Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Tuesday strongly refuted the allegations made by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut following the defeat of Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in the Maharashtra Assembly elections.
Raut had alleged that Chandrachud did not properly decide on the disqualification cases of MLAs, due to which the MVA government fell and his party faced electoral defeat.
In an interview to news agency ANI, former Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “During our tenure, many important constitutional cases were going on in the Supreme Court.
We gave judgments from a nine-judge bench, a seven-judge bench and a five-judge bench. Can any one party or individual decide which case the Supreme Court should hear? This decision rests only with the Chief Justice.”
Sanjay Raut had alleged that Chandrachud removed the fear of law from politicians by delaying the decision on disqualification cases of Shinde faction MLAs, leading to the fall of the MVA government.
He had also said that the delay in decisions by the court had affected political outcomes and history would not forgive them.
Rejecting these allegations, Chandrachud said that the Supreme Court has limited resources and judges and hence it has to maintain a balance in resolving constitutional cases.
He said, “Many important cases are waiting in the Supreme Court for 20 years. Should we focus on recent cases instead of listening to those old cases? The priorities of the Supreme Court are on constitutional issues which are important to the society.”
Speaking about Sanjay Raut’s allegation, DY Chandrachud said that it is wrong to expect the court to act according to political agendas.
“We took the decision on electoral bonds,” he said. Was that less important?” Chandrachud cited other important cases, including disability rights, constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Amendment Act, and important decisions related to federal structure and way of life.
Responding to allegations of political interference, Chandrachud said, “People should not infer that the judiciary will play the role of opposition in Parliament or state assemblies.
Our job is to review the laws.” Emphasizing the independence of the judiciary, he described meeting leaders as just a social courtesy, which does not compromise judicial independence.
The former CJI also said that it is necessary to keep the judiciary strong to protect it from external pressures. He said, “Some people with huge resources come to the court and try to pressure that their case be heard first. We have to avoid such pressures.”
Chandrachud also said that the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like Article 370, Ayodhya and Sabarimala were given without any external pressure.
He said, “If there was any pressure then why would the Supreme Court take so much time to decide on those cases?”
However, Dawei Chandrachud also acknowledged the need for reforms in the judiciary. He advocated filling vacancies in district courts and improving infrastructure.
He also said that the Supreme Court aims to give priority to cases related to deprived sections, such as over 21,000 bail applications resolved during his tenure.
The post CJI, not the leader, will decide which case the Supreme Court should hear; DY Chandrachud replied to Sanjay Raut… appeared first on .