Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Chandrachud speaks about the role of judges in humanising the law
Summary
TLDRThe 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
- βοΈ The Chief Justice of India emphasizes the importance of bringing justice and the administration of law to the homes and hearts of people.
- π Judges interpret ambiguous laws to achieve constitutional purposes while ensuring outcomes are fair and just.
- π§ββοΈ The Chief Justice believes in a fluid interpretation of law rather than strictly categorizing judges as activists.
- ποΈ There's a clear distinction between the roles of the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive in a constitutional democracy.
- π©ββ€οΈβπ© The judiciary cannot legislate, and changes to laws, such as recognizing same-sex marriage, should be made by Parliament.
- π Indian courts extensively reference international conventions and comparative jurisprudence to inform their rulings.
- π§ The Indian judiciary uses technology to broaden access to justice, including AI for translating judgments and video conferencing.
- π A high volume of cases indicates public trust in the judiciary, despite challenges like case backlogs.
- π Judges must consider the social and political impacts of their decisions without succumbing to external pressures.
- π 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
π 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.
π³οΈβπ 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.
π 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.
ποΈ 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.
π€ 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.
π 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.
ποΈ 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.
π 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.
π₯ 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.
π 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Judicial craftsmanship
π‘Affirmative action
π‘Constitutional democracy
π‘Judicial activism
π‘Separation of powers
π‘Special Marriage Act
π‘Humanizing the law
π‘Judicial review
π‘Digital divide
π‘Basic structure doctrine
π‘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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)