On November 10, Justice DY Chandrachud demitted office after having completed two years as Chief Justice of India (CJI), a position that has come under close scrutiny over the last decade.
While some of his predecessors copped legitimate criticism for a host of reasons, the outgoing CJI addressed some of those concerns, but managed to court controversy in other ways.
Bar & Bench has extensively reported on the reforms initiated by him and landmark judgments during his time in office (read here and here).
This piece, however, will attempt to engage with something the ex-CJI has himself pondered over recently - his legacy and how history will judge him as the 'first among equals' in the Supreme Court.
Focus on judicial work
Through his tenure, CJI Chandrachud dedicated as much time to judicial work as he did to administrative work. He was part of 23 Constitution Benches, delivering 16 judgments in these cases.
Under CJI Chandrachud's watch, the Supreme Court continued his predecessor's mission to list and dispose of long-pending Constitution Bench matters.
To read a detailed account of important judgments he passed as CJI and as a judge of the Supreme Court, click here.
Collegium resolutions
In the midst of a very public tussle with then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, the Collegium headed by CJI Chandrachud stuck to its guns while reiterating names rejected by the government. It said that the Central government's concern over the sexual orientation of Saurabh Kirpal and the political views expressed by R John Sathyan were not reason enough to reject their candidature.
It is a different matter that neither has been elevated till date. More on that later.
Apart from revealing the reasons why the government rejected names, the resolutions also showed the Collegium's disagreement over an appointee. One resolution also highlighted when consultee judges found certain candidates inadequate for elevation. These initiatives brought a semblance of transparency to an otherwise opaque process.
Tech-friendly initiatives
Under Chandrachud J's watch, the Registry of the apex court has evolved into a completely paperless one, and several courts are fully digital, where the exchange of paper files is a thing of the past. However, verification of petitions still requires a physical print-out that is then scanned by the Registry marking defects, if any.
The Court under CJI Chandrachud has launched the Electronic-Supreme Court Reports (e-SCR) project by which several of the top court's judgments became available online for free; the Advocate Appearance Slip Portal to do away with manual filing of appearance by advocates-on-record thereby saving paper; the online Right to Information portal, Neutral Citations System; and more.
The digital revolution was not limited to the Supreme Court alone as it seeped down to the High Courts and district courts across the country, the credit for which goes to CJI Chandrachud.
Championing the cause of the differently-abled
Up until his last working day, CJI Chandrachud did a lot to introduce disability-friendly initiatives both inside and outside the Court.
His judgment on Friday directed the Union government to address inconsistencies in the existing legal framework on accessibility rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act and Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.
He even travelled the extra mile to ensure that visually challenged petitioners desirous of appearing in the Rajasthan civil judges exam could appear in it. This was also followed by his judgment where a candidate with muscular dystrophy was permitted to appear for the NEET counselling after being examined and declared medically fit to pursue the MBBS course with assistive devices.
In a progressive judgment founded on empathy and a rich understanding of various social models of reasonable accommodation, the Supreme Court in June this year had laid down a comprehensive framework for portrayal of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in visual media.
In the apex court itself, Chandrachud J constituted Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility, headed by Justice (retd) Ravindra Bhat. The Committee released a report recommending installation of necessary infrastructure to make the apex court premises disabled-friendly.
He also inaugurated Mitti Cafe, an establishment entirely run by disabled persons, in the Supreme Court premises.
Letting the government sit over appointments and transfers
The Collegium under CJI Chandrachud appeared helpless to the government's defiance of and delay in processing appointments and transfers of High Court judges, some of which were reiterated.
In a strange turn of events, the outgoing CJI as master of the roster deleted a case concerning the delay in appointments from the causelist in December last year and never listed it since.
That case was being heard by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who had pulled up the Central government and the Attorney General several times for dragging their feet over appointments and rendering the Collegium's functioning ineffective.
Flummoxed by the deletion of the case from his causelist, Justice Kaul had said in open court,
"I had not deleted it or expressed unwillingness to take it up. I am sure the CJI is aware of it (deletion). Some things are best left unsaid. We will see."
Instead of clarifying the issue, highly-placed officials in the top court justified the deletion (on the condition of anonymity) to Bar & Bench.
Listing of cases
Even as the CJI waxed eloquent about civil liberties in speeches outside court, he assigned bail matters involving opposition leaders to a Bench that clearly believed that the Supreme Court should not interfere in such cases.
Then, in an open letter addressed to the CJI, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave had claimed that many cases which were being heard by certain benches were shifted out and listed before other benches, in violation of the Supreme Court Rules and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure of the Court. Dave had also previously claimed in open court that cases earlier heard by a bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose were wrongly being transferred to a bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi, who is junior to Justice Bose.
A source in the Supreme Court replied that as per the system in place, a case can be assigned to any judge on the bench - junior or senior. The case then follows the judge to whom it has been assigned, irrespective of whether or not he is the presiding judge.
Pertaining to the listing of cases concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the source stated that a "group of people might feel that they can control the judges they want for matters to be listed, but it does not work like that."
Not ruling on Jammu & Kashmir's Statehood
Five years after the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court in its December 2023 decision upheld the Centre's controversial move to rescind the special status to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court reasoned that Article 370 was a transitory provision, and bizarrely, refused to decide on the validity of the 2019 law that had paved the way for the bifurcation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
Instead, the Bench led by CJI Chandrachud (who authored the unanimous decision) recorded an assurance given by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that Statehood would 'eventually' be restored to the region.
The deadline for the same, September 30, has already lapsed.
No women judges appointed to the Supreme Court
The Collegium under CJI Chandrachud failed to appoint a single woman judge to the Supreme Court, out of the 18 appointments made.
While the CJI has reasoned that the pool of women candidates has to widen and will happen over the coming decades, the ignorance to calls for representation of half the population is tone-deaf at best.
Lack of consultation among judges
On November 5, President of India Droupadi Murmu launched three publications of the Supreme Court in the presence of CJI Chandrachud, CJI-designate Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal.
This launch came as news to one of the judges of the top court, who claimed that none of them were consulted over the initiatives. The judge told Bar & Bench,
"It was just after we got back from Diwali, we saw the invite on our table for the book release. These books are released by the Supreme Court and not by just an individual. The judges were not consulted at all, from number three to the last. I do not think such a thing happened ever in the Supreme Court."
Another judge revealed that full court consultations were not always peaceful. He revealed that when the full court meeting was held to approve names of certain lawyers for designation as senior advocates, a vocal disagreement ensued.
Two judges of the apex court differed with the CJI on some names, but dropped the issue after failing to persuade him. A stand-off between another judge and CJI Chandrachud was much more heated.
This judge continued to disagree with the Chief over a senior designation, and even exchanged some warring words with one of the registrars. At this point, the anonymous judge reveals, CJI Chandrachud had to remind him that "he was speaking to the Chief Justice of India."
Soon thereafter, the judge in question left the full court meeting midway.
On the last working day of CJI Chandrachud, a judge highlighted the lack of meaningful consultations among judges on the Bench in a case.
Justice Dipankar Datta expressed his anguish with the seemingly late circulation of the draft majority judgment authored by CJI Chandrachud in the Aligarh Muslim University case, and the subsequent lack of meaningful meetings to discuss the verdict.
Weekend lectures and weekday orders
As was the case with a previous CJI, Justice Chandrachud's tenure was marked by photo-ops and weekend sermons from podiums of various events.
At times, there was a dissonance between his speeches and the rulings he passed.
Despite sounding clarion calls to promote India as an arbitration hub, the outgoing CJI, in a departure from usual practice, interfered at the curative stage with an arbitral award that was in favour of a private party litigating with a government firm.
The Supreme Court in April set aside a ₹2,800 crore arbitral award in favor of the Anil Ambani firm, Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in relation to the dispute over the Delhi Airport Express Line.
The top court had effectively restored a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had ruled in favour of DMRC before the Supreme Court had set aside (and later upheld) the same. The move sparked concerns over the finality of arbitral awards and, consequently, India's prospects of becoming an international arbitration hub.
Issue over money bills
Money bills are those bills that exclusively contain provisions for imposition of taxes and appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India. They can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can only suggest amendments to money bills, but the same aren't binding.
The BJP-led government had introduced various laws as money bills to allegedly circumvent the Rajya Sabha, where they did not have the strength to get them passed.
One such law was the Aadhaar Act. While a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in September 2018 approved its passage as a money bill, Justice Chandrachud (then a puisne judge), was the sole dissenter.
He held that the Aadhaar Act encompassed much more than mere use of funds from Consolidated Fund and hence, its passage as money bill was a fraud upon the Constitution.
Another Constitution Bench in November 2019 said that the passage of Finance Act 2017 as a money bill should be decided by a larger Bench. The decision came in a batch of petitions concerning the functioning of tribunals including a challenge to the Finance Act 2017, which had revamped the schemes governing the functioning of tribunals.
Since both these judgments were by five-judge Benches, the matter has to be settled by a seven-judge Bench.
Justice Chandrachud had the opportunity to list and decide this crucial case during his tenure as CJI, especially considering his strongly-worded dissent in the Aadhaar matter.
But despite remarking in May 2023 that he has been wanting to list for final hearing the case over the legality of passing certain laws as money bills, the same never saw the light of day.
The pendency of the case since 2019 has meant that several Bills made enforceable without the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha continue to be immune to judicial review. It has enabled the Union government, which at the time enjoyed a brute majority in the Lok Sabha, to get away with making bail next to impossible in laws like the PMLA, sans parliamentary debate.
Holier than thou
At a time when questions of judicial independence were being raised, the CJI invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to visit his residence to participate in a Ganpati Puja, sparking a debate over the separation of powers.
The entire interaction was captured on video and shared widely on social media through the official handles of the PM, close on the heels of the Maharashtra Assembly polls.
Though the CJI later clarified in interviews that such meetings between the executive and the judiciary were common and that "no deals were struck" during such meets, it did little to douse the fire of speculation.
Last month, while addressing the residents of his native Kanhersar village in Maharashtra's Khed taluka, he said that he had prayed to God to find a solution to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2019.
The Supreme Court had on November 9, 2019 decided the Ayodhya case in favour of the Hindu parties, even as it found that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was an illegal act.
Non-appointment of meritorious High Court judges and altering of Collegium recommendations
The Collegium under CJI Chandrachud effectively sided with the Central government over the non-appointment of Justice Dr S Muralidhar as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
As a result of the Centre's reluctance - and the Collegium having turned a blind eye to the same - the potential appointments of Justices Muralidhar, Rajiv Shakdher and Akil Kureshi to the Supreme Court were stymied. Instead, these judges ended up being given 'punishment postings' to other High Courts before retirement.
It is worthwhile to note that all three judges had passed judicial orders critical of the Central government or its functionaries and perhaps paid the price for doing so.
Though the Collegium has the last word on appointments, CJI Chandrachud did precious little to push them through in the wake of the Centre's opposition.
In September this year, the Collegium altered its initial recommendation on appointment of four High Court judges as Chief Justices after the Centre's inaction.
Letting the Delhi Lieutenant Governor go scot-free
In two cases, the Supreme Court allowed Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena to take advantage of deferment of hearings related to the exercise of his powers in the national capital.
After some (arguably needless) confusion among coordinate benches over who should hear the case concerning illegal felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge Forest, the CJI chose not to allocate it to the Bench that had been pulling up the authorities, including the LG.
When the case came up on CJI Chandrachud's last day, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan clarified that even though applicants waited in the court till 5 pm, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), headed by the LG did not submit the documents, creating "contempt after contempt."
To this, the CJI replied that the case will be assigned and it can no longer be heard by him due to paucity of time.
If the previous hearing is any indication, the Court is now moving towards the approach of compensatory afforestation, far from what the applicants really wanted - punishment for the LG for disobedience of court orders.
What then is the legacy of someone who is widely considered one of the most erudite minds in the Indian judiciary, as he leaves office?
As many columns and blogposts have pointed out, CJI Chandrachud played to the gallery, sometimes at the cost of judicial propriety. And it is this tendency to please everyone that probably dented his image. The irony is that despite such attempts, he ended up being, in his own words, "the most trolled judge".
His is as good an example as any that judges are just like the rest of us - only human. It is perhaps because they sit on literal pedestals that we expect them to be more than mere mortals.
There is a tendency to view those in power - especially one who has as much as the CJI does - with a negativity bias. It is, after all, the media's duty to speak truth to power, as Chandrachud J's has himself held in many of his rulings. To his credit, he has shoulders broad enough to take the criticism.
And despite his affable demeanour in and outside court, the technological reforms he introduced, and some important judgments holding the executive to account and safeguarding civil liberties, it is difficult to pin-point what exactly his legacy will be.
Perhaps we should ask God.