Ex-CJI Chandrachud's big comment on effort to influence court outcomes: 'Pressure groups are trying to...'

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Sunday expressed concern over the growing use of social media by special interest groups to influence judicial decisions. He cautioned judges to be vigilant against these efforts, while highlighting the broader challenges posed by the rapid dissemination of opinions on social media.

"Today there are special interest groups, pressure groups who are trying to use social media to affect the minds of the courts and the outcomes of cases. Every citizen is entitled to understand what is the basis of a decision and to express their opinions on the decisions of the court. But when this goes beyond the decisions of the court and targets individual judges, then it sort of raises fundamental questions about – Is this truly freedom of speech and expression?" Chandrachud said while speaking at NDTV India's Samvidhan@75 Conclave. 

The former CJI also criticised the tendency of people to form opinions based on brief social media clips, warning of the implications for judicial processes. "Everybody, therefore, wants to form an opinion in 20 seconds of what they see on YouTube or any social media platform. This poses a grave danger because the process of decision-making in the courts is far more serious. It is really nuanced that nobody has the patience or the tolerance today on social media to understand, and that is a very serious issue that is confronting the Indian judiciary," he said.

Responding to a question on whether social media trolling affects judges, Chandrachud reiterated the importance of judicial independence. "Judges have to be very careful about the fact that they are constantly being subject to this barrage of special interest groups trying to alter the decisions of what happens in the courts," he said.

Explaining the judiciary's role in a democracy, Chandrachud noted that the power to assess the validity of laws rests with constitutional courts. "Separation of powers postulates that law-making will be carried out by the legislature, execution of law will be carried out by the executive, and the judiciary will interpret the law and decide the disputes. There are times when this comes under strain. Policy-making is entrusted to the government in a democracy. When fundamental rights are involved, courts are duty-bound under the Constitution to step in. Policy-making is the job of the legislature, but deciding on its validity is the job and responsibility of the courts."

Defending the collegium system for judicial appointments, the former CJI pointed to widespread misconceptions about the process. He said there is a lot of misunderstanding about the process and it is very nuanced and multi-layered. "It's not as if the judiciary has exclusive role to play in appointment of judges," Chandrachud clarified, adding that seniority of judges is among the key considerations.

When asked about judges entering politics post-retirement, Chandrachud said there is no constitutional or legal prohibition. However, he underscored the unique societal expectations attached to former judges. "Society continues to look at you as a judge even after retirement, therefore, things which are alright for other citizens to do would not be alright for judges to do even when they demit office. Primarily it is for every judge to take a call on whether a decision which he takes after retirement will have a bearing on people who assess the work which he did as a judge."

Chandrachud concluded his two-year tenure as CJI on November 10.