'Most lawyers and judges are...': Ex-CJI dismisses claims of dynasty, upper caste domination in Indian judiciary

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has pushed back against claims that the Indian judiciary is dominated by elites, upper castes, and dynasties, asserting that most judges and lawyers in the country are first-generation entrants into the legal profession. "If you look at the overall profile of the Indian judiciary, most lawyers and judges are first-time entrants into the legal profession. Quite contrary to what you said, it is not that our judiciary is either upper caste or dominated by dynasties," Chandrachud said in an interview with Stephen Sackur on BBC’s HARDtalk. 

Chandrachud shared his personal experience, addressing his own lineage as the son of former CJI YV Chandrachud. "My father told me not to enter a court of law so long as he was Chief Justice of India. That’s why I spent three years at Harvard Law School. I entered a court for the first time after he retired," he explained.

On gender balance in the judiciary, Chandrachud highlighted the growing number of women entering the legal profession and judiciary. "At the lowest levels of recruitment in the district judiciary, over 50% of new recruits in several states are women. In some states, that number goes up to 60 or 70%," he said. 
According to Chandrachud, as legal education becomes more accessible to women, this gender balance will soon reflect in the higher echelons of the judiciary. 

Ex-CJI on Jammu and Kashmir

During the interview, Chandrachud also addressed the abrogation of Article 370, rejecting allegations that the SC was complicit in political decisions. He clarified the court's position, explaining that Article 370 was part of the Constitution’s chapter on Transitional and Temporary Provisions, intended to fade away over time. "If an elected government takes the view that we are abrogating what was essentially a transitional provision, that’s fine," Chandrachud said.

The former CJI said that Article 370 of the Constitution, when it was introduced into the Constitution at the birth of the Constitution, was part of a chapter which is titled Transitional Arrangements or Transitional Provisions. It was later renamed as Temporary and Transitional Provisions. "And therefore, at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was this, that what was transitional would have to fade away and have to merge with the overall text, the context of the Constitution. Now, is seventy-five-plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision?" 

He said the Supreme Court had ensured the restoration of democracy in Jammu and Kashmir, setting a timeline for elections. "We set a timeline of September 30. Elections took place early in October, and a democratically elected government is now in place, and there's been a peaceful transfer of power to a government which is a political party and a political dispensation, which is not the dispensation in the union government in Delhi," he noted. 

Chandrachud also referred to an unconditional statement made by the Solicitor General before the court, promising that Jammu and Kashmir’s status as a state would be restored as soon as possible. "We have again accepted the undertaking of the union government. We asked them, would you like us to issue a direction or are you going to give an undertaking? The Solicitor General sought time, he consulted the government at the highest level, and has made an unconditional statement before the court that the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a state would be restored as soon as possible."