Separation anxiety
The recent visit of PM Modi to the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud for a Ganesh puja has ignited a controversy, raising serious questions about the separation of the Judiciary and the Executive. The event was evidently a private one with no other guests present. The puja was videographed, posted on Modi’s Twitter handle and disseminated to the media. Both host and guest could not have been oblivious to the possibility that it would trigger speculation as to its wider import.
In a constitutional democracy, the separation of powers is paramount. The judiciary must maintain its independence from the executive, and the executive must respect this independence. The optics of a Prime Minister attending a religious ceremony at the home of the Chief Justice blurs these critical lines. The image of the nation’s Chief Executive offering oblation while the Chief Judge chants a mantra can come across as a metaphor for an unseemly collaboration between institutions mandated by the Constitution to be adverse.
Such interactions can compromise the perception of impartiality that is vital for public trust in the judicial system. The public display of faith by two high-ranking constitutional officials also raises alarms about the potential infusion of religion into the judiciary, which is expected to uphold secularism as a fundamental principle of the Constitution. At a time when High Court judges across the country have been barely restrained in proclaiming their own Hindutva beliefs in open court, the Chief Justice has seriously compromised his own authority to rebuke them.
Historical precedent is no defence either. Justice PN Bhagwati, a prominent figure in Indian jurisprudence, faced criticism in 1980 for writing a congratulatory letter to then-PM Indira Gandhi following her electoral victory. The concerns voiced by Justice Bhagwati’s contemporaries about the implications of such public displays of affection (PDA) towards political leaders are even more relevant today, especially in light of recent instances where several judges praised government policies in court and proceeded to join the BJP barely weeks after retiring.
The implications of Modi’s visit to the Chandrachud residence are particularly concerning given the ongoing cases before the Supreme Court, including those involving the Maharashtra government. The timing of this visit raises questions about whether it could influence judicial outcomes, leading to accusations of bias. As noted by legal experts, the perception of judicial independence is as crucial as its actual existence. The Chief Justice’s decision to invite the PM to a religious ceremony risks undermining his own efforts to stave off the government’s efforts to have a greater say on judicial appointments.
It is futile to argue that both the PM and the Chief Justice have the right to practice their faith. They certainly do, but the offices they hold and the principles they are sworn to uphold constrain them to keep their faith discreet and their friendship reserved to a time when they will be free of the cares of office.
As a learned judge, Justice Chandrachud could not have been unaware of the worldwide rise of authoritarianism and the attempts by authoritarian regimes in many countries to tame the judiciary. We have seen how tyrants in the USA, Israel, Brazil, Hungary, Myanmar, Poland and Turkey, have tried to reduce the judiciary to an instrument of repression. The people of India pin their hopes on the judiciary to protect their rights. Surely, Justice Chandrachud would want to be remembered for justifying that faith?