Justice Chandrachud was his own man, a disadvantage in a world obsessed with pigeonholing

Justice Chandrachud displayed decisiveness in taking up big cases when he knew well that whatever the outcome may be, he would be targeted by the losing side.

When former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh died in December last year, several obituaries referred to a comment he made at his last press conference as Prime Minister in 2014. Under attack for alleged corruption in his government and battling the opposition’s characterisation of his leadership as "weak", he said, "I honestly believe that history will be kinder to me than the contemporary media or, for that matter, the Opposition in Parliament."

Judging an event or the tenure of a public figure from a distance of time often allows for a more balanced and objective view. It helps in understanding how certain actions or decisions are shaped.

A month before he demitted the office in November last year,  former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud said, "As my tenure comes to an end, my mind is heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past. I find myself pondering: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?"

Not an “ideological” judge

Justice Chandrachud, who was seen as a ‘beacon of hope’ when he assumed the office of CJI, was subject to harsh criticism from different quarters when he retired. Most of them emanated from a disappointment that he did not subscribe to a particular ideology. The fact that, on different occasions, his judgments upset different poles of the ideological spectrum shows that he was no one’s man.

In September 2018, the 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case. By a 4:1 majority, it was held that the temple’s practice of excluding women was unconstitutional. Justice Chandrachud held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years by the Sabarimala Temple was contrary to constitutional morality and that it subverted the ideals of autonomy, liberty, and dignity. His judgment did not go well with certain sections.

Similarly, when a bench he led declared the Electoral Bond Scheme ‘unconstitutional’ in February 2024, he was projected as an anti-government, anti-BJP judge. Ironically, when the bench he led upheld the president's power to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, he was seen as a judge sympathetic to the government’s cause and decisions.

It is important to note here that be it the case related to the abrogation of Article 370 or the Electoral Bonds case, many of his predecessors refused to hear and decide these constitutionally important cases. Justice Chandrachud displayed decisiveness in taking up these cases when he knew well that whatever the outcome may be, he would be targeted by the losing side.

An intellectual giant

Judges often face criticism over judgments that are contrary to popular sentiments. But as Justice Chandrachud rightly pointed out once, "judges should have broad shoulders" as they are "dealing with difficult issues, which are difficult to take a call on”.

Justice Chandrachud’s harshest critics will also admit that he is an intellectual giant with a massive knowledge of law and jurisprudence, especially constitutional law. His judicial interpretation and ability to articulate them find few parallels in recent times. An example is the judgment in the Mineral Area Development Authority case, which dealt with the state's power to tax mineral rights.

Be it his reformist agenda or compassionate streak, any assessment of his tenure cannot be complete without taking these traits in account. His decision to allow admission for a Dalit boy who lost the chance due to a delay in paying the fee by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution showed that Justice Chandrachud believed that the idea of justice is built on normative concerns and not limited to some quantifiable empirical criteria. Such decisions support the idea of justice as 'fairness'.

As far as his reformist work is concerned his tenure will certainly be remembered for institutionalising virtual hearings, live streaming, and the ambitious e-courts project to modernize the judiciary.

Most of the assessments made of Justice Chandrachud's judgeship conveniently overlooked the positions he took in the Puttaswamy case, which held the Right to Privacy as an inalienable natural right, and the Navtej Singh Johar case, which decriminalised homosexuality.

A focus mainly on his administrative role as CJI is unfair

The reason for overlooking Justice Chndrachud's contribution as a puisne judge emanates from the fact that CJI is seen not just as a judge but as a head of an institution with elaborate set administrative powers and a position that can direct the course of the justice system in India. But to overlook a judge's contribution in terms of important constitutional matters to focus more on his role as head of the institution cannot lead to a fair and objective assessment.

When Justice Chandrachud assumed office he was seen as a ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ judge. This categorisation came with an assumption that he would tow to a particular ideological line, which he did not. A close reading of Justice Chandrachud’s judgments shows that they were the result of a fine reading of the law. Like in the case related to the abrogation of Article 370 he meticulously demolished the argument that Article 370 could not be abrogated and was a permanent feature of the Con­stitution.

Law is finally about human beings

Justice Chandrachud's commitment to constitutional values, human rights, and ensuring access to justice for all citizens cannot be contested. Despite facing criticisms from various quarters, many legal experts and analysts praise him for his well-rounded approach, legal acumen, and open-mindedness and his progressive stance on various constitutional issues.

Justice Chandrachud is widely appreciated for his fairness and his ability to engage in complex constitutional interpretation with a clear focus on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

Criticisms are inevitable for any high-profile judicial figure, particularly given the broad impact of Supreme Court rulings. However, Justice Chandrachud's approach has generally been seen as fair-minded and rooted in a deep understanding of the law and the people's needs and concerns. His judgments often displayed his belief in social justice, the protection of individual rights, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions.

Overall, despite criticism, Justice DY Chandrachud’s legacy is likely to be viewed as one of a progressive and capable judge, focused on ensuring that the Indian judiciary remains an institution that upholds the values of justice, equality, and fairness.

A judge’s most important qualification is impartiality and non-commitment to any particular idea or point of view. His only commitment should be towards law and justice. But, in a highly polarised world, neutrality can be seen as a lack of commitment rather than a principled stance. Instead of being respected for impartiality, a neutral person risks alienation from both factions.

However, neutrality can also be a form of resistance—an assertion that one refuses to be manipulated into extreme positions. And, Justice Chandrachud's legacy will be remembered as this resistance to side with any of the extreme positions.