Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala described, ‘tenure’ is derived from Latin: ‘tenere’, which means ‘to hold’.”[1] In a ‘tenure’ what does one even ‘hold’ considering Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud himself declares, “We may not be masters of our destiny. Nor can we control what life has in store. What we can determine is how we respond to our trials and tribulations.”[2] It would be best to “echo observations by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer[3]: “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper.”[4] Let’s see, what did Justice Chandrachud, in his ‘tenure’, write with his ‘little pencil’!
Justice Chandrachud held once, “Judgment has been rendered by a Bench of 13 Judges and constitutes a binding precedent”.[5] Of course, words in a Judgment are only “a vehicle for communicating ideas, thoughts and concepts.”[6] Justice Chandrachud has required least words when he finds, law and precedents dictate only one road to follow. It is noticeable here: i) “Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation,”[7] ii) “The precedents of this Court and provisions of CBI Manual make it abundantly clear, a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption,”[8], iii) “We have come to the conclusion, proceedings instituted before commencement of Act of 2019 on 20.07.2020 would continue before fora corresponding to those under Act of 1986 and not be transferred in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction set for fora established under Act of 2019,”[9] iv) “The definition of ‘shared household’ is exhaustive,”[10] and v) “A direction issued by this Court under Article 142 cannot be considered as a ratio because it is issued based on peculiar facts and circumstances.”[11]
But, what happens when we read Ulysses? “Vladimir Nabokov and T.S. Elliot eulogized Ulysses as a divine work of art. Virginia Woolf and Aldous Huxley criticized Ulysses for being technical and boring. It is celebrated by some, reviled by many others.”[12] Absence of ‘statistical evidence’[13] is not debilitating. ‘Constitutional silences’[14] do exist. “‘Legislative silences’ create spaces for creativity and law is shaped by the robust application of common sense.”[15] The prime responsibility is, Court cannot be a ‘hapless bystander’ and “Advocates are to maintain exemplary conduct.”[16]
When law and precedents do not dictate only one road to ordinary men, Justice Chandrachud, with his ‘robust application of common sense’, separates right from wrong and notes what is right: i) Curatives are “used to open flood gates and create a 4th or 5th of Court intervention,”[17] ii) The Electoral Bonds Scheme “does not protect confidentiality of a contributor,”[18], iii) “A refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices,”[19], iv) “To prevent ‘tweeting’ would amount to an unjustified violation of freedom of speech and expression”,[20] v) “Court has quashed over 5 Detention Orders under The Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying standard for maintenance of ‘public order’,”[21] vi) “Court has noticed a rising trend of cases where parties have attempted to take ‘another bite at the cherry’ by initiating proceedings over various forums, particularly to circumvent jurisdiction of this Court”,[22] vii) “Legislature of State of West Bengal has attempted to set up its parallel legislation involving a parallel regime,”[23] viii) “Arbitrator’s Fees must be fixed at inception to avoid unnecessary litigation and conflicts,”[24] ix) “It was not the intention of the Drafters of the Constitution to extend the interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’ to include criminal acts by placing them under a veil of protest. Constitution only grants the Members the ‘freedom of speech’ that is necessary for their active participation in meaningful deliberation without any fear of prosecution,”[25] x) “We are seeing reporting proliferate through social media forums which provide real-time updates to a much wider audience. We find no substance in prayer for restraining media from reporting on Court proceedings,”[26] xi) “To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination,[27] xii) “In allocation of cases and constitution of Benches, Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. Chief Justice is an institution.”[28]
When law and precedents do not dictate only one road even to extraordinary men, a difficulty arises. “Morality still is only one element in the composition of values that a just society must pursue”[29] and “popular notions about what is moral and what is not are transient and fleeting.”[30] “Court has not refrained from reconsidering a prior construction, if it proves to be unsound, unworkable”.[31]
Thus, at Ulysses moments, with those extraordinary too facing difficulty in separating right from wrong, like it is, when we “segregate the tainted from the untainted,”[32] Justice Chandrachud has concluded: i) “It would be beyond scope to lay down possible situations when the sealed cover procedure can be used,”[33] ii) “Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry”[34], iii) “The petition is a veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack on the independence of judiciary and to dilute the credibility of judicial institutions,”[35] and iv) “Since challenge to Exception 2 to Section 375, IPC is pending consideration, we would leave constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375, IPC to be decided.”[36] In fact, Justice Chandrachud along with Hon’ble Justices I. Malhotra and I. Banerjee did identify as well, divergent views on “educational institutions being subject to The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”[37] Though “in allocation of cases and constitution of Benches, Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative,” few questions remain unanswered before Justice Chandrachud’s retirement in November, 2024. Not all mentioned here.
There are some in Cricket, who have been thought to be ‘capable enough’ in Tests, ODIs, T20s, World Cups and IPLs! Good Lord. We shall never know where would Sir Donald Bradman’s Test average have stood, if he too was one of those described as ‘capable’. It’s hard not to have several not-so-good days, if there’s much one seeks to prove. Justice Chandrachud’s ‘tenure’ has cracks that are but natural. The next CJI who shall have a ‘tenure’ longer than Justice Chandrachud’s as a CJI is Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala. Do remember, it is never necessary to answer everything. You are not the only Judge!
[1] Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor, Kannur University, Civil Appeal No. 7700 of 2023.
[2] Common Cause v. UoI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005.
[3] Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
[4] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, Civil Appeal No 2874 of 2024.
[5] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms v. Justice J.S. Khehar, Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43118 of 2016.
[6] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 9241 of 2019.
[7] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020.
[8] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CBI v. T.H. Vijayalakshmi, Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2021.
[9] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates, Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020.
[10] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020.
[11] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024.
[12] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 2020.
[13] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Lt. Col Nitisha v. UoI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1109 of 2020.
[14] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s. Steel Authority of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999.
[15] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, Civil Appeal No. 3249 of 2020.
[16] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 352 of 2023.
[17] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., Curative Petition (C) Nos. 108-109 of 2022 in Review Petition (C) Nos. 1158-1159 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5627-5628 of 2021.
[18] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Association for Democratic Reforms v. UoI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017.
[19] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1404 of 2023.
[20] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022.
[21] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telengana, Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2022.
[22] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Loop Telecom Trading Limited v. Union of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 1447-1467 of 2016.
[23] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 2019.
[24] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 05 of 2022.
[25] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2021.
[26] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar, Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2021.
[27] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, Civil Appeal No. 12015 of 2018.
[28] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 147 of 2018.
[29] Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Santosh Singh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1028 of 2014.
[30] Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006.
[31] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sita Soren v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019.
[32] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB, Civil Appeal Nos. 639-640 of 2021.
[33] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022.
[34] Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Supriyo @ Supriya v. UoI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1101 of 2022.
[35] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Bandhuraj Sambhaji Lone v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 20 of 2018.
[36] Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Civil Appeal No 5802 of 2022.
[37] Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University, Civil Appeal Diary No. 12901 of 2020.
