By Mrinal Talukdar
The recent Ganesh Chaturthi celebration at the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has sparked a heated debate.
On one side, critics argue that the meeting compromised the independence of the judiciary and blurred the lines between the executive and judiciary.
On the other, some see it as an innocent social event, falling within the realm of private life. This raises significant questions about constitutional morality, the separation of powers, and whether such social interactions between the judiciary and executive are problematic or merely bad optics.
The Constitutional Framework: Separation of Powers
At the heart of this debate lies the principle of separation of powers—a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the three branches of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) function independently, checking and balancing each other.
This principle is embedded in India’s Constitution and is crucial to preventing the concentration of power in any one branch. Article 50 of the Constitution explicitly directs the state to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services, underlining the importance of judicial independence.
Judicial independence is not merely a technical provision; it is a key factor in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that the judiciary can interpret laws free from executive influence. The judiciary, in particular, serves as a counterweight to executive and legislative excesses, acting as the guardian of citizens’ rights. Any action that undermines this independence, or appears to, threatens the integrity of the judicial system.
Social Interactions vs. Constitutional Morality
One of the central arguments against CJI Chandrachud’s meeting with PM Modi is the perceived violation of constitutional morality, which encompasses both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising tweeted, “The Chief Justice of India has compromised the separation of powers… Lost all confidence in the independence of the CJI.” According to her, even the appearance of coziness between the judiciary and executive undermines the public’s confidence in judicial impartiality.
Another Senior advocate Prashanta Bhusan wrote in his tweet , ‘ Shocking that CJI Chandrachud allowed Modi to visit him at his residence for a private meeting. Sends a very bad signal to the judiciary which is tasked with the responsibility of protecting fundamental right of citizens from the executive & ensuring that the govt acts within bounds of Constitution. That is why there has to be an arms length separation between the executive & judiciary’
However, this perspective raises the question: does a private social interaction violate constitutional morality?
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as pointed out by many on social media, guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes the right to socialize and practice one’s religion. Both the CJI and the PM are citizens first and have the right to engage in personal and cultural events, as long as their actions do not compromise their professional duties.
Moreover, many argue that such meetings are not unusual. As Lloyd Mathias put it, “The head of Government and the head of the Judiciary can most certainly meet socially, for a puja.” There are several occasions—both formal and informal—where the CJI and PM meet in their official capacities, such as during judicial appointments or ceremonial events. Are we, then, to assume that every such meeting erodes judicial independence?
Constitutional Morality vs. Perception
Constitutional morality is not only about the strict observance of constitutional provisions but also about the public’s perception of the propriety of actions by constitutional functionaries.
Critics of the CJI’s decision to host the PM suggest that it creates “poor optics,” especially at a time when the judiciary has been accused of passing judgments favorable to the government. This view is voiced by Samarth Kagdiyal, who tweeted that it reflects “extremely poor optics for the CJI considering how judiciary has been passing pro-govt orders everywhere.”
Judicial impartiality is not just a matter of reality; it is also about how it is perceived. The judiciary must be seen as independent to maintain the trust of the public. Even if the event was entirely social and private, the optics may suggest a closer relationship between the judiciary and executive than is advisable, particularly given the frequent legal conflicts between the two branches.
Private Space and Right to Personal Life
On the flip side, there is the argument that the CJI, like any other citizen, is entitled to a private life. In his defense, Saumya Sharma stated, “Article 21 talks about the ‘Right to Life and Liberty’. As citizens of India, both CJI and Prime Minister are very much allowed to meet people socially, outside their scope of work.”
The challenge here is balancing the right to personal space with the responsibilities of high office. The fact that the CJI held a private puja does not necessarily imply that the judiciary’s independence is compromised.
The question of propriety lies in whether such interactions influence judicial decisions or give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As long as judicial independence is not impacted, private social events should remain just that—private.
The Thin Line
This debate reveals a tension between constitutional morality and personal freedom. The judiciary and executive are, by design, expected to interact on various official platforms. However, private meetings, especially those that carry religious or cultural significance, should not be viewed in isolation as a breach of constitutional principles.
Yet, public office holders, particularly those in roles as sensitive as the CJI, must be mindful of how their actions are perceived. Maintaining not only judicial independence but also the appearance of independence is crucial.
While CJI Chandrachud’s meeting with PM Modi during a private festival may not violate any constitutional provisions, the debate reflects the importance of optics in maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
In the end, the question is not one of legal impropriety but whether the judiciary can maintain the fine balance between personal freedom and the responsibilities of the office.
As one citizen put it in twitter, “The CJI doesn’t live in a vacuum,” but he does live in a position where every action can carry symbolic weight.
The separation of powers is not only a constitutional necessity but also a matter of trust between the judiciary and the public, and it is that trust that must be upheld above all else.