PM Modi at CJI’s Puja: bonhomie between judiciary and executive condemned
text_fields
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation in a Ganesh Chaturthi puja at the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has sparked controversy, with civil rights activists and legal professionals condemning the meeting.
The event, held on September 11, saw the Prime Minister attending the ritual alongside CJI Chandrachud and his wife, Kalpana Das. Critics argue that such interactions could jeopardise the independence of the judiciary and blur the line between the judiciary and the executive.
Leading lawyer and activist Indira Jaising strongly objected to the meeting in a post in 'X', describing it as a "compromise" of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. She urged the Supreme Court’s Bar Association to issue a formal condemnation, asserting that the separation of powers had been violated.
Jaising argued that the interaction undermined the public’s confidence in the independence of the Chief Justice and set a dangerous precedent for the relationship between the two branches of government.
Prashant Bhushan, another prominent lawyer and activist, also criticised the meeting, highlighting the message it sends to the judiciary. He expressed concern that the event could be seen as signalling a close relationship between the judiciary and the executive, a dynamic that could threaten the judiciary’s role in upholding citizens' fundamental rights and ensuring that the government acts within constitutional limits.
"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," Bhushan wrote on X.
Ashok Dhawale, president of the All India Kisan Sabha and CPI(M) polit bureau member, further suggested that the CJI’s friendliness with the Prime Minister might be motivated by personal ambitions, as Chandrachud is set to retire in two months. Dhawale speculated that the CJI could be seeking a post-retirement position such as a Rajya Sabha MP, Governor, or even a place on a corporate board.
Clifton D’Rozario, central committee member of CPI(ML) Liberation, joined the chorus of criticism, stating that the meeting obliterated the line between the judiciary and the executive. He argued that the message being sent was that it is acceptable for members of the judiciary to engage closely with representatives of the executive, further questioning the independence of the judiciary in such circumstances.
