CJI Chandrachud Responds To PM Modi's Ganesh Puja Visit Criticism

By Fnf correspondent | PUBLISHED: 28, Oct 2024, 17:07 pm IST | UPDATED: 28, Oct 2024, 17:07 pm IST

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud scheduled to retire on November 10, addressed the recent controversy over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit at CJI's residence for Ganpati puja festivities. The Chief Justice said that there is ‘enough maturity’ among constitutional court judges and executive leaders to keep judicial matters comp

He further said, "We know our duties in the democratic system of governance, and the political executive know theirs. No judge, least of them the Chief Justice of India or Chief Justices, can even remotely invite any threat, actual or perceived, to the independence of the judiciary."

Last month, images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi performing a Ganesh Aarati alongside Chief Justice DY Chandrachud at the CJI's residence surfaced online, sparking questions from the Opposition. The Opposition raised concerns over the Prime Minister’s informal presence at the residence of the country’s top judicial figure.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut called for Chief Justice Chandrachud to recuse himself from the ongoing legal battle between Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Eknath Shinde-led faction.

Party leader Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed this concern, citing multiple adjournments in the Sena vs. Sena case as cause for scrutiny.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will retire on November 10, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna set to take over as the Supreme Court’s next head.

letely out of any discussions.

The chief Justice described the meeting as a routine interaction. “There is enough maturity among judges of constitutional courts and the heads of the executive to firmly keep aside judicial matters out of the purview of any discussion,” he stated.

Speaking at the Loksatta lecture series in Mumbai on Sunday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud clarified that interactions between the judiciary and the government were strictly professional, with no deals or agreements being made. He emphasized that these meetings focused only on addressing infrastructure needs of the courts, not on influencing judicial decisions.