Justice Chandrachud’s appointment sparked new hope amid institutional decay and declining democratic standards.
Release Date – 12:45 AM, Fri – 12 December 22

by Nayakara Veeresha
On November 9, Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud took over as the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI). Although appointments are a routine matter of governance, this appointment is significant for several reasons: he is the youngest judge to have recently become a CJI; he has a fairly long tenure in his position at the CJI (the pension will expire on 10 November 2024 due date); a turbulent period regarding the role of the judiciary in democracy and the revival of the credibility of the Supreme Court of India as defenders of civil rights and promoters of justice.
worrying trend
Understanding the political economy of the judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court (SC) in particular, is critical to exploring the robustness of judicial independence in democracies. There is a feeling among the legal luminaries and citizens that the recently functioning SC cannot satisfy citizens’ aspirations for justice.
Another worrying trend seen so far is the weakening of institutional checks and balances within the judiciary, more so since 2014, where the weakening process has been catalyzed. The interaction between the legislature and the judiciary is complex. Describing the dynamics behind this complexity is crucial to understanding institutional interactions in functional democracies.
The institutional decline of the erosion of judicial independence and autonomy of the Supreme Court coincides with the solid foundations of majoritarian regimes around the world, including India.
For example, in this case Rakesh Vaishnav & Ors. Alliance with India and OLS (2021), the SC stay order can be read as a clear violation of the administrative sphere, thereby setting a bad precedent. In the context of a democratic governance framework, this exceptional moratorium exacerbates democratic regression, leading to the erosion of Montesquieu’s doctrine of the separation of powers.
policy crisis
What needs to be reminded is that the Indian constitution adopts a relative separation of powers, rather than a strict separation of powers like the US and Australian constitutions. Judicial courts can suspend the operation of any law only if they find at least a prima facie element of unconstitutionality. Democratic regression begins when an independent judiciary tilts toward judicial lawmaking or governance, thereby deepening what the Supreme Court identified in this case as a so-called policy crisis or governance failure.
A law made by Parliament can only be set aside by Parliament by amending or repealing it. The usurpation of other organs of government by the judiciary is not conducive to constitutionalism.exist Asif Hameed v State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in AIR 1989 SC 1899The SC observes that “although the doctrine of the separation of powers is not recognized with absolute rigor in the Constitution, the framers of the Constitution have carefully defined the functions of the various organs of the state…no organ can usurp the functions assigned to another… …the functioning of a democracy depends on the strength and independence of each of its institutions…”
Critical period
The operation of the new CJI during its two-year term presents both an opportunity and a challenge. Digitization of court proceedings, e-filing, live streaming of Constitutional Court proceedings and filling of vacancies in the District, High and Supreme Courts are some potential areas where one can foresee significant improvements.
Long-pending cases like the repeal of Section 370, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), political defection in Maharashtra and extension of the retention period for more than 10 years are politically sensitive issues that need to be looked at in new How the CJI leads the governance of these cases. With the 2024 election looming, the decisions in these cases have the potential to shape national politics in some way.
One of the key cases where Judge Chandrachud dissented was Romila Thapar & Ors vs. Indian Federation & Ors (2018) Involved in the arbitrary arrest of high-profile individuals. In this particular case, Justice Chandrachud urged the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). Quoting the judgment: “I believe that, while the investigation should not be obstructed, this is the proper case for the appointment of a special investigation team. cast a shadow.”
desire for justice
From this, it can be inferred with considerable satisfaction that attention will be paid to due process of law and impartiality of investigations when dealing with sensitive issues, especially where fundamental rights of citizens and political values are involved. Because liberty and liberty are at stake.
The new CJI is known for its liberal and rights-based approach, which is essential to democratic governance. This can be seen in privacy rights, women’s reproductive rights, the decriminalization of Section 377 and the sentencing of adultery. The appointment of the 50th CJI comes at a critical time when citizens of India and the world are focusing on the judiciary as a democratic institution and an institutional tool for delivering justice.
Governing institutions and their decline are a larger consequence of the democratic failure of the current ruling system to provide good governance for the people. Conscious and visionary leadership is needed at all times to lead the nation and carry out the vision of the framers of the Constitution, including the Supreme Court. It is hoped that the new CJI will provide such leadership to restore citizens’ general trust in justice and democracy.
(The author is a PhD Fellow in Political Science at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. Opinions are personal)