DY Chandrachud: SC not "opposition in Parliament"

Brut India

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud speaks about how live streaming changes perceptions about the Supreme Court.

Transcript

00:00Being a people's court is not to say that we fulfil the role of the opposition in Parliament.

00:06I think live streaming of our court proceedings has been a game changer.

00:10Despite the flip sides, and all of you would have seen some of the flip sides in the last few days,

00:16there are lawyers who speak to the gallery, judges who may not exactly be alive to the fact that what

00:23you are speaking in court is now not within the confines of this particular courtroom of

00:2825 or 30 or 50 lawyers, but it goes to 20 million people almost at the flick of a button.

00:34So we have to, in that sense, train our own consciences and our own etiquette into understanding

00:40how we address the bar and how the bar should be addressing the court. So we do have some

00:45grandstanding by lawyers, but by and large, I always feel and that's been my mantra that we

00:51must always live on a sense of hope, not on a live and never live on a sense of cynicism.

00:57You will always have people who will try to misuse the system, but I mean, institutions cannot

01:02be founded on the assumption that somebody will misuse the system, but on the good faith that

01:07everybody will be in it together for the betterment of the community. And I do believe that live

01:12streaming is something which has taken the work of the Supreme Court of India to the homes

01:17and the hearts of people. It's enabled society to have a wider critique on the functioning of

01:25our court. Too very often, a perception gains ground that the Supreme Court does cases only

01:32involving the rich and the resourced clients. And it's very easy to make that allegation against

01:38the Supreme Court because who knows who has the ability to come and cross-check what you are

01:42doing. Citizens are outside the system. But live streaming has changed all that because citizens

01:49now know that the smallest problems of citizens, whether it's a small bail application of someone

01:55who is seriously suffering from an ailment and is in custody for two years under the PMLA or under

02:02the NDPS, or somebody's pension, somebody's service retired dues, that all these ordinary

02:09problems of simple human beings get the most serious attention of the Supreme Court.

02:15The role of the Supreme Court is not just as a final arbiter of constitutional disputes and

02:20doctrine, but also as a socially transformative instrument. Because when we stand firm on some

02:27issues, that provides a guidance to the district courts, to the high courts, that if the Supreme

02:33Court has given us this cue, surely we have to now follow in that path. Ours is a court which

02:38is a people's court. And I think the role of the Supreme Court as a people's court must, of course,

02:45be preserved for the future. Now, being a people's court is not to say that we fulfil the role of the

02:53opposition in Parliament. I think there is, particularly in today's times, there is this

02:58great divide between everybody who thinks that the Supreme Court is a wonderful institution when you

03:06decide in their favour. It is an institution which must be denigrated when you decide against them.

03:12I think that's a dangerous proposition. Because you cannot look at the role of the Supreme Court,

03:17the work of the Supreme Court from the perspective of the outcomes. Outcomes of individual cases may

03:23be in your favour. Outcomes of individual cases may be against you. And judges are entitled to

03:30decide with a sense of independence on a case-by-case basis, which side of the balance

03:36the dice must be cast. Now, you are entitled to criticise courts for the ultimate outcome,

03:43for inconsistency of legal doctrine, or an error apparent, or whatever. And I'm sure judges have

03:48no difficulty about it. But the problem lies when the very same people who see that the court is,

03:55say, going towards a particular direction, are all willing to criticise it merely because an

04:01outcome has gone against you. I think we as a legal profession must have a sense of robust

04:07common sense to understand that judges are entitled and must decide on a case-by-case basis,

04:15depending on how they assess legal doctrine has to be applied to the facts in that particular

04:20situation. So long as we accept that, I think the future of the institution is safeguarded.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended