Independence of judiciary doesn't mean...: CJI

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Monday said the independence of the judiciary does not mean always delivering verdicts against the government.

Speaking at an event in New Delhi organised by the Indian Express group, Chandrachud said there are pressure groups trying to get favourable verdicts by putting pressure on the courts by using electronic media.

"Traditionally, judicial independence was defined as independence from the executive. Independence of the judiciary even now means independence from the government. But that is not the only thing in terms of judicial independence.

"Our society has changed. Particularly with the advent of social media, you see interest groups, pressure groups and groups which are trying to use electronic media to put pressure on the courts to get favourable decisions," he said.

Chandrachud, who demits office on November 10, said a lot of these pressure groups term the judiciary independent if judges decide in their favour.

"'If you do not decide in my favour, you are not independent,' that is what I have an objection to. To be independent, a judge must have the independence to decide what their conscience tells them, of course, the conscience which is guided by the law and the Constitution," the CJI said.

Chandrachud said he was called independent when he ruled against the government and struck down the electoral bonds.

"When you decide electoral bonds, then you are very independent but if a verdict goes in favour of the government, then you are not independent... That is not my definition of independence," the CJI added.

He said judges must be given the leeway to decide cases.

The CJI also said merits of a case may be quite different from what is shown in the media when asked about the delay in hearing on the bail plea of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid, lodged in jail in a Delhi riots case.

A judge applies his mind to a case while hearing it, and decides on its merit without being biased, the CJI asserted in the same breath.

Chandrachud said that in the media a particular case assumes significance and then the court is criticised on that particular case.

"After I took over as CJI, I decided to prioritise bail cases as it pertains to personal liberty. It was decided that at least every bench of the top court should hear 10 bail cases. Between November 9, 2022, and November 1, 2024, 21,000 bail cases were filed in the Supreme Court. During this period, 21,358 bail cases have been disposed of," he said.

In the same period, 901 out of 967 Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases filed during were disposed of, he said.

"A dozen political cases involving prominent ones, where bail has been granted in recent months. Very often, in the media, a certain facet or atmospherics of a case are being made out.

"When a judge applies mind to the record of a case, what emerges may be quite different from what is portrayed in the media on the merits of that particular case. The judge applies his mind to the concerned cases and then decides the case.

"Speaking for myself, I have granted bail from A to Z (Arnab Goswami to Zubair) and that's my philosophy," Chandrachud said.

He said the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' must predominantly be followed but it was yet to permeate to the trial courts.