Bail being the rule message hasn’t reached district judiciary: CJI Chandrachud
CJI DY Chandrachud, in a candid conversation with Utkarsh Anand, reflected on his tenure and vision for India’s judiciary.
CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in a candid conversation with Utkarsh Anand, reflected on his tenure and vision for India’s judiciary, outlining critical principles on independence, judicial appointments, and the role of the courts in upholding liberty. His insights capture both his legacy and the challenges that lie ahead for India’s judicial landscape. Here is the full text:
In your years on the Supreme Court, you have ruled on transformative cases in Indian jurisprudence. What key lessons or shifts in perspective have you gained, and what do you think are the most important takeaways for the Court's future?
Over the last two decades, the complexity of cases before the Supreme Court has grown immensely—not just constitutional cases, but those dealing with new legislation reflecting India’s evolving economy. We have seen the rise of laws like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Competition Act, and special regulatory laws. These changes bring unique challenges as they often require domain expertise that judges did not typically encounter in high courts or earlier in their careers. It was a significant work I did in the regulatory area of economic governance and to understand the place of this legislation; the wider context of Indian society and the economy. But at the same time, I have also dealt with cases which to my mind brought about significant social transformation in the society and the nation that we are going to save for the future.
Another critical lesson is the Supreme Court's role as “a people's court”. We don’t just decide constitutional matters; we also address the issues faced by individual citizens who come to us seeking justice. For instance, we have ruled in cases as varied as a student missing an IIT admission deadline, a daily wage labourer's child unable to afford IIT fees, and an aspiring judge with a high disability percentage denied entry to the judiciary. Handling these cases strengthens public confidence in the judiciary as an institution committed to justice within our democracy. My vision has been to define the future in the sense of a more inclusive plural and diverse society that we are to give formal recognition to it through the process of judicial interpretation.
How has being the Chief Justice of India changed you, personally and professionally? What have been the most rewarding and challenging aspects?
The role has offered deeply rewarding experiences. On the judicial side, the opportunity to address critical societal issues and write judgments that influence both the present and future stands out. Deciding key constitutional cases allows me to contribute to societal transformation. Administratively, I have seen projects come to fruition, like the Supreme Court’s data centre and the free digital repository of judgments accessible to citizens. Translation of SC judgments into Indian languages has inspired high courts to follow suit, enhancing judicial outreach.
A recent highlight is the National Judicial Museum, which documents India’s judicial history from ancient times to today. Initiatives like the construction of a futuristic Supreme Court building are also underway, ensuring a lasting impact.
I think the greatest challenge which we face as an institution is of making people understand the perspective and context in which we work, particularly in the backdrop of social media. What social media has done is to transform the informative space in our society. Everything boils down to 20 second shorts. There is no time to analyse anything in great detail. As a result of that there is a lot of misinformation which arises from the work which is done by the court. Particularly because, we have now been livestreaming important cases in the entire work of the SC’s CJ’s bench it is livestreamed. I think it is good as I have said sunlight is the best disinfectant. At the same time, many people outside when they see what is happening in the Court, want to comment on every little thing. Thus, the biggest challenge today lies in managing public perception, especially in the age of social media, where nuanced court discussions are often reduced to soundbites. The court’s work is deliberative, yet public commentary on livestreamed proceedings can be hasty and sometimes uninformed, which adds pressure to the institution.
As the CJI, balancing judicial duties with your role as the “master of the roster” involves complex decisions on case allocations, especially amid debates over transparency. How did you manage this dual role, particularly with controversies surrounding case assignments and roster management?
The Chief Justice doesn’t arbitrarily pick a court; there are well-defined systems governing case assignments. It’s not true that cases are pulled from one bench to be reassigned to another without reason. For example, in the Delhi Ridge case (alleging Delhi lieutenant governor allegedly ordered cutting of trees), two benches were hearing it, and there was concern about contradictory orders. The matter was then referred to the CJI, and I decided to hear it personally in a three-judge bench to ensure consistency. Criticism on social media regarding this is mostly unfounded. Judges have different approaches to the law, but no litigant should be allowed to choose their judge. Allowing such power would lead to forum shopping and undermine the system. In cases like PMLA, data shows how cases have been assigned diversely to various benches. Lawyers must argue their case before whichever judge it comes to, regardless of the judge’s perceived philosophy. I have data to indicate how broadly and diversely cases have been assigned to different benches who were given that roster. My concern is that no lawyer should say that ‘I will not go before a particular judge’ just because that lawyer feels that the judge has a strict view of the law in that particular branch. That is unacceptable. Lawyers must be free to go before whichever judge that a case comes before, and it is their duty to persuade the judge to their point of view. But to say that I will not go before a particular judge because I do not like that judge’s philosophy is plainly unacceptable.
What are your views on bail jurisprudence, especially regarding criticism of the Supreme Court for not issuing favorable orders in high-profile cases where activists and student leaders have been incarcerated for a long time?
From November 9, 2022, to November 10, 2024, 21,000 bail cases were filed in the SC, and over 21,300 were disposed of. This clearly shows that we are sensitive to bail applications. However, whether bail is granted in a specific case is up to the bench to decide. I won't comment on the outcome of individual cases, as it is the court’s discretion to apply the law to the facts. Often, media portrayals, including on social media, differ from the actual case records. Judges are seasoned minds, and they are expected to apply well-defined standards of bail to the facts of that case. In a given case, the outcome may not be acceptable to some but from the judges’ perspective, they have applied the law. People say that in this sensitive matter bail was not granted. As the CJI, I do not want to take the names of very sensitive cases dealing with people in high places or important cases where bail has been granted. So, if you look at the overall record of the court, it has been a court which is pro-liberty. Individual cases may go one way or the other, but I don’t think you can judge the record of the whole court by just targeting or pinpointing just one case and say why bail was not granted in this case. That is part of the system.
Why do you think the philosophy of bail as the rule and incarceration as the exception is not percolating down to the trial courts?
I am concerned because, despite repeated emphasis from the Supreme Court, including myself as the CJI, that bail should be the rule and incarceration the exception, this message has not reached the district judiciary. In cases where investigation is ongoing, custody may be necessary, but once the investigation is over, bail shouldn’t be used as anticipatory punishment. The presumption of innocence is one of the cardinal principles of our jurisprudence. Unfortunately, this message has not percolated down to the district judiciary and one reason for that is that we overall live in a culture of distrust where we do not trust public officials and judges holding public positions.The culture of distrust is a major issue, where judges in district courts fear allegations of bias if they grant bail in sensitive cases. The solution lies in protecting district judges, who are the first point of contact for citizens, and the responsibility for that lies with high courts and the Supreme Court. If a bail order is wrong, it can be challenged in a higher forum. However, this fear within the district judiciary must be addressed, and high courts and the Supreme Court should not readily criticise a judge’s motives if they differ on granting bail. If district judges deny bail when they should grant it, or if high courts wrongly intervene, cases unnecessarily escalate to the Supreme Court. It’s crucial that judges recognise the value of personal liberty and ensure undertrial detention doesn’t become part of the punishment, particularly in cases where trials are delayed. People cannot be kept incarcerated indefinitely unless there’s a genuine risk of fleeing or non-availability for trial.
With the collegium system often scrutinised for transparency and effectiveness, what improvements would you recommend safeguarding judicial independence while adapting to contemporary expectations? Should there be a timeline for the government to clear appointments?
The collegium system was carefully designed by court judgments and has been in place since. Over the past two years, we have taken several steps to enhance transparency, such as publishing collegium resolutions and the reasons for recommending judicial appointments online. We have also outlined the parameters used to assess judicial candidates. The process is multilayered: for high court appointments, the chief justice and senior judges consult extensively before recommending candidates. For district judges, service records and judgments are evaluated by an assessment committee, not the collegium. After recommendations reach the government, the process involves input from the Intelligence Bureau and consultations with the chief minister and governor. If the government disagrees with the collegium’s recommendation, they must provide reasons, and if we reaffirm our recommendation, the government must follow it, as per the Memorandum of Procedure.
We have also made efforts to ensure objectivity and transparency, such as circulating judgments of potential Supreme Court appointees among the collegium members. However, no system is perfect, and while improvements can be made, the question remains: do we have a better system? One area that could be improved is ensuring that once the collegium makes a recommendation, the process is completed in a timely manner. The government should adhere to the Memorandum of Procedure, ensuring appointments are made once reiterated by the Supreme Court.
It's also important to clarify that the collegium has its veto power. If the collegium does not recommend a candidate, no appointment can proceed, even if the high court has recommended them.
The system works with both the collegium and the government as stakeholders, and any judicial intervention in the appointment process must be handled carefully to avoid criticisms of overreach.
We already have the Memorandum of Procedure. My perception is that the Supreme Court should be very careful in using its judicial powers to facilitate judicial appointments. And the reason why I say so is, we are one of the stakeholders in the system as the collegium. The collegium is an important but one of the stakeholders in the system. The government is another stakeholder. Now, if we were to use our judicial powers to ensure that a particular appointment or a set of appointments is made, we would be open to the criticism that we are using our judicial powers to essentially facilitate the achievement of a recommendation which we have made in constitutional capacity. I have reservations on whether the power should be exercised on the judicial side. Of course, there have been times when we have had to exercise the judicial powers in the case of NJAC when there was a constitutional challenge to the constitutional amendment, which was a function of the court. But otherwise, I feel, that this is something which has to be facilitated by a more deliberative dialogue between the collegium of the Supreme court, headed by the CJI, and the functionaries of the government who are responsible for taking decisions on the part of the government- the Law Minister for instance. And this is something which has to be achieved by robust active constitution statesmanship on the part of the collegium of the Supreme Court and the government.
During your CJI tenure, the collegium appointed 18 judges, yet no woman was among them. Given your stated commitment to diversity, what do you feel were the primary obstacles to such appointments?
First, it's important to note that the CJI is just one member of a five-judge collegium, and appointments are ultimately a collective decision. Before I became CJI, I was part of a collegium that appointed three women judges to the Supreme Court, so it’s not that my tenure lacked such appointments.
In the last two years, when considering appointments, we prioritise seniority alongside diversity. Seniority is critical because we’re dealing with judges who have spent years in high courts. We can’t bypass more senior judges unless there’s a justifiable reason. While diversity is essential, seniority and merit also play significant roles in decisions. I’d prefer not to comment on individual judges, as we’re dealing with careers, but it's not about appointing someone solely for the sake of diversity.
However, there is a positive shift in the district judiciary, with more women joining. Over 50% of recruits to the district judiciary are women, reflecting the success of an open recruitment process. These women will eventually move up to higher courts and, over time, become Supreme Court judges. The current state of women in the higher judiciary is reflective of the past state of the legal profession. As more women join the legal profession today, more will eventually make it to higher courts.
Additionally, in recent years, we've made strides in designating women as senior counsels, with 12 women designated in February and another 10 in August this year. These women will mentor others, contributing to the growth of more women in higher courts in the future.
The path to increasing female representation in the judiciary is also about mentorship and making the legal profession more equitable, recognizing the unique challenges women face, such as balancing work with family responsibilities. Initiatives like live streaming have made it easier for women to address courts remotely, contributing to greater productivity. Creating a more equitable legal workplace for women requires a collective effort from both the judiciary and the legal profession as a whole. With 50% or more of National Law University students being women, the future holds promise for transforming the higher judiciary’s gender composition.
You have often been photographed and filmed expressing your faith, and some might say this could affect perceptions of impartiality, especially considering sensitive cases like Ayodhya and Gyanvapi that you heard as a judge.
I do not think either constitutionally or how our judicial institutions have evolved that only an atheist can be an independent judge. If people believe that a judge, who is independent, should be a non-believer then they are completely wrong. Judges are entitled to their own personal beliefs, their own faiths. The Constitution guarantees a judge, like any other citizen, the freedom to religion and the freedom of conscience. Should a judge be hypocritical by saying that I will shut myself up in my own home, but I will not visit a place of faith of my religion? Again, I feel that’s not correct. Just as every individual citizen is entitled to visit their place of faith they believe in; a judge is entitled to visit a place of faith. And believe me, judges don’t just visit their own places of religion which are associated with their faith, they visit places which professes other faiths as well. To suggest that a judge cannot impart justice simply because they have faith is misguided. Judicial decisions are based on reason, law, and principles, and they are documented in judgments that are open for public scrutiny. The law requires transparency, and any decision made by a judge can be assessed to see whether it holds up in the eyes of the law. We must recognize that judges, like all individuals, are entitled to their personal beliefs or non-belief. However, when it comes to their judicial duties, they follow the principles of law as established by statutes and the overarching Constitution, which serves as the nation’s founding document. Therefore, personal faith should not be seen as an obstacle to impartiality; the focus must remain on the legal reasoning and the application of law in each case.
In recent years, certain judges have faced backlash when rulings don’t align with specific public petitions, and you certainly are one of them. Have you experienced this pressure, and what are your thoughts on this trend of targeted criticism towards the judiciary?
In the early years after independence, the idea of judicial independence was primarily seen as freedom from the government, which, of course, remains true. Judges must be independent from the government. However, over time, the sources of threats to judicial independence have evolved. With the rise of social media, we now have pressure groups that are willing to use these platforms to influence judicial outcomes. These groups often believe that if a judge rules in their favor, they are independent, but if a judge rules against them, they question the judge’s independence.
This is a deeply problematic trend. Judicial independence, in my view, means that a judge should be free to decide based on their conscience, guided by law and the Constitution. Judges must be able to decide cases impartially, whether that decision is in favor of the government, against the government, or any other party, based on where justice lies in a particular case. The notion that a judge is independent only when they rule in favor of certain groups or outcomes is a misinterpretation of judicial independence, and this is something we are seeing more and more today.
As for myself, I wouldn’t say I have personally experienced this pressure, but I am certainly aware of it. The important distinction is that while we must be aware of these pressures, we must not be susceptible to them. If we were to yield to such external pressures, that would mark the end of judicial independence. Judges must be vigilant and recognize that there are organized efforts aimed at influencing their decisions to serve particular interests. However, being aware of this reality is crucial. The higher judiciary, with its experience and resilience, is more than capable of handling this challenge and continuing to uphold its independence.
What principles do you believe are essential to preserve the separation of power?
The principle of the separation of powers is fundamental. It means that each branch of government—the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature—should stick to its own domain. The court does not perform the role of the executive, the government does not perform the role of the court, and similarly, the legislature does not perform the role of either. For instance, the making of law is exclusively a function of the legislature, while formulating and implementing policy is the government's responsibility. The role of the judiciary, specifically, is to interpret the law and decide on the validity of laws or executive actions, but not to lay down policy.
Judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court are fully aware that policy-making is not their function. This was underscored in our recent nine-judge bench decision on Article 39B and C, where we emphasized that the court cannot adopt a particular economic ideology when interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution, as envisioned by Dr. Ambedkar, grants successive governments the freedom to formulate economic policy based on the needs of the time. The judiciary’s role is to interpret, not to impose an economic ideology. As long as we maintain these clear boundaries, the principle of separation of powers is respected.
That being said, the separation of powers does not mean complete isolation. Judges can and do engage with the executive and legislature on non-judicial matters, and that’s not a violation of the separation of powers. For example, many statutes have selection committees that involve members from both the government and the judiciary, such as the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, and the Leader of the Opposition. In such instances, the Chief Justice’s participation is not inappropriate, as long as it does not involve any discussion about pending cases. We must be mature and conscious of what is appropriate to discuss. If there’s a personal or social engagement, such as a family wedding or a bereavement, those occasions should not become opportunities for judicial discussions on pending cases.
The most crucial guarantee of judicial independence lies in the outcomes of cases, which are documented through detailed reasoning. This reasoning is the backbone of our judgments. It ensures that our decisions are transparent, accountable, and not influenced by personal beliefs or external pressures. The citizens, in turn, can evaluate whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.
When we talk about the perception of independence, which is perhaps as important as real independence in current times, where a social media post can stir massive controversy? What advice would you offer to future judges, given the power that social media has become
Given the rise of social media, my key point would be to always be mindful of the power of public perception, but never to be swayed by it. Social media can amplify criticism or praise, but judges must remain grounded in their duty to the law. Their role is to uphold justice impartially, and they must ensure that their actions and decisions are guided solely by the law and not by the demands or pressures of the moment. The integrity of the judiciary relies on its ability to operate independently of transient public sentiments or external influences.
One challenge social media presents is the tendency of citizen journalists—many of whom are ordinary social media users—to misconstrue or misrepresent the proceedings in court. Often, what is said in court during deliberations is not a judgment, but part of an ongoing dialogue. Social media users may incorrectly treat preliminary statements or candid exchanges as final decisions. This is dangerous because such exchanges help judges clarify their thoughts and gain a better understanding of the case. The ability to speak candidly in court is essential for the proper deliberation of cases, and we do not want to discourage this by turning every offhand remark into a social media controversy. Judges need to feel they can express themselves honestly during the deliberation process without the fear of judgment from public opinion or social media backlash.
Simultaneously, given the vast reach of social media, judges must now be acutely aware that what is said in the courtroom is no longer confined to a small group of people—what is spoken in court can reach millions of people both across the nation and globally.
This awareness requires judges to be particularly mindful of the language they use and the manner in which they structure discourse. They must ensure that their dialogue does not unintentionally alienate or undermine marginalized groups, or violate principles of equality and justice, particularly around issues like gender rights. A judge’s words must align with the transformative role of the judiciary in society. As such, there is a crucial need for training, particularly for judges who may not have grown up in the social media age.
Under your tenure, you championed technological modernisation. How do you believe these reforms have enhanced the judiciary’s accessibility and transparency? More importantly, have these tools been helpful in reducing the pendency in the Supreme Court, which currently stands at over 80,000?
My ambition for technological change in the judiciary has been a crucial part of my initiative. We commenced video conferencing post-COVID-19, and now video conferencing has become a permanent part of the system. It has made justice more accessible, allowing hearings to take place remotely. Additionally, the e-filing of cases has revolutionized the process, enabling lawyers to file cases from anywhere, 24/7, without needing to submit paper files. Digitization of case records has further ensured that cases can move towards a paperless mode.
We have also ensured that the internet divide does not affect access to justice. We have established e-Sewa Kendras in over 3,000 court establishments, giving citizens access to digital facilities even if they don’t have a smartphone, laptop, or internet connection. Furthermore, we’ve translated Supreme Court judgments into several Indian languages and employed machine learning for better case management. We’ve entered into collaborations with IIT Madras and RailTel for innovations in the judiciary, and set up a data center and a war room in the Supreme Court to store vital case data.
Technology has also helped improve the efficiency of the court. For example, we have introduced simultaneous transcription of oral arguments during constitutional bench cases, which enhances transparency. The movement towards paperless courts, alongside AI-based innovations, has streamlined operations significantly.
In terms of case disposal, from November 9, 2022, to November 1, 2024, we have filed 111,498 cases, listed 533,142 for hearing, and disposed of 107,403 cases. The filing of cases has doubled between 2020 and 2024, yet despite this increase, pendency has decreased. Technological tools such as modern case categorization, knowledge management, and better case tracking have played a crucial role in reducing the arrears. By re-categorizing cases based on their nature and urgency, we have been able to prioritize and expedite cases, leading to a more efficient judicial process. For example, we were able to expedite cases under the TOLA statute and land acquisition cases, clearing thousands of pending matters.
In short, the integration of technology has been key in both increasing accessibility to the judiciary and reducing case pendency, making the process more efficient and transparent.
As you prepare for retirement, what are your views on the involvement of retired judges in public service roles, and where do you believe the judiciary can make the most constructive contributions without compromising independence? Will you accept a post-retirement assignment the government offers you?
Today, parliamentary statutes require retired judges to serve in various tribunals, such as the National Green Tribunal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and the Telecom Disputes Tribunal, among others. These tribunals handle cases of immense value, particularly as the economy has liberalized and private investments in sectors like electricity have increased. As such, there is a strong need for individuals with the highest levels of integrity and expertise to preside over these matters. It is for this reason that former judges, particularly those from the Supreme Court and High Court, are appointed to these roles.
However, there is a perception, especially in the media, that when judges take on these post-retirement assignments, it may be seen as a quid pro quo for their decisions during their time in office. This perception discourages many judges from accepting such roles, which is unfortunate, because it undermines the necessity of having experienced, ethical individuals managing these critical tribunals.
The real impact of this negative perception is that if we do not have judges with the highest levels of integrity and expertise in these positions, we are fundamentally affecting the progress and transformation of the economy. This is a serious concern because the functioning of these tribunals is key to handling disputes that arise from the increasingly complex legal and economic landscape. Therefore, I believe the media should reconsider how it portrays retired judges accepting these roles. We need former judges in these positions to ensure that the process is fair and trustworthy.
If parliament has created an office where a retired judge of the Supreme Court should hold that office why should we then castigate a judge who occupies that office after having seized to be a judge.
About my assumption of any office, I can assure you that my personal belief is that even when you lay down office as a CJI or a judge, people always look upon you as a judge or CJI. Society expects a certain standard of behaviour and I do believe speaking for myself that I should be true to the office that I held and in everything I do after retirement.
As someone who has greatly impacted India’s judicial landscape, would you hope or encourage one of your sons, both of whom are in the legal field, to consider a future as a judge?
I am very clear on this – it is for them to make that decision, if and when that call of duty comes. If they ask me, I will only share my perspective, which they already know to some extent. Being a judge is no small matter. It involves years and years of back-breaking work, requiring deep intellectual application and dedication. Becoming a judge demands sacrifice, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of lifestyle. The lifestyle and the expectations don't end when you step down from office. It requires tremendous commitment and a willingness to live with certain limitations. I would never influence my family in this matter. If the call of duty comes, it will be for them to decide. It is ultimately their choice, and I respect that.
As you pass on the baton to Justice Sanjiv Khanna, what is it that you expect from his tenure?
Justice Khanna is an extraordinary, seasoned judge with long years of experience and wide experience in both law and administration. As I lay down the office, I am confident that the future of my institution is in safe hands. I have no doubt that he will continue to uphold the values of justice and integrity, and lead with wisdom and a deep understanding of the law.
After 24 years as a judge, marking the longest tenure in India’s constitutional courts, how do you feel about the legacy you are leaving behind, and what do you hope will define your time on the bench in future judicial and public discourse?
First and foremost, the Chief Justice is a judge, and in that sense, he is like any other judge—he is the first among equals. I have always believed that whether as Chief Justice of a high court or the Supreme Court, you are respected for the work you do as a judge. During my tenure, both as chief justice of the Allahabad high court and a judge in the Supreme Court, my approach has been to take on the full load of judicial work assigned by law, contribute to the evolution of the law, and, of course, handle the administrative responsibilities essential to the role of the CJI.
I had certain priorities as a judge. One key priority was to maintain the balance between two aspects of my work: one, ensuring the timely disposal of cases because, while high-profile judgments are important, we cannot allow routine cases to accumulate; and two, addressing the more complex, thought-provoking cases that have the potential to transform society. Finding this balance has been both crucial and challenging. On one hand, the sheer volume of cases requires attention, and on the other, there are cases that demand deep thought and may change the future of law.
As for my legacy, I do not believe it is for me to comment on what that will be—that is for posterity to judge. What I do know is that I have always tried to address the cases that came before me with utmost integrity and diligence.