In a recent interview on BBC’s HARDtalk, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud addressed critiques concerning the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the abrogation of Article 370. He emphasized that Article 370 was always intended as a “transitional provision” within the Indian Constitution. Chandrachud questioned whether a span of 75 years was insufficient for such a transitional provision to be abrogated. He highlighted that the Constitution’s framers designed Article 370 to eventually integrate Jammu and Kashmir fully into India.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict in December 2023 upheld the Presidential Order of August 2019, which revoked Article 370. This action led to the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories and the removal of its special status. Critics argue that this move undermined the Constitution’s original intent and the region’s autonomy.
When questioned about the disappointment expressed by legal scholars regarding this decision, Chandrachud maintained that judges must refrain from defending or critiquing their judgments post-delivery. He stated, “Judges who decide a case speak through their judgment. Once a judgment is delivered, that judgment becomes public property.” He further emphasized that in a free society, individuals are entitled to form their own opinions about judicial decisions.
Chandrachud also addressed the importance of restoring the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir. He noted that the Supreme Court had set a timeline for reinstating democracy in the region, underscoring the need for effective governance and representation.
Reflecting on his tenure as CJI, Chandrachud expressed a commitment to realizing the transformative potential of the Constitution. He aimed to broaden access to justice and ensure that the judiciary remained responsive to the needs of all citizens. He highlighted efforts to increase diversity within the judiciary, noting a significant rise in the recruitment of women at the district level. “Over 50% of the new recruits coming into our states are women,” he remarked, indicating a positive shift towards gender balance in the legal profession.
In conclusion, Chandrachud reiterated that judicial decisions are based on constitutional principles and the law. He refrained from engaging in debates over critiques of the Article 370 verdict, asserting that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution impartially. He emphasized the importance of upholding democratic processes and ensuring that the judiciary remains a pillar of strength in India’s democratic framework.
