No pressure from executive at all; bound to have differences with Law Minister: CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said on Saturday that he has never faced any executive pressure during his 23-year-long career as a judge..Any such pressure is only towards arriving at the correct decision while adjudicating cases, the CJI said while speaking at the India Today Conclave."By the end of this month I will have been a judge for 23 years. 23 years as a judge of the High Court and the Supreme Court. No one has told me to decide a case in a particular way. We have coffee with our colleagues, but there are some lines to be drawn. We have coffee with a colleague whose judgment I am considering on appeal. There is no pressure on me from the executive at all. But yes, there is pressure on conscience or mind to find the correct solution. There is bound to be more than one solution, and we know that what we do is something that will followed in years to come. It is the search for truth.".The 50th Chief Justice of India cited the recent judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the appointment of Election Commissioners case, to buttress his point. "Dabaav ka sawaal hi paida nahi hota; Election Commission wala judgment dekhiye, agar dabaav hota, toh yeh judgment aata? [The question of pressure does not even arise; see the Election Commission judgment]. The largest litigant is the State and we are holding against the State in large number of issues: crime, employment, insurance. We are living in an age where we have become distrustful of public institutions. There is absolutely no issue and we are constantly holding the government to accountability.".Dabaav ka sawaal hi paida nahi hota (There is no question of any pressure from executive).CJI DY Chandrachud.On Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju raising objections to Intelligence Bureau (IB reports) about a judge being quoted in a Collegium resolution, the CJI said that he respects Rijiju's views, but the move was in response to criticism of alleged opaqueness in the Collegium's functioning."He has a perception. I have a perception. We are bound to have differences. there are differences within the judiciary as well. I respect his perception, but we deal with a great deal of constitutional statesmanship. We have made resolutions public due to the critique that we lack transparency."The question to the CJI was with specific reference to the recommendation to elevate Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal to the Delhi High Court.The Central government had objected to the recommendation citing Kirpal's sexual orientation. Kirpal is gay and lives with his Swiss partner. The IB report regarding the same was quoted by the Collegium which reiterated its recommendation despite the adverse report.Responding to the criticism about quoting IB reports, the CJI today said that the IB report quoted by the Collegium was only with respect to sexual orientation of a candidate and not something endangering someone's life"The candidate you are referring to, it was already known to public domain, his sexual orientation in public. This was not a case of someone's life in danger. Here IB report was of a man who was openly gay, it was known to media. We just said sexual orientation of the candidate has nothing to do with holding high office of a judge," he said..The CJI briefly touched upon being trolled on social media recently, to make a point about oral observations not being indicative of the final outcome of a case."I do not follow Twitter. It is important for us to not be affected by the cacophony of extreme views. Social media is a product of our time. 30 years ago, you had some newspapers, but now there is live-tweeting of each word we speak. So it is a dialogue between the bar and the bench which happens in a court. We interrupt each other, we joke, some camaraderie. What is expressed during a hearing is not the ultimate verdict. One type of judges are those who are the devil's advocate, and the other judge is the one who will stretch it to the logical conclusion. Now when there is an expression of opinion by a judge, the social media makes it like that is the final verdict or how it will be....Social media or citizens do not follow that. I do not blame them. We need to have a more open system.".I do not follow Twitter. It is important for us to not be affected by the cacophony of extreme views.CJI DY Chandrachud.He added that while he does watch television news debates at times, and reads a lot as well, the same is kept aside while deciding on a case."I sometimes watch TV debates. I read broadly to try and get a broad cross-section on what is happening in the society. But when a case starts, we have to keep all this aside and decide the case based on what it is. It is also a confrontation of your own biases. Judges are also humans you see. When you judge others, you cannot be judgmental of others."On whether he wants the younger generation, and specifically his sons (both practicing advocates), to join the bench, he said,"Earlier, judging was about honour. But now a lot of the younger generation says thank you Chief but maybe it is not for me. I tell them if you do not become judges today, then you will get judges you deserve and you cannot complain 10 years down the line. Service conditions are good. About my sons, it is a choice for them to make."The CJI made it clear that he believes one can do great good by being a lawyer or a judge."So you become a lawyer who earns and earns and earns, or appear pro-bono for such convicts waiting for remission. Similarly for a judge. I was asked, 'do you want to be known for the cases disposed of as in numbers, or someone who made a difference?'".The CJI stated that he treats the smallest grievances the same as constitutional cases, as the former involves human problems and the other involves the future.The Constitution is based on access to justice but his legacy is for people to judge, he added.He conceded that the aspect of number of vacations the judiciary takes was a serious issue raising an important question. However, he explained what goes into a judge's day and revealed that little time is left for anything else, including family."We are in court from 10:30 to 4 pm and that is what people see, and we spend equal time in the evening to prepare for the next day. On Saturdays, we write judgments. Sundays, we prepare for Monday. During vacations, we write judgments which we reserve. In summer vacation, we have one week for family. Judging is about thinking through your cases and thinking about where the society is going to be, and unless you give them time to introspect...Some statistics: US Supreme Court sits 80 days, no sitting for 3 months. Indian Supreme Court sits for 200 days every year.".The CJI argued that the large pendency of cases is reflective of the faith of people coming to court, and judges would have to be more efficient to keep the faith."It shows there is dearth of adequate infrastructure in judiciary. Judge to population ratio is not commensurate. Our model of judicial institution is based on a colonial structure where people have to access us for justice. Justice is not just a sovereign function, but also an essential service.".Large pendency of cases is reflective of the faith of people in judiciary.CJI DY Chandrachud.On a lighter note, the CJI said that with live-streaming, lawyers have the tendency to go overboard at times."We always have some professionals who would give in to some grandstanding. There is a flipside, very often we deal with marital privacy cases, so a judge decides if the live-stream has to stop. Some lawyers will grandstand, but we will have to see the benefits also.".The Chief Justice of India ended by saying he is a big fan of Bob Dylan and cricket. "I hardly get time [to follow the game]. But if I were a cricketer, I would be like Rahul Dravid."