In a candid and insightful interview with veteran journalist Stephen Sackur on BBC’s HARDtalk, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, defended the Indian judiciary’s independence and highlighted its role in safeguarding personal liberties, a sentiment that has become a cornerstone of the institution’s credibility. Reflecting on the evolving dynamics of India’s legal system, Chandrachud emphasized the judiciary’s growing inclusivity, particularly when it comes to gender balance, and countered allegations about elite dominance in its ranks.
A critical moment in the interview came when Sackur posed a question about the apparent lack of diversity in the judiciary, specifically regarding its dominance by male, upper-caste elites. Justice (retd) Chandrachud vehemently disagreed with this assertion. Drawing attention to the substantial representation of women in the lower judiciary, he pointed out that over 50% of new recruits in district courts—often the entry point for legal professionals—are women. In certain states, this number rises to as high as 70%. This growing gender balance at the grassroots level, he argued, would naturally translate into more women ascending to higher judicial positions over time. His words reflect an optimistic vision of the judiciary evolving in tandem with societal shifts, where the presence of women in law schools and legal education is finally bearing fruit in the courtroom.
When asked about being the son of a former Chief Justice, Chandrachud took the opportunity to address the notion of dynastic influence in the judiciary. He recalled how his father, YV Chandrachud, had advised him against entering the legal profession while he was serving as Chief Justice, leading him to pursue studies abroad. This personal anecdote not only sheds light on his own journey but also challenges the perception that India’s judiciary is dominated by a small, privileged elite. Chandrachud emphasized that the judiciary, particularly at the lower levels, consists largely of individuals who are first-generation entrants into the profession, which he believes counters the notion of hereditary dominance.
When questioned about political pressure, particularly in light of the ruling BJP’s alleged influence over the judiciary, Chandrachud offered a strong rebuttal. He referenced the 2024 general election results as evidence that India’s political landscape is far from being consolidated into a one-party state. The rise of regional political parties, he pointed out, is a testament to the country’s vibrant democracy. In addition, he cited the Supreme Court’s consistent efforts to protect personal liberties, including pausing Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case, as proof that the judiciary remains fiercely independent.
Chandrachud’s comments underscore the importance of an impartial judiciary in upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals. In a time when political and social pressures frequently target institutions meant to protect democracy, his statements reaffirm that the Indian judiciary continues to be a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. It is this commitment to justice—regardless of political affiliations—that has solidified the judiciary’s standing in the eyes of the Indian public.
Moreover, the increasing gender balance in the lower judiciary and the growing representation of women in law schools point to a hopeful future for a more diverse and equitable legal system. While challenges remain, particularly at the higher echelons, the ongoing transformation within the Indian judiciary reflects broader social progress and the potential for greater inclusivity in the years to come.
Justice (retd) Chandrachud’s words should be seen as a strong reminder that, while no institution is immune to criticism or challenges, the Indian judiciary’s enduring commitment to justice and personal liberty is one of its most vital strengths.
