In a significant statement on the true meaning of judicial independence, outgoing Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud emphasized that the judiciary’s independence is not synonymous with ruling against the government. Addressing an event in Delhi on Monday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who is set to retire on November 10, highlighted that independence entails freedom for judges to decide cases guided solely by the law and the Constitution—not by public opinion or pressure to align with or against government policies.
The Chief Justice reflected on reactions to his recent rulings, pointing out that after he struck down the electoral bonds scheme, he was widely hailed as an “independent” judge. However, he expressed concern over the tendency to associate judicial independence exclusively with decisions that oppose the government. “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,” he remarked.
In February, the Supreme Court ruled the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional in a landmark decision. The scheme, introduced in 2018, allowed anonymous political donations through banks and was subject to criticism for lack of transparency. A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud unanimously deemed the scheme unconstitutional, thereby ending a contentious method of political funding. This ruling underscored the Court’s willingness to uphold constitutional principles even against the state’s position.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud argued that while judicial independence traditionally meant freedom from executive interference, modern challenges have broadened this definition. He observed that societal pressures—particularly from interest groups on social media and electronic media—are increasingly aimed at influencing judicial outcomes. He warned that these groups often equate judicial independence with rulings that align with their own interests, saying, “If you do not decide in my favour, you are not independent.” This, he noted, is a flawed interpretation of judicial independence.
In his view, true independence requires judges to follow their conscience, as guided by legal and constitutional frameworks, regardless of who benefits from the verdict. He called on the public to trust that judges act with integrity and emphasized that judicial decisions must balance justice as dictated by the law. “The cases which have to go against the government, we decided against the government. But if the law requires a case to be decided in favour of the government, you have to decide in accordance with the law,” he asserted, stressing that this balanced approach is essential to a stable and vibrant judiciary.
