SUPREME COURT - A COURT OF MANY HOPES AND DISMAY

A new chief justice can change the character of judiciary. He can also be the difference between accountability and wilful oversight

- Nishant

In November, chief justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud delivered a speech at his alma mater Harvard Law School. During the event, a member of the audience raised a query regarding the recent selection of lawyer Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court by the Supreme Court collegium. The question was about the allegation that she had engaged in hate speech and was perceived to be close to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Chandrachud’s response, perceived by many as evasive, involved explaining the functioning of the Indian collegium system to a Western audience. He argued that a lawyer’s personal biases or actions before becoming a judge should not weigh heavily on the collegium, emphasising that India’s judicial system mandates and expects non-partisanship and adherence to constitutional values once a judge takes oath.

It is not coincidental that a question on hate speech was put to Chandrachud in a Western setting. The question could not have been put to his predecessors at the apex court.

Chief Justice’s Court

Historically, the Supreme Court of India, as a custodian of a progressive constitution, has had a liberal constituency both within and outside the country. So does Chandrachud, something that could not be said with clarity and conviction about his many predecessors.

The character of the Supreme Court often changes as a new incumbent takes over as the chief justice. It was believed that with Chandrachud at the helm, the court would acquire the character that the constitution trusted it with, that it would become the same old robust institution that it was meant to be as a branch of democracy which holds the executive accountable.