Former CJI Chandrachud opens up on Ayodhya Verdict, Modi meeting, in Lallantop interview
Speaks about delay in bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has spoken at length on several contentious issues, from the Ayodhya title suit and mediation process to his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during Ganesh Utsav, the debate on bail in sensitive cases, and the challenges facing the judiciary. The remarks came during an interview with The Lallantop, excerpts of which have been shared ahead of the full video release.
The discussion touched on his judicial journey, his role in landmark verdicts, and his response to criticisms by fellow judges and political observers.
On the Ayodhya Verdict
Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge bench that delivered the 2019 Ayodhya land dispute judgment, addressed recent comments made by Odisha High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar. Justice Muralidhar had questioned why the decision was delivered in the name of “authorless judgment” and suggested that the ruling was rushed before then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s retirement.
Chandrachud countered this sharply. “Many judges become social reformers after retirement. Perhaps they want to be seen as such. But I do not agree with what he said. To say that this was an authorless judgment is wrong. This case was not an ordinary one. For over 100 years, society had witnessed tension before independence, during British rule, and after independence. The bench decided that whatever the verdict, it must be spoken in one voice. That is why it was delivered without attribution,” he explained.
He dismissed suggestions that the case was hurried to accommodate CJI Gogoi’s retirement. “Is this a joke? Mediation was given full opportunity. There were mediators like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, former judge F.M.I. Kalifulla, and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. Their report made it clear no settlement acceptable to all sides had been reached. Should we have let 15–20 years pass in mediation? People would laugh at the Supreme Court,” he said.
On Criticism of Social Media Interpretations
Chandrachud also pointed out that Justice Muralidhar may have relied on incomplete information. “If he had seen the video clip, he would have realised that reading social media and giving opinions can be misleading. The truth is that mediation did not succeed, and the verdict had to come.”
On Ganesh Utsav Meeting with PM Modi
The CJI addressed criticism after photographs and videos emerged in September 2024 of Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at his official residence. The images had raised questions about the separation of the judiciary and executive.
“Yes, the Prime Minister came to my house. I have been CJI for two years. I often went to his office, his house, as part of official work—whether for selecting the CBI Director or Lokpal. After such meetings, he would often say, sit for five minutes, have tea, let us talk about digitisation or reforms. I have also invited him for official functions,” Chandrachud clarified.
He added that the Ganesh Utsav invitation was extended by him before retirement. “We were sitting together at an event, and I asked him will you come for Ganpati? He said yes. This was an exchange between constitutional authorities, not something that affects judicial work.”
On Bail and the Umar Khalid Case
Questions about prolonged custody of Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam also came up. Critics had raised concerns about why bail was denied despite the judiciary’s repeated emphasis that “bail is the rule, jail the exception.”
Chandrachud explained that Khalid’s lawyers themselves had withdrawn bail pleas on several occasions. He also addressed allegations that cases were selectively assigned to certain judges, including Justice Bela Trivedi, who had once been associated as counsel for Narendra Modi.
He rejected such claims. “In the Supreme Court, there are clear rules and conventions on allocation. Cases travel with judges after retirements or health reasons. For example, Justice Bopanna had to step back after heart surgery, and cases had to be reassigned. To say that cases are specifically allotted is wrong. If we start giving lawyers or political establishments the power to pick their judges, the entire system will collapse,” he said.
On the Sabarimala Verdict and Social Backlash
Reflecting on another landmark case, Chandrachud spoke about the Sabarimala judgment allowing women of menstruating age to enter the temple. “It was not an easy verdict. People troll us because they believe faith has been affected. But I am a judge, not God. I believe what I did was right. If society has another view, even harshly against us, let them speak. That is their right,” he said.
On Leaked Supreme Court Video
He also expressed concern about a controversial video clip that was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website. “The in-house committee was supposed to decide whether the video was genuine or doctored. By uploading it directly on the website, the impression went out to the public that it must be genuine because it was on the Supreme Court’s site. Ordinary citizens do not know whether a video is real or doctored. That was a mistake,” he admitted.
On the Larger Judicial System
Chandrachud repeatedly stressed that criticisms must be seen in the broader context of protecting institutional integrity. “The danger lies in allowing individuals or parties to dictate before whom their cases should be heard. Today it is a matter of personal liberty, tomorrow it could be a matter of industrial disputes. If that line is crossed, the system itself is at risk,” he warned.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
