New Delhi: Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in an interview to the news agency Press Trust of India, has addressed allegations and criticisms against the Supreme Court’s functioning and judgements – largely by doubling down on them.Article 370 judgmentThe five-judge bench’s verdict upholding the reading down of of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir has been lambasted by several experts and legal commentators, including former Supreme Court judges.To PTI, the CJI who headed the bench said that it would not appropriate to “either to respond to the criticism or mount a defence to [his] judgement.”“What we have said in my judgement is reflected in the reason present in the signed judgement and I must leave it at that,” Justice Chandrachud said.He added that a judgment is public property once delivered.“Judges who decide a case speak through their Judgement. Once a Judgement is delivered that judgement becomes a public property of the nation. Until a judgement is delivered the process is confined to the judges who are involved in the decision of that case. Once we arrive at a decision and the judgement is pronounced it’s a public property. It’s a property of the nation. We are a free society.”He also added that “people are entitled to exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression. To critique, to criticise, to appreciate.”Same-sex marriage verdictOn the much-criticised judgment in the pleas for legal sanction to same-sex marriage by a bench headed by the CJI, he said that he has no regrets and that judges do not associate themselves with a cause. The bench refused to legally recognise same-sex marriage.“I leave it for the future of our society to judge which course to take,” he said.In a minority view, the CJI and now-retired Justice S.K. Kaul said that they do recognise the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages.The CJI told PTI that training teaches judges to distance themselves from the outcome once they deliver a judgment.“Outcomes are never, in that sense, something which are personal to a judge. You decide a case based on your vision of the Constitution, on what you believe the vision of a just society for the future is, in constitutional terms, which is what I have done,” he said.Allocation and lawyersThe CJI appeared to comment on the allegation by senior lawyers like Prashant Bhushan and Dushyant Dave on important matters often being reassigned to separate judges than who had already heard a part of the case.“I am very, very clear in my mind that if the credibility of the institution of the Supreme Court is to be maintained, we have to ensure that the allocation of cases in the Supreme Court is not going to be a lawyer-driven allocation,” he said.He added that the allocation has to be according to “terms of our system laid down in the Supreme Court.”“You have to trust your decision makers,” the CJI said, upholding the roster – which he heads.He added that no lawyer can insist that their case will be heard by a particular judge.“That does not do justice either to the credibility of the individual judge or the purity of the administration of justice,” the CJI said.Ayodhya verdictThe CJI said that the five-judges who ruled in favour of a Ram temple’s construction on the site that had the Babri Masjid on it, had unanimously decided there will be no authorship ascribed to the judgement.“Supreme Court judgement on Ram Janmabhoomi was the judgement of the court, not any individual. So the author of the judgement was not named. It was a case of long conflict and diverse viewpoints,” the CJI said.This explanation, in turn, has met with some criticism from commentators who have said that all judgments are those of the court and not of any individual – and must still correspond to rules.Three judges of that bench have gone on to occupy government-appointed positions after retirement. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was made the governor of Andhra Pradesh. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who headed the bench, was made a member of the Rajya Sabha soon after retirement and Justice Ashok Bhushan, who retired in July 2021, was made head of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal that year.
