A meeting that should have been avoided

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Ganesh Chaturthi day has invited criticism from the Opposition and a section of the legal fraternity. Many others have also found the Prime Minister and the CJI together attending a private religious function inappropriate.

The Prime Minister participated in the puja at the CJI’s house, and some videos of the visit have been made public. The opposition parties have said that the visit violated the idea of separation of the executive and the judiciary, mandated by the Constitution.

It has also been seen as a violation of their oaths of office. The Constitution binds all officers of the State to the practice of secularism and avoidance of public display of religiosity. Publicised participation by a CJI and a Prime Minister in a religious function has not been seen before. That is the other reason why it has raised questions and apprehensions.

Members of the judiciary, lower or higher, as a matter of principle, avoid socialising with the members of the executive and even politicians, leaders of society and prominent personalities lest the interactions create a conflict of interest or give rise to apprehensions about it. Many former judges were very strict about such a protocol. Meetings in public fora are sometimes unavoidable but the Prime Minister’s visit to the CJI’s residence does not belong to that category.

The BJP has strongly defended the Prime Minister’s visit and cited the precedent of then-CJI K G Balakrishnan’s presence at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Iftar party in 2009. There is no comparison between the two events because the Iftar party was a public function to which many others were invited; the Ganesh puja was a private function. It is not known whether any others from the Opposition or other public realms were invited for the puja. Since there is no information on that, the presence of the Prime Minister at the puja would raise questions. 

The Opposition has pointed out that there are important cases pending in the Supreme Court in which the government or the ruling party has stakes. It may be unfair to make such linkages because that would amount to casting aspersions on the judiciary and the CJI who is a highly respected judge and has followed and upheld the highest judicial principles.

But the visit created a controversy because there are pressures on the independence of the judiciary which is most important in a constitutional democracy. Such a controversy hurts the judiciary more than the executive, and could certainly have been avoided. The judiciary should not only be independent and above the fray but also seen to be so.