CJI Chandrachud Clarifies PM Narendra Modi’s Ganesh Puja Visit

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud recently responded to public criticism over his appearance alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a Ganesh puja, a social event that sparked debate over the perceived independence of the judiciary. Images of PM Modi and CJI Chandrachud at the puja had circulated widely, with some critics suggesting that such appearances might blur the lines between the judiciary and the government, risking perceived impartiality. However, Chandrachud clarified that the judiciary’s independence remains firmly intact.

Speaking with The Times of India, CJI Chandrachud termed the controversy “unnecessary, unwarranted, and illogical.” He emphasized that judges of constitutional courts uphold a strict protocol in interactions with members of the executive branch, such as the Prime Minister or Chief Ministers. He explained that such gatherings never involve discussions of judicial matters, focusing solely on social pleasantries. Chandrachud further stated that it is a well-established protocol for heads of the political executive to attend judges’ social functions, including weddings or cultural festivities, but judicial independence remains uncompromised.

Addressing public concerns, CJI Chandrachud affirmed that discussions with political figures are limited to administrative topics that support the judiciary, like infrastructure or addressing backlogs. The CJI noted that funding or facility upgrades in judicial institutions are common areas where coordination with the executive branch is necessary. Chandrachud insisted that the maturity and integrity of India’s judicial and executive branches ensure that the judiciary operates independently, without interference or undue influence.

CJI Chandrachud’s remarks emphasize the judiciary’s impartiality and commitment to democratic principles, aiming to dispel doubts and reinforce public trust in judicial independence. His statements underscore the boundaries between India’s branches of government, maintaining that the judiciary’s engagement with the executive does not extend beyond structural and logistical issues necessary to judicial functioning.