In an interview with BBC Journalist Stephen Saikur on Hard Talk, East Indian Chief Justice DY Chandrachud He led the judiciary of India in the challenges and complications of his tenure. He discussed the relationship between 1.4 billion people, politics and judiciary and the responsibility of overseeing the legal system affecting their commitment to constitutional principles.
Chandrachud reflected on his heritage as the Chief Justice. When Saikur asked if everything he had prepared to do everything he had completed, Chandrachud said that he had set a plan in the office for his time, in which the decision with the primary target Will have to take which he will distribute. He insisted, “One Chief Justice is first and one judge and then at the second place, you are also the administrative head of the Indian judiciary. So I wanted first and most important, in my decisions, the complete transformative ability of the Constitution would have realized What I believe that we tried. “
The conversation then shifted to a more controversial issue of political pressure on the judiciary. Saikur pointed to concerns raised in one new York Times Editorial, which suggested that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government used the courts for political gains, took India closer to “one-Pakistan state”. Chandrachud expressed strong disagreement with the editorial, saying, “I think the New York Times is completely wrong because they were not able to guess what would happen in the elections that would happen in 2024, which is completely myth That we are completely myths that we are moving towards the sided state.
Saikur continued against opposition leader Rahul Gandhi citing examples such as defamation decisions of the Gujarat High Court, causing him disqualification from Parliament. While the Supreme Court decided, Saikur questioned whether the judiciary was sometimes entangled in the political agenda. Chandrachud defended the fairness of the court, arguing that individual matters may have different opinions, the Supreme Court has consistently protected personal freedom. “This fact is the fact that Supreme Court of India The individual liberty has been in the pawn, “he said. He also provided figures including disposal of more than 21,000 bail applications, to strengthen the claim that the rule of law remains actively in India.
Addressing the notion of a dynastic judiciary, Justice Chandrachud denied the claims of brother -in -law, especially about his own climbing for the highest judicial post, “By the way,” Well, “my father said that I said I will not enter the law of law for so long. He was the Chief Justice of India. And that’s why I spent three years in Harvard Law School. Second, I entered a court for the first time after retiring. “He said that there is no dominance of an aristocratic class in the structure of the judiciary, but, an important part of the judiciary of India – especially at the district level – now grows. Gender diversity.
Justice Chandrachud also claimed that India’s judiciary is a special institution for the upper caste men, stating that “most of the lawyers and judges … enter the legal profession for the first time.”
The conversation also touched the cancellation of Article 370, which canceled the special situation Jammu and KashmirWhen Saikur asked why Chandrachud supported the controversial step, he explained that Article 370 Originally there was a “transitional provision”. “My warning, which is, Article 370 of the Constitution, when it was introduced in the Constitution, was part of a chapter, which is given the title of transitional system or transitional provisions. It was later temporary. The name was given.
Saikur further referred to Chandrachud’s statement about seeking religious guidance in the case, but the former Chief Justice clarified that it was a misinterpretation. “I make no bones of the fact that I am a man of faith. Our constitution does not need you to be an atheist, to be an independent judge. And I give importance to my faith. But my faith teaches me religion . Is it my faith.
The interview also discussed the stability of Indian democracy. Chandrachud expressed confidence in the stability of India’s political system, “I am confident about the 75 years of our history, the test and tribulation of a modern nation of a new nation, our nation, has emerged a mature In the form of democracy, every citizen, despite the gender, property, class or education, was expressed.
During the interview, Chandrachud also reminded the audience that the role of the judiciary is not a political opposition, but to maintain the Constitution and to ensure that justice is distributed fairly. “We are here to decide matters and protect the constitution and work according to the rule of law.”
