'Optics Good for Modi, Bad for Judiciary': Did CJI Cross a Line With PM's Visit?

"A sacrosanct document adopted by the SC says judges must adopt a standard of aloofness," noted a senior advocate.

The principal objection raised by legal experts and Opposition leaders alike is that the occasion casts a veil over the "impartial image" of the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large.

(Photo Courtesy: X/BJP) 

A number of people – both from legal and political backgrounds – have poked holes into Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud's decision to invite Prime Minister Narendra Modi to his residence for Ganesh Puja on Wednesday, 11 September.

In videos and pictures shared across social media platforms, including by the prime minister himself, Chandrachud and his wife Kalpana Das can be seen welcoming Modi into their home with folded hands. In another video the prime minister is seen performing Ganesh Puja, flanked by the CJI and his wife.

While there is no specific provision in the law that prohibits such an occasion from taking place, many have raised questions about the "optics" and the message that is being sent out through the visit.

Could it have been avoided? Should it have been avoided? We find out with the help of experts.

Problem 1: Impartiality of the Judiciary 

The principal objection raised by legal experts and Opposition leaders alike is that the occasion casts a veil over the "impartial image" of the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large.

"A sacrosanct document adopted by the Supreme Court clearly states that judges must adopt a standard of aloofness," says senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose, while speaking to The Quint. "Ideally, that aloofness would mean to be away from the public, that is the litigating public. Since the government is the largest litigator, the head of the government is also a part of the litigating public."

The document Ghose is talking about is called the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life', adopted by the apex court on 7 May 1997.

While the document contains 16 provisions, for the purpose at hand quoting two will suffice: point 6 and point 10.

Point 6: A judge must practise a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office.

Point 10: A judge shall not accept gifts or hospitality except from his family, close relations, and friends.

Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997. 

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint) 

"The way the occasion was carried out could certainly have been avoided," a senior Supreme Court lawyer, who wished not to be named, told The Quint.

"I don't mind if it's a religious occasion. But what is the need to have cameras and to publicise the event? You want to call someone to your house for a puja out of respect and admiration, you call them. I'm sure the chief justice had the most honourable and pious of intentions, but the moment you have cameras it becomes a little problematic, because then what is the message you are trying to send across?"

Supreme Court lawyer

The visit also came at a time when a legal case is pending before CJI Chandrachud's bench in which the Shiv Sena (UBT) has challenged the Maharashtra Speaker's decision to recognise Eknath Shinde's faction as the "real Shiv Sena". This is significant considering that CJI Chandrachud himself is from Maharashtra.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut took to X to say that when there is a dispute between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Opposition in the top court, the prime minister's visit at the chief justice's residence does not bode well for the perception of fairness of the judiciary.

"In our case in Maharashtra, the hearing is going on before CJI Chandrachud. We have doubts if we will get justice because the PM is the other party in the case," Raut took to X to say.

He also urged Chandrachud to recuse himself from hearing the case "because his relationship with the other party is openly visible" and listed several cases in which the apex court had given rulings which were unfavourable for Opposition leaders.

Are Raut's statements mere political mudslinging? Or is there any credible basis to them?

"Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The whole foundation of the justice system is perception," the unnamed Supreme Court lawyer told The Quint.

"If you start entertaining a politician in your house and publicise it, especially when there is a keenly fought contest happening in your very court, then you allow such people [like Raut] to speculate."

Problem 2: Elevating One Religion Over Another 

Another issue that has been raised regarding the occasion is the purported perception created of "elevating" one religion over others.

The Indian Constitution guarantees that all religions are equal before law, and that no religion should be given preference over another. However, if the highest political functionary in the country publicly performs a religious ceremony at the residence of the highest judicial functionary of the country, it gives the "impression" of elevating one faith over others.

"The optics are terrible for the judiciary, but the politics is very good for the prime minister," senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde told The Quint." Everybody who speaks of the impropriety of the event can be labelled as 'anti-Hindu'."

Hegde further gave two examples to portray why the visit could be construed as being problematic.

Example 1: Instead of the prime minister, let us consider if an industrialist whose case is before the Supreme Court turns up at the chief justice's residence in the same fashion. "Would we stand for it?" he asks.

Example 2: Let us imagine that India has a Muslim prime minister, and the chief justice of the day also happens to be Muslim. Would it then be right for them to pray together at the chief justice's residence in the Islamic fashion and a video of the event went out?

"What is the greatest asset of the judiciary? It is its appearance of impartiality. Unfortunately, the judiciary has allowed itself to be dragged into such incidents which are completely avoidable situations," Hegde said.

He also stated that while the PM and the CJI meet at a number of events, it is never at the private residences of each other.

Problem 3: Encroaching on Judicial Time 

Yet another issue raised regarding the occasion is that it took place during court hours.

"The chief justice did not sit yesterday afternoon suddenly without notice. So, this visit also encroached on judicial time – which is a scarce resource," Hegde told The Quint.

While this in itself does not seem like a big issue, the statistics of pending cases in themselves speak volumes.

• As per data from January 2024, there are 80,221 cases pending before the Supreme Court.

• Furthermore, the ratio of judges to the population in India is around 21 judges per million people – making it one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios across the globe. Hence, a dire necessity for the speedy dispensation of cases cannot possibly be overstated.

Reflecting on an anecdote to highlight the importance of the court's time, Hegde said:

"Many years ago, when the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Earl Warren visited India, Chief Justice MC Chagla of the Bombay High Court did not receive him at the airport because he was arriving during court time. He only met him after court hours."

What Has the Supreme Court Said About Separation of Powers? 

Several benches of the Supreme Court in the past have reflected on the principle of "separation of powers" between the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature.

In the 1987 Daya Shankar vs Allahabad HC case, for instance, the bench said that judges should not preach what they did not practise.

"Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy."

Supreme Court benching hearing the 1987 Daya Shankar vs Allahabad HC case

Similarly, in the 1998 Supreme Court judgment in the Rajasthan HC vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal case, the bench had said that judges need to "shed their ambitions" and "behave like hermits".

"It is imperative under constitutional discipline that they (judges) work in tranquillity. Judges have been described as ‘hermits’. They have to live and behave like ‘hermits’ who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat."

As a recent example, allegations of impropriety were raised by the Opposition in March 2020 when former CJI Ranjan Gogoi had taken oath as a Rajya Sabha MP – nominated by the BJP-led Centre – merely four months after demitting office.

At the time, the Opposition had alleged a quid pro quo arrangement between Gogoi and the BJP, as a bench led by the former had issued a landmark judgment in favour of the BJP in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case.

Lawyers, Opposition Go 'All Guns Blazing' Against CJI

Meanwhile, a number of Opposition leaders and lawyers condemned CJI Chandrachud, saying that the occasion had "compromised the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary".

Activist-lawyer Indira Jaising took to X to urge the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to condemn the visit by PM Modi.

"Lost all confidence in the independence of the CJI. The SCBA must condemn this publicly displayed compromise of Independence of the CJI from the Executive," she said, tagging SCBA chairperson Kapil Sibal.

Similarly, Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that the private meeting sent a "very bad message" to the judiciary, which is "tasked with the responsibility of protecting fundamental right of citizens from the executive and ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution".

"That is why there has to be an arms length separation between the executive & judiciary," he added.

Echoing her colleague Sanjay Raut's statements, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader took a dig at CJI Chandrachud, saying:

"After the festivities are over hopefully CJI will deem fit and be slightly freer to conclude the hearing on Maharashtra and the blatant disregard of Article 10 of the Constitution in Maharashtra. Oh wait, elections round the corner anyway, it can be adjourned for another day."

On the other hand, BJP national general secretary (Organisation) BL Santhosh defended the meeting, saying that it was not an event which involved "socialising" but a "devoted Ganapathi Pooja".

"Started crying! Civility, cordiality, togetherness, co travellers in nations journey are all an anathema to these left liberals. Also it was not socialising but a devoted Ganapathi Pooja is very hard to digest. SCBA is not a moral compass. Take deep breath once," he took to X to say.

BJP leader Shehzad Poonawalla also hit out at the Opposition, sharing images of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Iftaar party in 2009 which was attended by leaders of political parties and the then CJI KG Balakrishnan.