Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Chandrachud speaks about the role of judges in humanising the law

Summary

The Chief Justice of India discusses the importance of taking the process of justice and law to the people, balancing strict adherence to legal principles with the need to humanize the law. He elaborates on the judicial role in interpreting ambiguous laws, ensuring fair outcomes while respecting constitutional values. The conversation covers judicial activism, the separation of powers, and the impact of international law on Indian jurisprudence. The Chief Justice emphasizes transparency, technological advancements in the judiciary, and the ongoing challenge of case backlogs. He highlights the role of the judiciary in maintaining democratic values amidst political and social pressures.

Takeaways

• ⚖️ The Chief Justice of India emphasizes the importance of bringing justice and the administration of law to the homes and hearts of people.
• 📜 Judges interpret ambiguous laws to achieve constitutional purposes while ensuring outcomes are fair and just.
• 🧑‍⚖️ The Chief Justice believes in a fluid interpretation of law rather than strictly categorizing judges as activists.
• 🏛️ There's a clear distinction between the roles of the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive in a constitutional democracy.
• 👩‍❤️‍👩 The judiciary cannot legislate, and changes to laws, such as recognizing same-sex marriage, should be made by Parliament.
• 🌍 Indian courts extensively reference international conventions and comparative jurisprudence to inform their rulings.
• 🧠 The Indian judiciary uses technology to broaden access to justice, including AI for translating judgments and video conferencing.
• 📈 A high volume of cases indicates public trust in the judiciary, despite challenges like case backlogs.
• 🔍 Judges must consider the social and political impacts of their decisions without succumbing to external pressures.
• 🌟 The goal of the judiciary is to make society more humane, accessible, tolerant, and compassionate through reasoned dialogue.

Q & A

What is the Chief Justice of India's firm conviction regarding justice and law?

The Chief Justice of India firmly believes that the process of justice and the administration of law should reach the homes and hearts of people.

How does the Chief Justice of India balance strict adherence to legal principles with humanizing the law?

The Chief Justice explains that judges interpret the law, which often contains ambiguous phrases, to achieve the law's purpose consistent with constitutional principles. This involves interpreting the law to facilitate fair and humane outcomes.

Does the Chief Justice of India believe in the concept of an activist court?

No, the Chief Justice does not believe in the binary of human existence and activism. Instead, he sees the function of a judge as fluid, emphasizing that interpreting the law to uphold constitutional values and societal impacts is not activism but a duty.

What was the Chief Justice's stance on the ruling regarding the Special Marriage Act and same-sex marriage?

The Chief Justice emphasized that the Special Marriage Act, as written by Parliament, specifies marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore, it was not within the court's purview to reinterpret this to include same-sex marriage, though he personally believed in recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

How do Indian courts view the influence of international law and precedents?

Indian courts frequently reference international conventions and treaties, especially those to which India is a party, to inform their decisions. Comparative jurisprudence from various countries also influences Indian judicial decisions.

What role does technology play in the Indian judicial system?

Technology has been employed to broaden access to justice through video conferencing, digitizing court records, and using AI for translating judgments into various Indian languages, making the judicial process more accessible to the public.

What are the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary regarding case backlogs?

Challenges include a low judge-to-population ratio, unfilled judicial positions, and legislative impacts on judicial infrastructure. Measures to address these include increasing the number of judges, filling vacancies promptly, and using technology for case categorization.

How does the Chief Justice of India view the basic structure doctrine?

The basic structure doctrine, established in 1973, limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It ensures that certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain protected and is also used as an interpretative tool to uphold constitutional values.

How does the Indian judiciary maintain public trust?

Public trust is maintained through transparency, accountability, and extensive use of technology. The high number of cases filed indicates a strong level of public trust in the judiciary as the Last Frontier for justice.

What advice does the Chief Justice of India offer for future judges?

The Chief Justice advises that judges should strive to make society more livable, humane, tolerant, and compassionate through their decisions, ensuring that justice is achieved through reasoned and orderly discourse.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Balancing Legal Principles with Humanizing Law

Chief Justice discusses the challenge of adhering to strict legal principles while also humanizing the law. He emphasizes the importance of interpreting ambiguous legal phrases to align with constitutional principles and the purpose of the law. The Chief Justice highlights the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy, which is to promote not just adherence to the rule of law, but to a fair law with both procedural and substantive justice. He also addresses the misconception that a humanized approach to law necessitates an activist court, explaining that a judge's duty is to uphold the Constitution and interpret laws in a manner that respects the separation of powers.

05:01

🏳️‍🌈 Judicial Review and Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

The Chief Justice explains the court's decision to delegate the legislation of same-sex marriage to the Parliament, citing the judiciary's inability to legislate. He clarifies the court's role in interpreting laws and the authority to strike down laws that do not align with constitutional principles. The Chief Justice shares his minority opinion on recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples until the Parliament legislates on the matter, and he stresses the importance of societal acceptance and the role of other societal institutions in addressing disputes, rather than relying solely on the courts.

10:01

🌐 International Law and Indian Judiciary

The Chief Justice discusses the influence of international law and proceedings on the Indian judiciary. He notes that Indian courts have extensively referred to international conventions and treaties, especially those to which India is a party, in interpreting domestic laws. The Chief Justice also mentions the use of comparative jurisprudence from other jurisdictions, with the caveat that judicial precedents must be considered within the cultural context of Indian society. He provides examples of how international law has shaped decisions in India, such as the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.

15:02

🏛️ The Role of Judiciary in a Democracy

The Chief Justice speaks on the judiciary's role in a democracy, particularly during elections, and the importance of maintaining independence, social justice, and minority rights. He differentiates the roles of elected representatives and judges, emphasizing the judiciary's duty to uphold constitutional values and the rule of fair law. The Chief Justice also addresses the public's trust in the judiciary and the impact of social media on the perception of court decisions.

20:02

🤔 Public Perception and the Judiciary

The Chief Justice addresses the issue of public perception of the judiciary, particularly the challenges posed by social media and the spread of misinformation. He acknowledges the criticism and scrutiny that judges face but maintains that the judiciary's duty is to ensure justice and protect the rights of citizens. The Chief Justice also discusses the use of technology in the courts to improve access to justice and the importance of transparency and accountability in building public trust.

25:03

📈 Judicial Delays and the Need for Reform

The Chief Justice acknowledges the issue of judicial delays in India and outlines measures being taken to address this problem. He discusses the need for more judges, the importance of filling vacancies promptly, and the use of technology to streamline case management. The Chief Justice also highlights the need for legislative audits to assess the impact of new laws on the judicial system and the importance of improving judicial infrastructure.

30:09

🏛️ The Basic Structure Doctrine and Its Application

The Chief Justice explains the Basic Structure Doctrine, a fundamental principle in Indian constitutional law that protects certain features of the Constitution from being altered by parliamentary amendments. He discusses how the doctrine has been used both to assess the validity of constitutional amendments and as an interpretative tool to facilitate the achievement of constitutional objectives, such as federalism.

35:11

🌐 Global Influence of Indian Judiciary

The Chief Justice reflects on the global influence of the Indian judiciary, noting that judges worldwide are in dialogue with each other and that the work of the Indian Supreme Court impacts and is influenced by other jurisdictions. He emphasizes the importance of judgments as a means of shaping societal dialogue and promoting the values of democracy and reason.

40:14

👥 Public Trust and Transparency in Courts

The Chief Justice discusses the importance of public trust in the judiciary and the role of transparency and technology in enhancing this trust. He highlights the high volume of cases filed in Indian courts as an indicator of the public's faith in the judicial system. The Chief Justice also stresses the need for courts to be accountable and accessible to the people, using technology to allow citizens to better understand and engage with the judicial process.

🌟 Leaving a Lasting Legacy in the Judiciary

In conclusion, the Chief Justice shares his personal perspective on the legacy he hopes to leave as a judge. He expresses the desire to be remembered for contributing to a more humane, accessible, tolerant, and compassionate society through his work in the judiciary. He emphasizes the importance of facilitating dialogue and reason in resolving disputes and upholding the fundamental values of democracy.

Keywords

💡Judicial craftsmanship

Judicial craftsmanship refers to the skill and art of interpreting and applying the law by judges in a manner that is consistent with constitutional principles. It is central to the video's theme as the Chief Justice discusses the balance between strict adherence to legal principles and humanizing the law. For instance, the Chief Justice mentions that judges must interpret ambiguous legal phrases to facilitate the law's purpose while adhering to the Constitution.

💡Affirmative action

Affirmative action is a set of policies aimed at increasing opportunities for members of groups that have been discriminated against in the past. In the video, the Chief Justice uses it as an example to illustrate how courts can humanize outcomes without compromising the law's language, by interpreting it in a way that furthers the law's ideals and is constitutional.

💡Constitutional democracy

A constitutional democracy is a form of government where power is limited by a constitution and where democratic principles are central. The concept is key to the video as it frames the discussion on the role of judges in upholding both the rule of law and the rule of fair law, as highlighted by the Chief Justice's remarks on the judiciary's duty in a constitutional democracy like India.

💡Judicial activism

Judicial activism refers to a philosophy of judicial interpretation that favors a broad and progressive interpretation of the law, often resulting in decisions that have a significant impact on societal issues. The Chief Justice addresses this concept, explaining that judges are not activists but are fulfilling their duty by interpreting the law to give effect to constitutional values and focusing on the effects of their interpretations.

💡Separation of powers

Separation of powers is a political doctrine that holds that the government of a state should be divided into separate branches, each with distinct and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The Chief Justice discusses this principle in the context of the judiciary's role in relation to the legislature and the executive, emphasizing the importance of each branch respecting the others' domains.

💡Special Marriage Act

The Special Marriage Act is a law in India that allows couples belonging to different religious faiths to enter into marriage. The Chief Justice mentions this Act to discuss the judiciary's decision to delegate the legislation of same-sex marriage to the Parliament, highlighting the court's stance on not overstepping its jurisdiction by legislating.

💡Humanizing the law

Humanizing the law involves making legal processes and outcomes more compassionate, accessible, and reflective of human values. The Chief Justice's conviction that the judiciary should take justice and law administration to the people's homes and hearts exemplifies this concept, as does his discussion on making judgments that consider the effects on individuals and society.

💡Judicial review

Judicial review is the power of a court to review and determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The Chief Justice refers to this power as a principle of the Indian Constitution, which allows courts to interpret and, if necessary, strike down laws that are incompatible with constitutional principles.

💡Digital divide

Digital divide refers to the gap between individuals who have access to modern information and communication technology, and those who lack such access. The Chief Justice discusses the digital divide in the context of India's efforts to use technology, such as artificial intelligence and video conferencing, to broaden access to justice while ensuring that those without internet access can still utilize court services.

💡Basic structure doctrine

The basic structure doctrine is a principle in Indian constitutional law that asserts that certain features of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments. The Chief Justice explains that this doctrine has been used both to review the validity of constitutional amendments and as an interpretative tool to facilitate the achievement of constitutional objectives.

💡Public trust

Public trust refers to the confidence that citizens have in the institutions that govern them. The Chief Justice addresses the issue of public trust in the judiciary, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in building and maintaining this trust. He suggests that technological initiatives can help improve transparency and, by extension, public trust.

Highlights

Chief Justice emphasizes the need to humanize the law and make justice accessible to all.

Balancing strict adherence to legal principles with the imperative to humanize the law through interpretation.

The role of judges in constitutional democracies is to promote not just rule of law, but a fair law with both procedural and substantive justice.

Judicial craftsmanship involves interpreting ambiguous legal phrases to facilitate the law's purpose in a constitutionally consistent manner.

Activism in courts is not about overstepping boundaries but fulfilling the duty of adjudication within the framework of the Constitution.

The judiciary's approach to humanizing the law includes focusing on the effects of judgments and their societal impact.

The Chief Justice's stance on the Special Marriage Act, emphasizing the judiciary's inability to legislate and the need for parliamentary action on same-sex marriage.

The importance of societal acceptance and the judiciary's role in facilitating dialogue on contentious issues like same-sex relationships.

The judiciary's use of technology, such as AI for translating judgments and video conferencing, to broaden access to justice.

The Chief Justice's views on the role of international law and precedents in shaping Indian jurisprudence.

Comparative constitutionalism and the influence of the UK's uncodified Constitution on India's codified Constitution.

The judiciary's response to political pressure and the importance of maintaining independence and impartiality.

Initiatives to reduce judicial backlog, including increasing the judge-to-population ratio and using AI for case categorization.

The basic structure doctrine's role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring the protection of fundamental features.

The Chief Justice's vision for the judiciary's influence on shaping a more humane, accessible, and tolerant society.

Public trust in the judiciary, as evidenced by the high volume of cases filed, and efforts to enhance transparency and accountability.

The final piece of advice from the Chief Justice on the judiciary's role in fostering reasoned dialogue and protecting democratic values.

Transcripts

as Chief Justice of India it has been my

very firm conviction that we need to

take the process of justic and the

administration of law to the homes and

hearts of

people thank you very much for those

insightful words uh Chief Justice of

course being a member of India Supreme

Court a big part of your role is to

adhere to very strict legal principles

which form the Bedrock of the Indian

constitution how how then do you balance

a strict adherence to these legal

principles with the imperative to

humanize the

law well a large part of the work which

judges do is to interpret the law and

the law uses phrases very often which

are ambiguous phrases of a very broad

content and diversity in itself and that

is I think the essence of the task of

judicial craftsmanship to allow for an

interpretation of the law which would

facilitate achieving the purpose of the

law and facilitate achieving the purpose

in a manner which is consistent with

constitutional principles uh so if

you're dealing with a case involving

affirmative action and the law provides

for affirmative action the effort of the

Court would be to humanize the outcome

of the case without doing Injustice to

the language of the law by using phrases

or interpreting phrases which the law

embodies in a manner which would would

further the ideals of the law in a

manner which is consistent with the

Constitution because the task of a judge

in a a a constitutional democracy like

ours uh the task of a judge is not just

to promote adherence to the rule of law

but to promote the adherance to a rule

of fair

law both in terms of its procedural

implications and the substantive

outcomes and of course you mention one

of your recommendations for humanizing

the law as you just mentioned is courts

making judgments focused on the the

effect of those judgments do you then

believe that a commitment to humanizing

the law necessarily entails an activist

Court well uh speaking for myself I mean

that's possibly a matter of experience I

don't really believe in binaries of uh

human existence I look at the law and

the function of the judge in more fluid

terms so uh when a judge is interpreting

the law to give effect to constitutional

values or focusing on the effects of a

particular interpretation as opposed to

merely the purpose of the law the judge

is not really being an activist when we

call judges activist it has a sort of a

pejorative implication that the judge is

trenching upon a area or domain which is

reserved for the executive or the

legislature now as judges we are deeply

conversent with the fact and cognizant

of the fact that there's so much that we

can do and and so much which in a

democracy governed by the rule of law

and the separation of powers is meant to

be done by the legislature by our

parliaments by our state legislatures

and by the governments who are elected

governments of the day and we respect

that distinction between what is

assigned to the legislature what is

assigned to the government the task of

administration and what is assigned to

us the task of adjudication uh but

having said that therefore I wouldn't

really say that the work which we do is

of Judges who are activist but I think

it's a plain sense of Duty because when

the Constitution established an

independent Judiciary governed by

principles of judicial review which we

of course have Ed from our common law

traditions and which we have built upon

uh at the same time I do believe that

the work which you do is just a matter

of plain Duty and nothing more than

that of course that's very interesting

you bring up the important aspect of the

separation of powers and the roles of

the legislature versus the Judiciary of

course applying this to a very Infamous

uh recent ruling the ruling on the

special Marriage Act last year your

justification for delegating the

legislation of samesex marriage to the

legislature was that in your own words

the Judiciary cannot

legislate do you believe that this

principle is compatible with the

judiciary's duty to humanize the law

well of course the it is the it is the

duty of the Judiciary to humanize the

law but equally when you humanize the

law you cannot disregard the law unless

you strike down the law in in a country

like India which is governed by a

constitutional uh principle of judicial

review the court has not merely the duty

to interpret the law but the authority

in a given case to even strike down the

law now you call the Judgment in the

special Marriage Act case uh Infamous

but I'll just share with you what the

real issue was and I'm not here to

defend a judgment because as a judge I

believe that when you deliver a judgment

it becomes the property of not just the

nation but Global Humanity therefore

it's for others to critique the Judgment

but I just like to tell you this that

the special Marriage Act was a law which

was enacted by parament and the purpose

of the law was to allow for couples

belonging to different religious faiths

to enter into marriage now the law uses

the expression man and woman so the law

is very clear it contemplates a marriage

in a heterosexual relationship it

provides for a variety of other things

including succession including things

like who are the which are the

prohibited relationships uh which cannot

enter into a marriage for men and women

separately separate ages of marriage for

men and separate ages for of marriage

for women so what we felt was that

nobody wanted the law to be challenged

because if the law was struck

down you'd be in a situation

where there would be no governing

principle allowing for couples of

different faiths to get married which

the special Marriage Act does so here

you have a law which specifically uses

the words man and woman can the court

then override the provisions of that law

and read that as man and man or woman

and woman and we said we can't do it now

another aspect which I must emphasize is

that the entire gamut or domain of

marriage is governed by legislation in

India across

communities now therefore we felt that

if you have to recognize same-sex

marriages this is something which has to

be done by Parliament which is entrust

with the duty of lawmaking but I must

also share with you that I was in a

minority in that case on a certain

specific aspect because I believed that

the court should recognize at least the

right to form civil unions for same-sex

couples until such time as Parliament

stepped in and legislated on the subject

three of my colleagues didn't agree with

us they felt that even the recognition

of samesex unions was beyond the the

purview of the court but having said

this and I I'll leave the question with

just this thought that what happens in

courts in modern democracies is not only

to be looked at in terms of the

substantive outcomes of a case the court

is involved in a continuous process of

dialogue a dialogue not only with the

litigating parties but a dialogue with

wider civil society and that's one of

the reasons why we have now decided to

Liv stream our important constitutional

cases because as Chief Justice of India

it has been my very firm conviction that

we need to take the process of justic

and the administration of law to the

homes and hearts of people people must

understand that the smallest issues

which come up before the courts attract

the most serious of application of mind

and in this case I do believe that

between the date when we decriminalized

homosexuality in navet Singh johar and

today there's a wider societal

acceptance of these

relationships and I do uh think uh

speaking for myself as a judge that

there is so much which has to be done by

Society itself and by other Wings in in

in a modern democracy you cannot look to

the courts to resolve every issue of

dispute that may arise in society it's

important as judges that we draw the

line and decide what legitimately

belongs to our jurisdiction and what

legitimately belongs to other wings of

society including Civil Society itself I

just wanted to pick up on that point do

you then believe that without the

cooperation of the legislature and

greater Civil Society the law cannot be

humanized well I I I do believe that you

know the the legislature has performed a

very valuable role in in humanizing the

law uh you have a host of social welfare

legislations uh and that's not true only

in India it's true in South Africa it it

was true in say the New Deal legislation

which came into the United States in the

years of the uh the Great Depression so

legislatures across uh jurisdictions

across civilizations and and time have

attempted to humanize the law but having

said that they're obviously interest es

which are left undefined by legislatures

very often legislator look at the wider

social good which the law has to follow

and in The Pursuit Of The Wider social

good which legislatures legitimately

follow and we respect them for doing

that there is always the danger of

individual cases leading to grave

Injustice and I believe that is where

the critical role of a judge comes in to

ensure that while you do not disregard

the law the letter of the law you also

craft your opinions and your remedies

and your reliefs in a manner which would

protect the ends of Justice in a

particular case and there's a provision

of the Indian constitution which is very

unique because it allows the court the

Supreme Court to Do complete Justice to

the facts of that particular case which

we employ very very

regularly thank you for that um I just

like to expand the scope of our

conversation to an international scale I

was curious as to how Indian coats take

inspiration from international law and

proceedings before International courts

so for example with the South African

interim measures application against

Israel before the international courts

of Justice do Indian courts look at such

instances of intervention as positive or

guard against overreaching their mandate

under local laws uh well uh throughout

our history over the last 75 years we

have extensively looked at International

conventions including in particular

conventions to which India is a party so

you would find uh a very repeated

reference to the uh Covenant on civil

and political rights or economic social

and cultural rights so we have never

stopped short of looking at the emerging

consensus in the International Community

while interpreting provisions of our own

law uh I'll give you just one example

the convention on the elimination of all

forms of discrimination against women

was one of the key

components of the decision of the Indian

Supreme Court when we dealt with uh the

protection of women against sexual

harassment in the workplace which

eventually LED Parliament to enact a law

following a judgment of our court so you

would find in a whole host of areas we

have relied on International treaties uh

conventions to which India is a party

and sometimes even those to which India

is not a party the other area where we

have relied on comparative Juris

Prudence including Juris Prudence from

the UK uh is judicial precedent which is

not in that sense international law

strictly speaking but we are adopting

principles of judicial interpretation

followed by other jurisdictions

including the UK Australia South Africa

countries in our own neighborhood

including Bangladesh and Nepal uh the

United States so we look at a diverse uh

set of uh International precedence with

a caveat though which is that all

predent particularly judicial precedent

is born out of the specific cultural

traditions of each Society so it's not

that you can you know transplant a

precedent just bodily and implement it

in your own Society you can accept it

you can accept it with modification or

you can build on it in many areas for

instance we have gone far ahead of say

what the US Supreme Court or uh the

courts in several other jurisdictions

have done and say the medical

termination of pregnancy is a clear case

uh where you have on the one hand R

versus way being uh you know overruled

and dubs but in India we've gone far

beyond uh the reate the statement of law

uh on on on the right to abortion I just

wanted to elaborate a bit more on this

point of comparative Juris prudence and

comparative constitutionalism of course

us being here in the UK today we have

quite a unique constitution in that it's

uncodified how then do you think

humanizing the law looks like in the UK

with our unique Unwritten Constitution

as opposed to India with its entrenched

written

Constitution well I I wouldn't really

want to uh uh dwell too much on this

aspect except to say that though the UK

has an uncodified Constitution a lot of

constitutional principle and the

precepts which have emerged from the UK

have emerged through constitutional

conventions and you would find if you

look at the Indian constitution that

many constitutional conventions in the

UK have actually found codification in

the Indian constitution I give you just

a couple of examples uh the fact or the

legal position that a speech which has

been made by a member of parliament

cannot be imputed or challenged in a

court of law is a matter of

Constitutional Convention in the UK but

that forms a part of a substantive

article in the Indian constitution or

that a member cannot be made liable for

a speech which was rendered in

Parliament finds codification in the

Indian constitution matters of

parliamentary practice uh but we have

gone a little Beyond say the position in

the UK because we have as as as a

constitutional Court we have said that

while an irregularity of procedure

cannot be the subject matter of

Challenge in a court the irregularity of

procedure in Parliament cannot be the

subject matter of a challenge in court

is substantive illegality can be the

subject matter of a challenge so we've

in that sense to answer your question

we've built on the convention by

recognizing the fact that the convention

was codified in our Constitution and

then we applied the Constitutional yach

stick of rule of law principles to say

that there can be a challenge to a

limited extent which is extremely

important thank thank you very much for

for that response um just a final

question from me it can't we can't go

through this event without mentioning

what's going on at the moment as we

speak India's general election results

are being announced it's clear that

India's legal landscape is poised at a

critical juncture given the judiciary's

critical role in interpreting and

enforcing the law to reflect and protect

the values of a diverse

democracy how can India's Judiciary

balance Independence

social justice and minority rights in a

politically charged environment while

addressing public concerns about

judicial

right you know elections lie at the core

of constitutional democracy in India

because by electing our

Representatives uh we choose to be

governed by the people whom we desire to

be governed the role of the Judiciary is

on the other hand very distinct judges

are not elected in in India and for a

reason judges reflect a sense of

continuity of tradition the continuity

of constitutional

values uh and while we respect we do

respect the role of the other branches

of government the legislature which

consists of the elected representatives

of the people the executive which in a

parliamentary form of uh government owes

its accountability to Parliament the

Judiciary has a vital role to play in a

democracy which is that we reflect this

sense of tradition and we also reflect

the sense of what the future of a good

Society should be and I do believe that

while elections take place as a matter

of constitutional uh Doctrine as a part

of our Law Courts have a very vital role

to play in maintaining that certain

values are Eternal to the existence of

our society and we do not have to really

seek too far to find those values those

values are laid down in our Preamble

itself and the preamble to the Indian

constitution underlines those Eternal

values which should be protected by the

courts under the rubric of the rule of

law and the rule of a fair

law uh and therefore I believe that uh

of course uh during times of Elections

the nature of the disputes which come

before the court may be more politicized

uh different kinds of disputes arise

before the court but at the end of it

when you have trained judges deciding

these

disputes that allows for courts which

will decide disputes on the basis of a

settled tradition a tradition of

continuity based on constitutional

precepts as opposed to the passions of

the moment thank you very much we have

now reached the point in the event where

we be be taking questions from the

audience if you wish to ask a question

please raise your hand and and once

called upon you'll be given a microphone

please speak into the microphone from a

distance and give it back once you have

finished asking your question I'd like

to remind the audience that the Chief

Justice of India is bound by judicial

neutrality and sub judice rules as such

he is unable to take questions on cases

currently being considered by the courts

or any questions which would challenge

his

neutrality I looked to the member just

sat over

here hello you can hear me yeah should I

stand up okay uh thank you so much for

speaking to us today it was really great

to be able to hear you particularly

today um and I really wanted to get your

when you talk about humanization and um

democratization through technology I

just wanted to ask your opinion on I

think the I suppose the the opposite uh

uh effect of democratization of legal

judgments is that they can become the

source of a lot of misinformation and a

lot of um

I suppose uh just like poorly uh

popularized ideas of what your judgments

are that are like um put into tweets or

put into articles that are spread around

and there's a there's a public

perception that's just not reflective of

what your judgments have been uh and

particularly for you uh I think there

are periods during depending on the

cases that you see where there's there

becomes a very active interest in your

history and your uh the agendas that you

carry and all of these things do you

feel like there's a relationship with

the public perception of the law and a

judge's Duty and do you feel like that's

something that's ever um impacted how

you approach your cases and do you see

any um sort of areas of improvement you

feel within either Indian education

system or the way that we interact with

the law that should uh make make a

judge's life easier in that regard in

terms of public perception yeah I I'd

make a distinction between uh technology

and the social media now the social

media is of course based on technology

but there two separate facets which we

need to look at now social media is a

reality 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's something which we

needn't stop we cannot stop and

obviously we are the receiving end on

occasion

and sometimes the criticism is fair

sometimes the criticism isn't fair but I

do believe as judges you know our

shoulders are broad enough to accept uh

the critique which people have of the

work which we do on technology that I

speak of the use of technology that we

have employed in our courts is to

broaden access to justice for instance

we have 36,000 plus judgments of the

Indian Supreme Court in English since

the birth of the Supreme Court in

1950 now English is not the language

which is spoken of in all courts

particularly the trial courts level so

what we've done is to use artificial

intelligence or machine learning uh

mechanisms for translating the judgments

of the Indian Supreme Court in every

Indian language which is recognized by

the Constitution so over 36,000

judgments of the Indian Supreme Court

have been translated into Hindi and

they're being translated into every

language as I said the purpose of doing

that is to allow for citizens to

understand the work of courts in a

language which is intelligible to them

because unless we do that and if we

continue to speak in a language which is

alien to the language which people speak

which they speak at home which they

understand the work which we do would

not reach out to people another area of

technology which we have been employing

is video conferencing we launched into

video conferencing in a very large way

during covid but we've video

conferencing has come to stay because of

the fact that you know hybrid hearings

have allowed the Supreme Court to become

a Supreme Court not just of that

location in Delhi but truly a supreme

court of the entire nation where lawyers

can address us from across the country a

litigant in a remote part of India can

watch the proceedings in their case e

filings digitizing ation of Court

records and what we are doing in India

is that we are ensuring that conscious

as we are of the digital divide we are

also providing for eservice centers in

every Court in each of the 18,000 courts

in India uh to ensure that people

citizens who do not have access to the

internet can Avail of our services by

going to the nearest service center but

just as a final Point your your first

point on social media yes that is a

problem because very often every citizen

on social media is a journalist with a

view and uh and very often we are at the

receiving end and very often when I see

the comments about what we have not said

in the social media uh I say but well we

never said this or we have been

misinterpreted but is that within our

control or we just living in a society

where so much lies Beyond our control uh

in terms of uh social media but I always

believe that the power of the good uh

prevails over the power of the evil and

therefore not withstanding the flip

sides of Technology not withstanding the

sometimes unwanted criticism of Judges

overall uh technology allows us to reach

out to people and to explain to them uh

of the seriousness with which we attend

to problems of common citizens

I look to the member on the front row

the pr

mention

thank today um my question was first I'd

like to quote you from January this year

You' said that the art of judging must

be free of social and political pressure

so in context of your statement what do

you think has been the political

pressure in the Judiciary particularly

in the past few years

uh political pressure in the sense if

you ask me is there pressure from the

government I would tell you that in the

24 years as I have that I've been a

judge I've never faced a sense of

political pressure from the powers that

be because some of the democratic

Traditions which we follow in India

include that where well we live we lead

lives which are relatively isolated from

from the political arm of the government

but if you look at if you if you if

you're meaning in a polit itical

pressure in a broader sense of a judge

realizing the impact of a decision which

may have political

ramifications obviously judges have to

be conversent with the impact of their

decisions on uh the polity at large when

you are deciding constitutional cases

that's not political pressure I believe

that's an understanding by the court of

the impact or the likely impact of the

decision or the decision-making process

which the judge must necessarily factor

in into their consideration

uh social pressure many of the cases

that we decide involve intense societal

impacts and as judges I do believe that

it's our duty to be cognizant of the

impact of our decisions on the social

ordering which we are ultimately going

to uh

affect thank you I look to the member on

the front

row so first of all thank you for coming

here it's a pleasure to hear doc uh

dependency of cases is a big issue in

India and U especially in cases like uh

the negotiation instruments act where

there's it's a relatively easy case with

clearcut evidence uh these cases often

take like more than 10 years for the

judge to give a ruling uh this is often

because of Med tactics and covered by

the noers and so on so um like in this

environment it's very difficult for the

local businessman who has his payment

pending for example to conduct visible

and it puts them in a very desperate

situation so what can the Judiciary do

to improve this and to just make the

situation better for the local

people well your question could probably

consume an entire evening for for us to

find answers but I'll give you some

bullet point changes that we have uh

which we have made uh the first is that

the judge to population ratio in India

is amongst the lowest in the world we

need simply more Jud J es to adjudicate

upon cases and we are engaging with the

government to increase the strength of

the Judiciary at all levels Point number

one second we are trying to ensure that

cases that that positions in the

Judiciary are not unfilled for a long

period of time and that the moment there

are vacancies in the Judiciary that

these should be filled up beginning with

the district Judiciary and going up all

the way to the uh to the Supreme Court

of India third I think uh the whole

issue about uh judicial backlog is

something which is not just of concern

to the judges but to the rest of society

as well uh very often you would find

that when a law is enacted that law is

enacted without a legislative audit of

the impact on judicial

infrastructure now the the law that you

just mentioned namely the check bouncing

cases uh the dishonoring of a check was

essentially a civil dispute earlier

which was converted into a criminal uh a

criminal offense now what has happened

therefore is that there is been a

tremendous inflow of cases in at the

magisterial level involving these cases

which essentially was earlier a civil

dispute and which has been now converted

into a criminal dispute I do believe

it's important that when new laws are

enacted a legislative audit has to be

done of the impact of the law on the

exist exting judicial infrastructure and

if it is going to make a demand on the

judicial

infrastructure uh we simply have to

improve the judicial infrastructure

which is available apart from this just

a couple of other things that we have

done uh we are using artificial

intelligence for the categorization of

cases uh so that like cases cases

involving similar issues can be dealt

with by one Court one bench at the same

time very recently one of my colleagues

dealt with a case involving land

acquisition where there were 750 cases

which were disposed of by one single

judgment now that's an area where we can

employ technology to ensure that cases

which involve the same issue can be

dealt with clubbed and decided and

disposed of uh together uh so a whole

host of measures have been taken to uh

to promote Expedition Injustice but

that's work in progress

thank you I look to the member

just thank you for the elimating lecture

uh I would just like to know your

thoughts on the basic structured

Doctrine and how can it be applied to

probably going forward to more

humanizing cases and how do you look at

the growth of such like judicial um I

mean instruments in India well when the

basic structure Doctrine was enunciated

by the Supreme Court in

1973 it was really enunciated in the

context of the power of parliament to

make Constitutional

Amendments and the court in 1973 in a

ruling of 13 judges of course in a in a

divided Court of 7 to6 the Court held

that there are certain fundamental

features of the Constitution which lie

beyond the amending power of Parliament

and what the basic structure was has

been elaborated upon by the court in

that case and then in succeeding uh

cases uh we have used the basic

structure Doctrine at two doctrinal

levels one while deciding upon the

validity of a constitutional amendment

but second which is a very interesting

Nuance on the basic structure Doctrine

the basic structure Doctrine has also

been used as an interpretative tool so

as to facilitate the achievement of

constitutional objects which would for

instance further federalism which is a

part of the basic structure of the

Constitution so when I delivered a

judgment in a GST case the goods and

services tax case recently we applied

federalism as a part of the basic

structure to so construe a new

constitutional provision which had been

brought in by way of an amendment so as

to entrench and facilitate the

fundamental Federal features of the uh

Constitution

look to the member right at the

back first of all thank so much for

coming to oord and um sharing your views

on um how Supreme Court said it I just

wanted to go back at this point and ask

you like because the first principle

that we thought is that if there's a

right there's a remedy and uh

what do people do uh if there's a

gradual you know development of the law

what do people do who have a right so

for instance to um have a Russian card

for instance or to have uh some

succession planning what do they do in

between when this law is evolving and uh

before legislature comes up with uh

something for them well undoubtedly you

know the the uh the basic principle of

the common law is that where there is a

right there has to be a remedy

uh but all aspects of there are some

remedies which are available in courts

there are some remedies about reforming

the law which lies somewhere else namely

in the other elected arms of a

democratic State now you gave the

example of a person who needs a ration

card and who doesn't have a ration card

there is a remedy which is available

which is you can move a Court under

article 226 of the Constitution and seek

a RIT seeking the performance of a

public

duty if the sewage across you know

somebody's home has not been cleaned by

the municipality there is a remedy which

is available before the high court for

that particular Omission in the

performance of a public duty by seeking

a RIT of

mandemus calling upon the local body to

perform its Duty so to answer your

question

where there is a legal right there is

obviously a remedy of approaching the

high court in the exercise of its

constitutional jurisdiction under

article 226 of the Constitution or the

Supreme Court for the enforcement of

fundamental right under article

32 but the Reformation of

law does not necessarily always fall in

the domain of the court and that's

something which we need to

accept very often there may be certain

certain areas of the Reformation of the

law

where legislative bodies have to

intervene and that is the point which we

made in the same-sex marriage equality

case believe two more questions now I

looked to the member just um over there

I believe in the blue

suits thank you again for coming to

speak to us as India continues to gain

recognition and Authority on the World

level how do you think the court is

going to change in its oring power in

terms of its influence on other

countries and what role do you think you

might play or the court might play on

that well well you know um in an

increasingly interconnected world uh

judges across jurisdictions are not

speaking only to their own

societies uh much of the work which we

do is deeply influenced by what our

peers are doing across the world

likewise I do believe much of the work

which we do is impacting upon the work

which is being done by our peers in

other jurisdictions as well I'll just

give you an example uh though in the

Constitutional challenge to the validity

of a biometric scheme uh I was a lone

denter in that case my descent has been

accepted by a particular jurisdiction

overseas so judges when they speak

through their judgments and that's the

importance of the work which we do in

the written text that work speaks to the

present it speaks to the Past because we

resolving disputes which have Arisen in

the past and that work also speaks to

the Future about the kind of societies

that we believe we should be moving

towards but we are also speaking not

just to our own societies but we are

reshaping the dialogue between societies

and I think that really brings out some

degree of synthesis in the work which

judges are doing across

jurisdictions thank you we will take one

final question I look to the member and

the blue jumper at the

front hi uh thank you so much speaking

to us today um so my question is about

public perception and how the courts are

received in India and whether there's

generally a large sense of lack of trust

um they feel like they're not operating

honestly or untransparent and how have

the initiatives that you put in place be

that like technological access changed

public perception or do you find that

it's quite entrenched and difficult to

shift well one indicator of trust I

believe is the number of cases which

citizens bring to the court and going by

just the scale of cases which are

brought to our

courts I think the level of trust has to

be high because this is really the Last

Frontier

and I do believe the courts do perform

the role of being the Last Frontier and

one index therefore of the trust which

we command is the number of cases which

are filed in our courts which is

unprecedented in terms of

jurisdiction the work which the Indian

Supreme Court does for instance is not

just the work of a constitutional court

but a court of appeal and one of the

criticisms which we have faced is about

the width of our jurisdiction

but uh the the framing mothers and

fathers of our

constitution did provide for a broad

sense of jurisdiction to the court

because this was always intended to be a

People's Court it's not one of those

reified courts which only speaks about

constitutional Doctrine but it's a court

which touches the lives of citizens and

their day-to-day uh problems now I think

that in s in a sense is is the strength

of system it's obviously a source of of

the backlog which we face in courts but

we can do a lot more and we are trying

to do that to entrench the sense of

public trust and confidence and the best

way I believe is for courts to be

transparent for courts to be accountable

to the people because we're not

accountable in that sense to uh

Democratic elected institutions like

Parliament is but we we can do a lot to

make ourselves more transparent which we

are trying to do and we can also add to

our own accountability and transparency

really can be brought about by uh

extensive deployment of technology which

allows citizens to access the nature of

the work which is being done in the

courts and just lastly I'd like to ask a

question which we ask all of our guest

speakers if you were to leave our

members with one piece of advice today

what would it

pay well somebody asked me just a short

while ago um that when you lay down

office uh one day as a judge what would

you like to be looked at uh uh for or

remembered for and I reflected on that

and I think I'll leave uh all of you

with this thought that have I done

something in the course of my work as a

judge in dealing with the problems of

real human beings which have come to our

court to live their

lives in a better

situation and have we in working our way

through the complexities of the law

ultimately made our society more livable

more Humane more accessible more

tolerant more

compassionate a society

which finds solutions to disputes

through ordered

discourse uh there's very distinguished

South African judge who's written this

beautiful book on the called The Strange

Alchemy of Law and life and he says that

the great Merit of the work which has

been done by the Constitutional Court in

South

Africa is to

substitute what was being done by

perhaps a bullet by

reason and I think that is the key

that's the key foundational structure of

our courts that by allowing for diverse

strands of conflicting

opinions we have provided a space for

people to engage in reason in by

providing them a space to engage in

dialogues and by lending our

ears our institutions our time the

physical space and now the virtual space

of the Courts

to orderly dialogue I think we trying to

protect some of the most fundamental

values of uh of

democracy thank you and before we end on

a personal note I would like to thank

Toni du an advocate in the Supreme Court

of India and Mr vickram Dehan for

helping me to organize this event