Reacting to remarks by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who stated that the Opposition is “doing the task of the judiciary,” former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday emphasized that the judiciary’s role is to “scrutinize laws” and not to take on the responsibilities of the opposition in Parliament or state legislatures.
In an exclusive interview, the former CJI clarified that there is a distinct space in a democracy for political opposition.
He pointed out that it is a common misconception to expect the judiciary to fulfill the role of the opposition. “We are entrusted with the duty to scrutinize executive actions to ensure they are consistent with the law and the Constitution,” Chandrachud said.
He added that the judiciary’s function is to review laws and actions, not to be used as a political tool or to “shoot from the shoulders of the judiciary.”
Rahul Gandhi had previously stated, “We are alone working on behalf of the media, investigative agencies, and judiciary also. This is the reality of India.” In response, Chandrachud reaffirmed that the judiciary’s purpose is not to act as an alternative to the political opposition.
On the topic of interactions between the judiciary and political leaders, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, the former CJI addressed scrutiny over the duration of such meetings. He explained that while there are official discussions, it is natural for people to socialize briefly afterward.
“We are human beings; after making decisions, it is only natural to spend a few minutes having a cup of tea and talking about various topics,” he said, citing statutory requirements for selection committees involving both the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition.
Addressing the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the residence of the then CJI for Ganpati Puja in September, Chandrachud dismissed claims that such visits posed a conflict of interest. He said, “This is not unique. Prime Ministers have visited judges’ homes on social occasions in the past. These social courtesies do not affect our independence.” He stressed that despite such social interactions, the judiciary remains completely independent of the executive.
The controversy had drawn criticism from opposition parties like Congress and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), who expressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest arising from such visits.
However, Chandrachud maintained that social interactions do not undermine the judicial system’s autonomy.
