Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud described the continued criminal immunity for marital rape as one of the most serious moral failures of Indian law, saying it remained unresolved even 75 years after Independence. Reflecting on his time on the bench, he said one of his deepest personal regrets was that he could not deliver a ruling on the issue before retiring.
Explaining the contradiction in existing law, Chandrachud said that while a husband who kills his wife is prosecuted for murder and one who physically assaults her can be punished for grievous hurt, a woman subjected to non-consensual sexual acts within marriage is still left without a legal remedy. He said this exemption is indefensible in a constitutional democracy that claims to value equality, dignity and personal liberty.
Chandrachud revealed that the marital rape case came before him only weeks before his retirement. Despite the urgency and gravity of the issue, he said he consciously chose not to rush a judgment. He explained that concerns about procedural fairness and the right of all parties to be fully heard guided his decision. He said he did not want to leave office under the shadow of an allegation that he had denied one side a fair hearing, even if the subject matter was deeply important.
For Chandrachud, the legitimacy of the judiciary, he said, rests not only on the outcomes it delivers but also on the fairness and transparency of its processes. Judicial courage, he argued, must go hand in hand with procedural integrity, because public trust in constitutional institutions is as vital as legal reform itself.
Alongside this regret, Chandrachud spoke about what he considered one of his proudest achievements as Chief Justice: his effort to transform the Supreme Court into what he described as a true people’s court. He said he believed that no case was too insignificant to deserve attention and no case too powerful to be beyond scrutiny.
A central part of this vision was the live-streaming of court proceedings, a move that initially faced resistance. Chandrachud said he was warned that allowing cameras into courtrooms could invite controversy or misunderstanding. Despite this, he felt it was essential for citizens to directly see how justice is delivered, rather than rely on second-hand interpretations.
He said live-streaming helped bridge the distance between the Supreme Court and ordinary citizens, particularly litigants from remote parts of the country. People from regions such as the Northeast or rural Maharashtra, he noted, could now follow their cases in real time without the burden of travelling to Delhi, making the justice system more accessible and transparent.
Chandrachud also spoke at length about language as a structural barrier to justice. He pointed out that judgments of the Supreme Court are traditionally written only in English, which keeps the institution distant from a large section of the population. To address this, he said his tenure saw the use of AI-assisted tools to translate judgments into all languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
He emphasised that the Supreme Court does not belong to Delhi alone but to the entire country. Making judgments available in multiple Indian languages, he said, was a step toward ensuring that citizens can understand the law that governs them, rather than feel excluded by it.
On the subject of judicial appointments, Chandrachud acknowledged that the collegium system has its shortcomings. However, he cautioned against simplistic solutions, particularly proposals that would give the government greater control over appointments. He warned that such changes could undermine judicial independence, arguing that the cure might prove worse than the disease.
Instead, he said the focus should be on improving transparency and accountability within the existing system, without turning judicial scrutiny into a form of public spectacle that could damage the institution’s credibility.
When asked about his decision to decline post-retirement government roles, Chandrachud said it was a deliberate and personal choice. After spending 25 years in judicial service, he felt that chapter of his life was complete. He said he wanted to return to civil society and experience life outside the courtroom.
Reflecting on this transition, Chandrachud said the freedoms and simple pleasures of being a private citizen were deeply fulfilling. For him, stepping away from positions of authority was not a loss, but an opportunity to rediscover the limitless joys of ordinary life.
