Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently spoke at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai, where he addressed the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence during Ganesh puja celebrations last year. Chandrachud described the visit as part of the “elementary courtesies of constitutional office,” firmly defending the Prime Minister’s presence at his home. The visit had drawn criticism from some quarters, including the Shiv Sena (UBT), which argued that such interactions could blur the line between the executive and the judiciary and potentially raise doubts about judicial impartiality.
Chandrachud explained that there were two categories of criticism. The first came from those who objected to his public acknowledgment of his religious practices. He made it clear that he was unapologetically a devout Hindu who openly performed pujas and was committed to his faith. He further pointed out that the Constitution of India is neither opposed to religion nor agnostic to it. According to him, judges, like all citizens, are entitled to practice their faith without compromising their constitutional duties.
On the broader debate of judicial independence, the former Chief Justice stressed that personal belief does not interfere with judicial fairness. He asserted that while judges may follow their own faiths privately, the justice they deliver is impartial and even-handed across all communities. Courts, he noted, serve people from diverse backgrounds every day, ensuring equality before the law regardless of religion.
Addressing the direct concerns about the Prime Minister’s visit, Chandrachud emphasized that meetings between constitutional functionaries are not unusual in India’s democratic framework. He recalled similar interactions from his own experiences, including instances when political leaders visited his family during personal milestones, such as marriages or bereavements. These, he argued, were acts of courtesy rather than signals of political or judicial compromise.
Concluding his remarks, Chandrachud underscored that the real measure of a judge lies not in private associations or faith but in professional conduct. “The ultimate test is this: How is that person performing as a judge?” he remarked, reaffirming that judicial integrity must always be judged by fairness in decisions and commitment to justice, not by ceremonial interactions or expressions of personal belief.
