In a candid and intense interview on BBC’s HARDtalk, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud addressed some of the most pressing concerns about the Indian judiciary. The conversation with journalist Stephen Sackur covered key issues such as judicial independence, political influence, and landmark Supreme Court decisions. The session, which was widely discussed on social media, showcased Chandrachud’s perspective on these critical matters.
Judicial Independence and Allegations of Political Influence
One of the biggest challenges facing the Indian judiciary is the perception of political influence. Sackur questioned Chandrachud about whether the Supreme Court operates under pressure from the Modi government. In response, Chandrachud firmly defended the judiciary’s independence, citing the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as proof of India’s democratic strength.
According to Chandrachud, the Supreme Court’s role in granting bail to several political activists and leaders demonstrates that it is not swayed by any particular government. He pointed out that judgments in cases involving opposition leaders have often upheld personal liberties, reinforcing the idea that the judiciary functions without external coercion.
Rahul Gandhi’s Defamation Case
The interview also touched upon the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case. Sackur questioned whether this legal action indicated a bias in the judicial system. Chandrachud clarified that while a trial court convicted Gandhi, the Supreme Court later stayed the judgment, which enabled him to return to Parliament.
This case, Chandrachud emphasized, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to justice and fairness. He stated that courts follow legal procedures based on evidence and not on political considerations.
The Article 370 Verdict: A Controversial Decision
The abrogation of Article 370, which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, was another contentious topic. Critics argue that this move violated constitutional principles, but Chandrachud maintained that Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary provision. He stressed that democracy is gradually being restored in the region, pointing to the recent elections and formation of a local government.
Chandrachud further stated that the Supreme Court’s ruling was based on constitutional interpretation, not political motives. However, opposition leaders and several international commentators have continued to question the ruling, citing concerns about federalism and state autonomy.
International Criticism of the Indian Judiciary
One of the more heated exchanges in the interview revolved around global perspectives on India’s judicial system. Sackur referenced a New York Times editorial that criticized the state of judicial independence in India. Chandrachud dismissed these claims, asserting that the Indian judiciary remains one of the most independent in the world.
He explained that while international publications may express opinions, legal decisions in India are made strictly based on constitutional principles. He also pointed out that the judiciary has been vocal in protecting fundamental rights, citing instances where it ruled against government policies.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and Pending Cases
Another key issue was the delay in hearing cases related to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Sackur pressed Chandrachud on why cases concerning the CAA’s constitutional validity had been pending for an extended period. The former CJI admitted that the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court is a persistent issue but argued that priority is given to cases based on urgency and impact.
He assured that the judiciary remains committed to addressing contentious issues in due time, balancing the need for thorough judicial review with the demand for swift justice.
Diversity Within the Judiciary
Sackur also questioned whether the Indian judiciary was truly representative of the nation’s diversity. Chandrachud acknowledged that while the higher judiciary has traditionally been dominated by men from privileged backgrounds, significant progress has been made in recent years.
He highlighted that over 50% of new judicial recruits at the district level are women, with some states reporting numbers as high as 60-70%. He further added that greater access to legal education and improved representation in lower courts will lead to a more inclusive judiciary in the coming years.
Public Perception and Social Media Reactions
The HARDtalk interview quickly became a trending topic on social media. Many praised Sackur’s direct approach, while others admired Chandrachud’s composed responses. Some users pointed out that the former CJI appeared uncomfortable when discussing delayed judgments, particularly concerning the CAA.
Posts on X (formerly Twitter) described the interview as a “masterclass in journalism”, with some claiming that Sackur’s questioning was sharper than what is typically seen in Indian media. Meanwhile, legal experts and commentators offered mixed reactions, with some applauding Chandrachud’s defense of the judiciary and others questioning whether he adequately addressed concerns about judicial delays and political influence.
D.Y. Chandrachud’s interview on BBC HARDtalk provided a rare and insightful look into the inner workings of the Indian judiciary. While he strongly defended the independence of the Supreme Court and its landmark decisions, the discussion also highlighted persistent concerns about delayed justice and political perceptions. The interview reinforced the complexity of India’s legal landscape, where balancing constitutional values, political neutrality, and judicial efficiency remains an ongoing challenge. Whether his responses were convincing or not remains a matter of public debate, but the interview undeniably brought key judicial issues into the global spotlight.
