Former CJI Chandrachud Rejects Claims of Judicial Influence by Modi Government

New Delhi, 13th February 2025: Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud dismissed concerns that India is evolving into a “one-party” state under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP, referencing the 2024 Lok Sabha election results to support his stance.

In an interview with BBC’s “HARDtalk,” he was asked whether he encountered any political pressure from the Modi government during his tenure. The journalist referenced a New York Times editorial, which claimed that the BJP was exerting influence over the judiciary to protect its members while targeting opposition leaders.

Rejecting the claims in the NYT article as “completely incorrect,” the former CJI stated that the election results demonstrated the strength of regional parties and state-level political dynamics.

“If you examine India’s states, you will see that regional aspirations and identities have gained prominence. Many of these states are governed by regional parties that have performed remarkably well,” he said.

When asked about Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case, the former Chief Justice highlighted that the Supreme Court later stayed the verdict, enabling Gandhi to continue his parliamentary duties.

“The trial court may have ruled in a certain way, but the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the judgment ensured that the political leader in question could resume his activities in Parliament,” he explained.

He also emphasized the judiciary’s commitment to upholding personal liberties, citing the number of bail grants as an example.

“The Supreme Court, in particular, has made it clear that safeguarding personal freedoms is a priority. While individual cases may lead to differing opinions, the judiciary has consistently stood for personal liberty, which is why it enjoys public trust,” he noted.

Regarding Prime Minister Modi’s visit to his residence for Ganesh Chaturthi, which drew criticism from opposition leaders, he dismissed any political implications.

“Our legal system is mature enough to distinguish between formal courtesies exchanged among Constitutional officials and judicial decision-making,” he stated.

He further pointed out that the Supreme Court issued several rulings both before and after the visit that did not favour the government.

“The judiciary’s function in a democracy is distinct from that of the Opposition in Parliament. Our role is to adjudicate cases and uphold the rule of law,” he concluded.