Former Chief Justice of India, D. Y. Chandrachud, expounded on the indispensable intersection between literature and legal thought, emphasizing that literature imbues the law with necessary contextual depth, ethical considerations, and a heightened sense of social responsiveness.
Delivering his address at the inauguration of “Vidhi Utsav 2025—The Festival of Law, Legal Literature, and Luminaries,” organized by Oakbridge, he underscored that legal texts, in their rigid formality, often lack the fluidity required to engage with the evolving complexities of society.
“Literature humanizes the law. Where legal texts may fail to encapsulate the nuances of lived experiences, literature provides a vital supplement, fostering a more empathetic and nuanced jurisprudential understanding. Legal practitioners and adjudicators, in making moral determinations, must acknowledge that law alone cannot fully accommodate the dynamism of human conditions. A deeper engagement with literary narratives thus becomes imperative to refine legal reasoning and its application,” Chandrachud remarked.
He illustrated this argument through the Supreme Court’s deliberations on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a case that demanded rigorous analysis of sociological, historical, and statistical data to navigate entrenched structures of systemic inequality.
“A jurisprudence that remains insular—detached from empirical social realities—risks obsolescence. The law must continuously be informed by granular, grassroots-level insights to maintain its relevance and efficacy. As custodians of justice, we cannot afford to overlook the rapidly shifting social landscape,” he asserted.
Further, Chandrachud articulated the role of literature as both a mediator and a corrective force within the legal system, bridging the gap between abstract legal doctrines and the tangible realities of those subjected to legal norms.
“Literature challenges the rigid formalism of legal structures by juxtaposing legal doctrine with the experiential realities of marginalized groups. It not only traces the genealogy of legal norms but also serves as a counterforce against the tendencies of legal majoritarianism. By amplifying marginalized voices and fostering critical discourse, literature ensures that the law remains a mechanism of justice rather than an instrument of exclusion,” he elaborated.
To illustrate how legal frameworks may perpetuate structural injustices, Chandrachud critiqued the original Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, which subscribed to a medicalized understanding of disability.
“The 1995 statute framed disability predominantly through a medical lens, defining affected individuals as those with a minimum of 40% impairment as certified by medical authorities. However, through persistent litigation and sustained advocacy, lawmakers gradually recognized that disability is not merely a medical condition but a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by systemic barriers and institutionalized discrimination,” he observed.
The enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 marked a jurisprudential paradigm shift, discarding the earlier reductive medical model in favor of a social model that redefined disability as a consequence of environmental and structural impediments.
“This definitional evolution was, in essence, the result of legal literature—scholarly discourse, critical narratives, and judicial engagement that reconceptualized disability not as an individual affliction but as an interaction with exclusionary societal structures. The transformation of statutory law in this regard owes much to literary critique and intellectual discourse,” he stated.
In conclusion, Chandrachud advocated for an interdisciplinary legal philosophy, urging scholars, judges, and legal practitioners to engage meaningfully with literature across diverse linguistic, cultural, and thematic landscapes.
Such engagement, he argued, is essential for fostering a legal system that remains both just and attuned to the ever-changing realities of human existence.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
