Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s observations at the Bhutan Distinguished Speakers’ Forum underscore a critical aspect of judicial responsibility: the judiciary’s insulation from popular morality while adjudicating legal and constitutional matters. His insights bring to the fore the vital role of judicial independence in safeguarding constitutional values, even when societal pressures might demand otherwise. The CJI’s argument rests on a foundational principle: judges must remain detached from populist sentiment when deciding questions of law. Popular morality, often shaped by transient trends, is susceptible to shifts that may not align with constitutional values such as equity, fairness, and justice. In contrast, the judiciary, particularly at the highest levels, must base its decisions on enduring legal principles, irrespective of the potential for public dissent. This commitment to impartiality ensures the protection of fundamental rights, even when such rights may appear, at times, at odds with the majority’s preferences.
CJI Chandrachud’s observations also highlight the crucial distinction between the judiciary and the political executive. While the latter is inherently shaped by public opinion through electoral mandates, the judiciary’s credibility rests on its ability to remain unencumbered by such influences. The long-term health of any constitutional democracy depends on this balance, ensuring that judges are not swayed by public pressure but are guided by the rule of law and justice. The focus on transparency and accessibility is equally significant. Measures such as live-streaming court proceedings and hybrid hearings introduced during the pandemic have brought the judicial process closer to the people. By increasing visibility, these steps enhance public trust, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. Technology has played an essential role in bridging geographical divides and enabling marginalised groups, such as persons with disabilities, to access justice more effectively. However, technology is not a panacea. Structural inequalities persist, and it remains the judiciary’s duty to address these challenges. Upholding constitutional values, unfazed by popular morality, while leveraging transparency and technology to strengthen public trust and accessibility is the way forward.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
