Justice on Trial: The Former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud’s "Bail Controversy, and India’s Faith in Courts”

 The judiciary is the bedrock of India's democracy, expected to be a fortress of impartiality and moral authority. But recent events have shaken this confidence, as former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud faces an inquiry into his alleged misuse of “roster powers.” Coupled with PM Modi’s controversial visit to his residence for Ganesh Puja, questions now loom over the integrity of those who guard the law.

---

What’s the Controversy?

• Date & Event: On July 1, 2023, during a summer recess, CJI Chandrachud reportedly constituted two Supreme Court benches in a single day to hear the same bail plea for activist Teesta Setalvad—first one denied, and the next granted bail.
• Allegation - The Allegation: Roster Power or "Hyperactivity"? Retired Patna High Court Justice Rakesh Kumar claims this action exemplified "hyperactivity" and abuse of roster powers aimed at favoring Setalvad. After one bench didn’t grant bail, CJI Chandrachud allegedly constituted another the same day, which granted bail.

---

Who Filed the Complaint & Why?

• Justice Rakesh Kumar addressed the complaint to the President on November 8, 2024, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, seeking a CBI investigation.
• He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s roster power allows urgent benches even in vacations. His issue was not the bail order itself, but the process and timing—suspecting favoritism.

---

Role of President, Law Ministry & DoPT

• The complaint was initially submitted to the Hon’ble President of India, who subsequently referred it to the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Law Ministry forwarded the matter to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further action."
  
• Now the matter is under official investigation, the panel will assess whether the complaint warrants further investigations—marking a rare move to probe a former CJI’s use of official powers.

---

The Pivotal Question

• Will a former CJI be held accountable like any other citizen? The outcome could reshape how roster decisions—and the sanctity of courtroom processes—are perceived.

---

What was the case of Teesta Setalvad’s Bail Application?

• Who is She? Teesta Setalvad was accused of fabricating evidence during the 2002 Gujarat riots inquiry. Her arrest and high court bail denial led her to appeal in the Supreme Court.

• SC’s decision: The Supreme Court described the High Court’s denial of bail as “perverse” and granted bail to Setalvad.
• Why it matters: The urgency surrounding her plea—approved on a holiday—fueled suspicions that roster authority was used to override routine process for a specific outcome.

---

Analysis: Powers, Process & Perception

Legal Authority

• As being “Master of the Roster” officially, the CJI has the powers to govern bench formations—even during vacations—for urgent matters. Courts frequently hear emergencies on non-working days. This is well established rule that we can see more often; so, what is the controversy about?

Procedural Integrity

• The crux of the complaint isn’t legality but procedure and timing issues —constituting back-to-back two emergency benches same day for the same case is rare and raises suspicion about process fairness.
• Likewise, this is not just a personal controversy—it touches on the integrity of judicial administration, the ethical conduct expected from the apex judicial officer, and public trust.
• The outcome could shape future norms around how former CJIs wield or are scrutinized for roster decisions. It underscores that even discretionary powers must pass procedural and ethical tests.

 

---

CJI D. Y. Chandrachud’s Judicial Legacy: Champion or Controversial Custodian?

• Widely respected for progressive rulings such as privacy rights (Puttaswamy), decriminalization of adultery (Joseph Shine), and Granting bail to Arnab Goswami, stressed “bail is the rule, jail the exception,” Chandrachud has underscored transparency, judicial independence, and dignity.

Personal Integrity & Philosophy:

• He repeatedly cautioned,

“Independence of judiciary does not always mean giving a verdict against the government.”

• He also warned against media pressures influencing courts:

“Some pressure groups are trying to get a verdict… by using electronic media.”

• Chandrachud has consistently championed judicial transparency, famously advocating for live-streaming of hearings.

---

Weaving the Threads: Power, Perception, and Process

Dimension	Concern Raised	Why It Matters
Discretion vs. Process	Did constituting benches twice erode process?	Even lawful powers demand procedural fairness.
Optics & Trust	Rituals with the PM—not just custom—sparked worry	Trust falters when formality appears too familiar.
Accountability	Can CJIs be investigated under ordinary laws?	Sets precedent on transparency within highest offices.
Judicial Independence	Will inquiry protect or weaken this pillar?	Vital to democracy that judges, too, face scrutiny.

---

The Public Debate: Independence Versus Impropriety

• Critics speak: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms labeled the event “setting an unwarranted precedent,” warning it blurred institutional boundaries.
• Opposition voices: Some opposition parties questioned whether Chandrachud could remain neutral in cases involving the PM, citing “public doubts” and “compromised confidence.”

Amidst The Controversy, The Issue of PM Modi’s Ganesh Puja Visit

·        On September 11, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in Ganesh Puja at CJI Chandrachud’s official residence.

• The event stirred controversy. Critics accused it of breaching the doctrine of separation of powers. However, the CJI defended it as a personal, tradition-based courtesy with no judicial implications. He emphasized “maturity” among judges and politicians to keep judicial matters separate from social engagements.
• Defenders reply: PM Modi’s camp pointed out historical parallels—judicial figures attending official Iftars—defending Ganesh Puja as cultural and non-political.
• Judicial Independence & Perception: The PM’s visit combined with these allegations intensifies the debate on how judicial actions are perceived, impacting public confidence—reinforcing the Supreme Court’s maxim: “justice must not only be done but seen to be done.”

---

Why This Matters: Beyond One Man’s Journey

1. Checks on Discretion: Even the CJI’s powers must not be wielded in secrecy.
2. Preserving Institutional Reputation: Not merely actions, but perceptions shape trust.
3. Equality Before the Law: Public offices—even the apex judiciary—must be answerable.
4. Long-Term Precedent: Will future CJI rosters face accountability, and will judicial-executive social ties be regulated?

---

Conclusion: A Test of Integrity for India’s Judiciary

This moment intersects law, ethics, and public confidence. As the inquiry unfolds, it must do more than determine whether Chandrachud overstepped—it must also rebuild trust, reaffirm boundaries, and ensure the judiciary remains India’s unwavering guardian. For if impartiality is compromised, democracy itself stands on shaky ground.