New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has countered accusations of elitism and dynastic dominance within the Indian judiciary. In a BBC HARDtalk interview, he emphasised that most judges and lawyers are first-generation legal professionals, challenging the perception of an entrenched elite controlling the legal system.
“If you look at the overall profile of the Indian judiciary, most lawyers and judges are first-time entrants into the legal profession. Quite contrary to what you said, it is not that our judiciary is either upper caste or dominated by dynasties,” Chandrachud said in an interview with Stephen Sackur on BBC’s HARDtalk.
Addressing his own background as the son of former CJI YV Chandrachud, he shared a personal anecdote, his father advised him against entering a courtroom during his own tenure as CJI. Consequently, Chandrachud claimed that he spent three years at Harvard Law School, only stepping into a court after his father’s retirement. “My father told me not to enter a court of law so long as he was Chief Justice of India. That’s why I spent three years at Harvard Law School. I entered a court for the first time after he retired,” he said.
Chandrachud also highlighted the increasing representation of women in the legal field. He noted that over 50 per cent of new recruits in district judiciary positions across several states are women, with some states reaching 60-70 per cent. He expressed optimism that this trend will eventually translate to greater gender balance in higher judicial offices as legal education becomes more accessible to women.
Regarding the abrogation of Article 370, Chandrachud refuted allegations of the Supreme Court’s complicity in political decisions.
Chandrachud explained that Article 370, introduced at the Constitution’s inception, was part of a chapter titled “Transitional Arrangements” or “Transitional Provisions,” later renamed “Temporary and Transitional Provisions.” Therefore, an elected government’s decision to abrogate it after 75 years was within its purview.
“If an elected government takes the view that we are abrogating what was essentially a transitional provision, that’s fine,” Chandrachud said.
