Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, has addressed the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence in 2024, clarifying that such meetings are neither unusual nor compromising to the independence of the judiciary. Speaking in an interview with India Today’s sister organisation Lallantop, Chandrachud explained that interactions between top constitutional authorities, whether in offices or private homes, have always been part of India’s democratic framework. According to him, these exchanges are natural in a system where the judiciary, legislature, and executive operate as coexisting organs of the state, and they should not be misinterpreted as deals or undue influences.
In a rather witty observation, the former Chief Justice remarked that if there had been any intent to strike political bargains, such discussions would not have taken place openly in front of cameras. He went on to recount that Prime Minister Modi’s visit was not planned in secrecy but came about through a casual conversation. While attending a public function, Chandrachud had invited the Prime Minister to his home during the Ganpati festival, and the Prime Minister readily agreed. The visit, which took place in September 2024, was later criticised by opposition leaders and some members of the legal fraternity, who argued that it blurred the line between the executive and judiciary. Chandrachud, however, dismissed these concerns, reiterating that the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity remain intact regardless of social or ceremonial meetings with political leaders.
Reflecting on the broader picture, Chandrachud reminded that similar exchanges have always been part of judicial history at both the Supreme Court and High Court levels. He gave examples from his own life, noting that during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in 2014, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and his wife Dimple Yadav visited him after the death of his mother. He stressed that such visits are moments of human connection rather than political negotiation, underscoring that “these are not occasions to cut deals with the judiciary.”
The former Chief Justice also defended his track record to illustrate his independence. He pointed out that the same judge whose house the Prime Minister had visited had also declared electoral bonds unconstitutional and had delivered judgments both in favour of and against the government on crucial matters. For him, judicial independence does not mean always ruling against the government but delivering verdicts with fairness, regardless of political implications. He argued that a simplistic narrative, where rulings against the government are hailed as proof of independence while those favouring it are criticised as biased, misrepresents the true essence of judicial autonomy.
In conclusion, Chandrachud highlighted that India’s constitutional framework has maintained an independent judiciary since 1950 and that political maturity has grown on both sides over the nation’s 75-year history. He reiterated that the judiciary, legislature, and executive are not adversaries but complementary parts of one system, each entrusted with its own responsibilities. For the judiciary, that responsibility is to uphold the Constitution by reviewing executive actions and testing the constitutional validity of laws passed by the legislature. He firmly stated that independence lies in upholding the law without fear or favour, ensuring balance, and preserving the trust of the people in democratic institutions.
