DY Chandrachud: Was India’s top judge an icon or a pushover?

How does history determine my tenure?

That’s a question Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud, who retired as India’s 50th key fairness on Sunday, asked only weeks before he finished his term.

Justice Chandrachud said that his head was “heavily preoccupied with worries and uncertainties about the potential and the past.”

“I find myself pondering: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How does history determine my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?” he said.

When some in India are also debating what legacy he leaves about, the soul-searching took place.

Justice Chandrachud served as chief righteousness for the past two decades as well as as a major court judge for more than eight years. He was in charge of one of the world’s largest Supreme Courts, which had control over India’s 1.4 billion people.

The Supreme Court is the supreme court of appeal, the supreme court of justice, and the Supreme Court’s decisions, which are binding on all other Indian courts, frequently make reports, though courts are hardly ever allowed to do so.

But Justice Chandrachud, often described as India’s” initial celebrity determine” and a “rockstar determine”, has regularly hit the headlines.

According to Arghya Sengupta of the Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy, the jurist was India’s most prolific chief justice who wrote 93 judgements – more than his last four predecessors put together – including some on matters of seminal importance. He also made huge strides in terms of digitisation and livestreaming of court hearings – making them more accessible to citizens.

But some of the recent insurance has also been ugly, with critics saying he was n’t confrontational sufficiently and his career has been unsatisfactory.

The Harvard-educated prosecutor has many firsts to his name, including the youngest high court main fairness in more than a decade and the youngest ever to serve on the highest court. Additionally, his father even served in the capacity of general justice.

He gained a reputation as a democratic, liberal prosecutor known for his subtle and intelligent decisions on issues of liberty, free speech, gender, and LGBT rights while serving on the Supreme Court.

He was a key figure in Kerala’s Sabarimala shrine’s groundbreaking rulings that decriminalized homosexuality and allowed pregnant women to. His remarks on the rights to privacy and freedom of speech received a lot of praise.

But senior lawyers, activists, and citizens greeted his elevation as India’s top prosecutor in November 2022, with some expressing” strong hope that the court may rise to greater heights under his leadership.”

India’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP) administration was about to win a third term in the upcoming general election in 2024.

Opposition parties, activists, and members of the press were alleging that the government was intimidating them, while international human rights organizations claimed that India’s politics was in danger.

Some of India’s leading scientists, right activists, and well-known opposition figures were imprisoned, and the country continued to fall off the international press freedom index even though the government denied any wrongdoing. ( These ratings have always been rejected by the government, who claims they are biased against India. )

Justice Chandrachud’s interview, according to older attorney Kamini Jaiswal, came at” a critical moment when some of the final key justices had left under a cloud of dark spots and the position had been denigrated with major allegations.”

We therefore believed Justice Chandrachud did use his wit and beautiful thoughts to accomplish a lot for the people. But he has been disappointing”, she said.

Chander Uday Singh, a senior attorney for the Supreme Court, calls his history “mixed.”

He had “absolutely lay down the law in a brilliant manner that could serve as a precedent for upcoming cases.” However, he never held the power accountable because they never held the position accountable for what they had set out to achieve.

For instance, he points out that the court struck down a government scheme that allowed people to make anonymous donations to political parties, calling it unconstitutional and illegal. “But then he did not hold anyone accountable for the illegality.”

Also, when it came to a political crisis in the eastern state of Maharashtra or Delhi’s energy conflict with the federal government, his assessments tended to honour the state, he adds.

There was a chance that, given his judgments, he would correct the situation in a nation with a solid authoritarian state. But he fell quick”.

Several top lawyers have also criticised Justice Chandrachud for what he did as the “master of the roster” by failing to effectively prevent the prolonged incarceration of political prisoners – leading to the death of some of them without ever getting bail. This happened despite Justice Chandrachud saying that bail should be the norm and not the exception.

And as he neared his retirement, Justice Chandrachud even made headlines for what he did not in the courtroom, but around.

A popular film that showed him praying at home with Prime Minister Modi during a Hindu religious festival in September caused a stir.

Ms Jaiswal said by publicising the photo, “a message was being sent that the chief justice is close to the PM”. Lawyers, former judges, opposition politicians and many citizens also criticised him saying “the presence of a politician at a private event erodes the perception of impartiality of the judiciary”.

Justice Chandrachud’s statement last month, in which he claimed to have asked God for a resolution to the tense Babri Mosque-Ram church conflict, was met with another round of censure. He said,” I sat before the goddess and told him I needed to find a solution, and he gave it to me.”

The remark caused a ferocious flow of condemnation, which was unavoidable given that the mosque-temple dispute has been one of India’s most controversial and divisive issues.

Hindu mobs burned down the dome in 1992. A five-judge couch, which included Justice Chandrachud, ruled in 2019 that the destruction was illegal, but also gave the disputed territory to Hindus and a separate blog for the dome to get built. Prime Minister Modi broke a long-standing promises made by his gathering by opening a great new church at the page earlier this year.

Therefore, no surprise therefore that Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, seen by many as spiritual, was thoroughly criticised.

Retired high court judge Anjana Prakash told HW news that his comment was “dramatic, filmy and laughable and it had brought down the level of judiciary”.

” Cabinets must consider cases based on legal guidelines.” Where does God travel into a decision? Besides, people have different angels. Did the response be the same if a justice of another faith had said this? she asked.

Justice Prakash and other detractors questioned whether he was inviting the government to work for him after retiring.

Justice Chandrachud addressed some of the condemnation in internet connections in the days leading up to his pension.

” The separation of powers does n’t mean antagonistic relations between the executive and the judiciary, it does n’t mean that they cannot meet”, he said at an event by the Indian Express newspaper, adding that such meetings were not used” to cut deals”.

The written expression serves as the only way to judge our great behavior, according to our judgments. Does it or does it not conform to the law?

Justice Chandrachud argued that his statement about seeking holy instruction was based on the fact that he was a “person of faith” and that it was wrong to attribute motives to judges.

He added that courts were facing pressure “from lobbies and force groups” and they would compliment a decision important of the state, but if he ruled in favour of the state, they questioned his freedom.

At his farewell on Friday, the outgoing chief justice said he was perhaps India’s most trolled judge, but his” shoulders are broad enough to accept all criticism”.

And at the weekend, he told Times of India that he believed he had “left the system better than I found it”.

” I’m retiring with a sense of satisfaction”, he said.

Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.