Never faced any political pressure from 'powers that be': CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Tuesday said that he has never experienced political pressure from any government during his 24-year-long tenure as a judge. .The Supreme Court judge made the comment while responding to a question posed during a discussion hosted in London by the Oxford Union Society, University of Oxford."Political pressure, if what is referred to is pressure from the government, I would tell you that in the 24 years that I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be because some of the democratic traditions that we follow in India include (sic) that we live lives that are relatively isolated from the political arm of the government," CJI Chandrachud said. .The CJI, however, added that the judges face political pressure of a different kind when they are called to decide on politically sensitive cases. "If you mean political pressure in a broader sense of a judge realising the impact of a decision which may have political ramifications – obviously, judges have to be conversant with the impact of their decisions on the polity at large. That is not political pressure, I believe. That is an understanding by the court of the impact or the likely impact of the decision-making process, which the judge must necessarily factor in into their considerations," he said. .CJI Chandrachud added that courts also often face social pressure."Many of the cases that we decide involve intense societal impacts and as judges I do believe that it is our duty to be cognisant of the impact of our decisions on the social (group) that we are going to affect," he explained. .The question and answer session was preceded by a speech by the CJI on the topic “Role of courts in humanising law." In his address, the CJI spoke about how law and court process may sometimes have a dehumanising effect on people and how the courts can step in to address such issues. The judicial review process, which focuses on the effects a law may have on individual freedoms and dignity, is one way in which courts can humanise the law, he noted. .Parliament should decide, not courts, on recognition of same-sex marriage: CJI ChandrachudA question linked to the Supreme Court's decision to turn down a prayer for legal recognition of same-sex marriages later led CJI to comment that while he was not defending the judgment, there were limits to the court's powers of judicial review."It is the duty of the judiciary to humanise the law, but equally when you humanise the law, you cannot disregard the law unless you strike down the law. (The Special Marriage Act) contemplates a marriage in a heterosexual relationship ... Can the courts then override the provisions of that law and read that as “man and man” and “woman and woman”? We said, we can’t do it. Another aspect is that the entire gamut of the domain of marriage is governed by legislation in India, across communities. Therefore, we (Supreme Court Bench) felt that if we have to recognise same-sex marriages, this is something which has to be done by the parliament, which is entrusted with the duty of law-making," he said.He also reiterated his view that the Court should at least recognise the right to form civil unions for same sex couples until the Parliament steps in. .Social media criticism sometimes unfair but judges can handle it: CJI ChandrachudIn the Q&A session, CJI Chandrachud was also asked a question touching on the advent of social media criticism of courts."In our courts today, you have live tweeting by the minute. Every remark which is said by a judge is conveyed on social media. That is something which we cannot stop. Obviously, we are on the receiving end on occasion. Sometimes, the criticism is fair; sometimes the criticism isn’t fair. I do believe, as judges our shoulders are broad enough to accept the critique that people have on the work that we do," he said, in response.The judge remarked that "every citizen on social media is a journalist" and observed that he is sometimes surprised to find social media posts on comments that the court did not make.However, he opined that such things are beyond one's control and expressed hope that the good side of technology will prevail."Very often when I see comments about what we have not said in the social media, I say ‘we never said this!’ But is that within our control or are we living in a society that is so much beyond our control in terms of social media? But I always believe that the powers of the good prevails over the evil. Therefore, notwithstanding the flipsides of technology, notwithstanding the sometimes be unwarranted criticism of judges, technology allows us to reach out to people and explain to them of the seriousness with which we attend to problems of common citizens," he said.He went on to speak of how technology has helped widen public access to justice in India, whether it be in terms of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to translate court judgments, digitisation of court records, the advent of virtual hearings and the promotion of e-court services."Hybrid hearings have allowed the Supreme Court to become not just the Supreme Court of that location in Delhi but truly a Supreme Court of the entire nation. Lawyers can (now) address us from across the country. A litigant in a remote part of India can watch the proceedings in their case," CJI Chandrachud said..Audit may be needed to assess state of judicial infra when laws are changed: CJI ChandrachudIn response to a question that touched upon the issue of high case pendency, CJI Chandrachud observed that issue is also linked to judicial infrastructure.He recounted that when cheque bouncing (which used to be a civil wrong) was criminialised, there was an abrupt rise in the burden for criminal courts.In this context, he observed,"I do believe that when new laws are enacted, a legislative audit has to be done on the impact of the law on the existing judicial infrastructure. If it is going to make a demand on judicial infrastructure, we have to improve the available judicial infrastructure."He also noted that the judge to litigant ratio in India remains one of the lowest in the world, and said that various measures are being taken in India to tackle backlogs - from ensuring judicial vacancies are promptly filled up to using technology to club similar cases for common and faster disposal..The introductory remarks for the event were delivered by Advocate Tanvi Dubey and the discussion was moderated by Prajwal Pandey from Oxford Union..[Read coverage of main speech]