I am sure of it for the simple reason that more than 75 years of our history, the evidence and tribulations of a modern nation, of a new nation, our nation , has emerged as a mature democracy.
Chandrachud, during the interview, also reminded the hearing that the role of the Judiciary is not to be a political opposition, but to defend the Constitution and ensure that justice is delivered impartially. “We are here to decide cases and defend the Constitution and act in accordance with the rule of law.”