CJI Chandrachud: The Betrayal of Justice and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity
CJI Chandrachud: The Betrayal of
Justice and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity
More than a year ago, I raised
concerns about Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud’s failure to
uphold justice—a concern that has only deepened with his selective intervention
in cases that matter most to the integrity of Indian democracy. Yesterday, he
was accused of lying, and just weeks ago, he hosted Prime Minister Narendra
Modi for a Ganesh Pooja at his residence—a symbolic gesture that speaks volumes
about his troubling proximity to the ruling elite. But the most damning
evidence against Chandrachud is his selective application of justice, revealing
a man who acts only when it suits his interests or when pressured by political
power.
While Chandrachud has repeatedly
failed to defend innocent people, his inaction is most glaring in the cases of
opposition leaders like Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Hemant Soren, and Arvind
Kejriwal. These men were arrested on concocted charges, thrown into jail not
because of any actual wrongdoing, but because they posed a political threat to
the government. Despite there being no evidence of corruption, they were held
as part of a blatant strategy to tarnish their reputations ahead of elections.
Yet Chandrachud did nothing. He had every opportunity to stop these grave
miscarriages of justice, but he stood by, letting the government manipulate the
judiciary for its own ends.
What is most telling is that all
of these men eventually secured bail, not because of Chandrachud’s
intervention, but because there was no proof of corruption in the first place.
The CJI had the power to prevent their unjust arrests and prolonged detention,
yet he chose not to act. His silence in the face of these politically motivated
arrests shows his willingness to let the government subvert the judiciary and
use it as a tool for political persecution.
However, when it came to Rahul
Gandhi—found guilty by a corrupt court in Gujarat—Chandrachud suddenly sprang
into action. He intervened to stop the wrongful conviction, ensuring that
Gandhi was able to continue his political career. This selective use of
judicial power shows that Chandrachud is more than capable of acting when it
suits him or when there is sufficient pressure. His actions in Rahul Gandhi’s
case demonstrate that the CJI could have intervened in other cases, but chose
not to—further proving his complicity in the government’s corrupt agenda.
And then there is the matter of
the Election Commission of India (ECI), which has become little more than a
puppet of the BJP, openly rigging elections and violating electoral norms to
secure victories for the ruling party. Chandrachud has allowed this travesty to
continue unchecked, failing to protect the integrity of the electoral process,
which is fundamental to any democracy. His silence on the ECI’s manipulation is
a betrayal of his constitutional duty, one that has enabled the government to
steal elections and cement its authoritarian rule.
D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure will
not be remembered for upholding justice, but for aiding in its destruction. His
legacy will be one of complicity, corruption, and cowardice. The Indian
Constitution may provide immunity to the Chief Justice, shielding him from
legal consequences, but it cannot shield him from the judgment of history.
Chandrachud has allowed power and greed to corrupt his principles, transforming
the judiciary into a tool of the ruling party.
As he nears retirement,
Chandrachud faces a choice that every leader with immense power must make: to
act with integrity or to succumb to the allure of power and wealth. Tragically,
he has chosen the latter. Unlike figures such as T.N. Seshan, who is remembered
for his unwavering commitment to democracy, Chandrachud will be remembered as
the man who betrayed the very institution he was entrusted to protect. Seshan
upheld the sanctity of the Election Commission with fierce independence;
Chandrachud, in contrast, has allowed the judiciary to be bent to the will of
the government.
The arrests of Sisodia, Singh,
Soren, and Kejriwal were Chandrachud’s moment to act—to stand on the side of
justice, to protect the innocent, and to preserve the integrity of the
judiciary. Instead, he chose silence. The fact that he did intervene in Rahul
Gandhi’s case only underscores his selective application of justice, proving
that he could act when he wanted to, but simply chose not to when it didn’t
align with his interests or the government’s.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s legacy
will be forever stained by his failure to uphold the law, his refusal to defend
the innocent, and his role in the erosion of democracy. He will be remembered
not as a protector of justice, but as a collaborator in its demise. The
judiciary under his leadership has become a tool of political power, and the
people of India have been betrayed by one of their highest offices. This is not
the legacy of a Chief Justice; this is the legacy of a man who sold out the
nation’s most sacred principles for personal gain and political expedience.
Comments
Post a Comment