Pratap Bhanu Mehta: D. Y. Chandrachud, a Chief Justice of his time

His self-defence on civil liberties was: ‘I gave so many people bail, from A to Z’, rather than the ‘law and process was applied consistently and fairly. Umar Khalid got the same consideration as Arnab Goswami’

Supreme Court justices demitting office are often subject to a legal scorecard. Assessments go through their rulings and catalogue the good, the bad and the ugly. In more sophisticated assessments, the criteria is not in agreement with those doing the assessing. Often you may disagree with a judgment but it can still be a product of sound or at least plausible legal reasoning. Justice D Y Chandrachud had a long tenure both as a judge and chief justice. In such a long career of a highly pedigreed judge, there are bound to be some judgments that rack up a positive score: At least initially, he showed considerable promise in areas of personal freedom — reproductive rights, right to privacy, gender equality. There are some fine economic and administrative law judgments. But this framework of tallying up a score-card seems entirely inappropriate for as consequential a judge as Justice Chandrachud.

Simply put, if a casting director had chosen a chief justice for the Age of Modi, she would not have found a better candidate. This is an age that is characterised by authoritarianism and communalism. Just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi brilliantly used the democratic form to institutionalise these ends, Justice Chandrachud followed the form of a liberal constitutionalism to achieve the same ends: Consistently legalising majoritarianism.

A LEGACY THAT IS BEST FORGOTTEN

At issue is not simply the Ayodhya judgment where the Supreme Court went even beyond the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. As a one-off judgment, it could be treated as a debatable aberration. As part of a pattern, diluting the Places of Worship Act, creating a legal environment where lots of speech is risky but communal hate speech is not, the delayed restoration of statehood to Kashmir, created a stench of majoritarianism. There are orders that might be salutary, like the recent one on bulldozer justice. But these are of a pattern: Coming too late after considerable damage has been done, and the signals of where the state will go are already enshrined.

On authoritarianism, it gets even worse. Whatever the lofty judicial pronouncements, we were not assured that habeas corpus would be protected. It did not protect dissenters’ rights, or did so only after the state’s processes had literally killed many of them. The arbitrary conduct of agencies continued unabated. Even in possible corruption or conflict of interest cases which had high political stakes, the use of procedural cover-ups to prevent a fair reckoning was astounding. As a chief justice who exercised the discretion that comes with the power of the roster and constitution of the benches, he bears full responsibility for this corrosion. It was also a Court which, in so many cases, from the Maharashtra Assembly case to Article 370, from Delhi government crisis to electoral bonds, used discretion over timing to blunt the force of its own judgment. In effective terms, he left our liberties less secure, our institutions less strong, our faith in the Court weaker.

The scorecard approach in relation to Justice Chandrachud rests on a category mistake. It goes something like “X number of good judgments, Y number of dubious ones.” Justice Chandrachud was more artful than this kind of arithmetic would suggest. Like the prime minister, he could throw a dollop of glossy paint on a building while letting the foundations rot with judicial termite. In retrospect, the good judgments performed exactly that function: They keep the veneer and the form alive, to allow us to pretend that we might still get justice from the Chief Justice of India.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lowering the Bar

A LEGACY THAT IS BEST FORGOTTEN

The Broken Middle

मध्यमार्ग का अवसान: दिलीप सिमियन (EPW, November 2014)

Rahul Pandita: What I learned from G. N. Saibaba

Rosario Livatino – the judge killed by mobsters who is on his way to sainthood

The sinking of Joshimath and the commercialisation of sacredness

Professor’s Harassment by ABVP Shows Near-Complete Takeover of Universities by RSS-BJP

How the RSS, Golwalkar & Hindu Mahasabha glorified caste: Devanur Mahadevan

Anand K. Sahay: The idea behind capturing power in any kind of way: fair or foul

Calicut professor booked for Facebook post praising Godse. (Withdraw the case)