‘Religion had no role in my perception… Judges should pay attention to social media’: Outgoing CJI

What will be your most lasting institutional contribution?

I think looking at the entire Court as a whole and moving away from the criticism that the Supreme Court is a CJI-centric court, will be one of the most important things that should be remembered during my tenure. There is no doubt that in the past there have been CJIs like Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Uday U Lalit who have included their colleagues also. I also believe that the CJI is the first among his peers in the Supreme Court and the court has to be taken forward by taking all the colleagues along. Therefore, whatever decisions I took on the administrative side, I always took them after consulting the entire House.

What based your decision to implement reservation in SC registry?

Now you see that reservation is everywhere. There is reservation even for Parliament. There is reservation in all government services; There is reservation for services like IAS, IFS, IPS. Undoubtedly, there should not be reservation for constitutional posts like High Court judges or Supreme Court judges, but there is no reason why affirmative action should not be applicable to employees, ministerial staff also. I was actually somewhat surprised that no reservation has been provided, no roster has been provided for the highest judicial body of the country, which has given so many important judgments on affirmative action so far. That awareness and that contradiction shaped both the individual and institutional thinking behind the decision.

Did being the first CJI from the Buddhist community shape your views on representation?

I don’t think my religion has anything to do with my belief. I strongly believe in secularism and respect all religions. I was influenced by my father’s actions and ideals. He worshiped Dr. Ambedkar; I do the same. Since the Constitution believes in equality and opportunity for all, I believe in being inclusive and giving opportunities to different sections. There are only 33-34 of us in the Supreme Court, so all India representation is not easy. But in appointments, I am happy that I filled five posts – four unanimously, one unanimously. We ensured diverse and regional representation. We also brought diversity in the appointment of Chief Justices in High Courts. During my tenure, 107 HC judges were appointed – 14 in Bombay, 24 in Uttar Pradesh, 12 in Madhya Pradesh, to ensure representation to all sections including OBCs, Scheduled Castes, minorities and women and to encourage SC lawyers from across the country.

Why was no woman appointed to the apex court during your tenure?

You see, although the decision is collegial, we have to take into account various factors. We also have to take into account the views of the executive, although we are not bound by it. I always believed that the concept of isolation had to be avoided and a collaborative approach had to be adopted. As far as women candidates are concerned, we tried to consider some names but could not reach a consensus on any name due to various factors. As a member of the collegium, it would not be appropriate for me to disclose those reasons. But an attempt was definitely made. We had considered various candidates. Perhaps in the near future there will be someone to represent women.

Is the collegium system sustainable?

The collegium system with the amendments we brought during Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure is indeed a good model. Because earlier, we used to act only on the recommendations of the HC collegium. But after Justice Sanjiv Khanna became CJI and thereafter, we continued to interact with the candidates. After the conversation, you can get at least some idea of ​​how they will perform as judges. Not only this, we also take inputs from the executive, Intelligence Bureau and the respective state governments. This decision is not based merely on the arbitrary decision of the collegium; The collegium considers all inputs and then takes a decision on appropriateness. According to me this is a good arrangement. Not that it’s entirely judge-centric. Even administrative matters – if you want infrastructure, you cannot do it just by issuing orders in PIL; You have to keep the executive on board.

Your decisions as Master of Rooster, especially on the stray dog ​​issue, were questioned when the case was withdrawn from Justice Pardiwala’s bench.

As CJI you are the master of the roster. The Chief Justice is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; He is the Chief Justice of India. Whenever any important issue involving a large number of citizens arises, the CJI is duty-bound to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders and the country are taken care of. In the case of stray dogs, I find that the issue needs to be considered by a larger bench because two conflicting orders were passed by two different benches. Therefore, I found that it should go to a larger bench, and the larger bench constituted the next senior-most judge to become the CJI. The sole intention was in the interest of administration of justice and to ensure that the impression in the minds of some people that injustice was being done is removed.

A fellow Collegium member’s written dissent to one of your Collegium recommendations was noticed. Similarly, in your recent judgment a member of that bench expressed dissent. What are the acceptable limits of disagreement?

There is bound to be disagreement. No one can impose ideas on anyone. Everyone has the right to express their views. As far as the Collegium is concerned, if anyone has any concerns then it is completely appropriate to give your views. But at the same time, when views are given, it must be ensured that they are not made public and do not create bias towards the candidate because in our system, a judge has no escape mechanism. So, sometimes those allegations, those comments go unchallenged. There should be some limit to disagreement. Every judge has the right to give his opinion even in judicial orders. Our oath says that we take decisions without fear or favour. Everyone has different perceptions; There must be disagreement. I always believe that no person is perfect. Judges are bound to make mistakes. Disagreement is one thing; Criticizing another judge is a different thing. This is everyone’s perception; A decision will have to be taken.

Your decision to allow ‘green crackers’ on Diwali or the recent decision on ex-post-facto environmental clearance was met with both praise and criticism. How do you balance environmental concerns with development?

I have always believed that a unilateral approach cannot be adopted in such matters. There is no doubt that the environment is important, ecology is important, and the resources we have are trustable for future generations. But at the same time, if the country has to progress, you cannot stop development permanently. I always believe that the environment has to be protected and the ecology has to be protected, but at the same time the right to progress of the country and the right to livelihood of the citizen cannot be ignored. A proper balance has to be struck between the two. Yesterday also I had said that you have to think about the country’s resources as well – should the country move forward, or should we let others move forward?

Regarding green crackers, Delhi government, Union of India – everyone was on the same idea. He assured that in the short run, pollution caused by green crackers will not be as dangerous as has been estimated. We reiterated what earlier benches had done, including the orders considered in detail.

How do you respond to concerns about the independence of the judiciary and its perception?

The independence of the judiciary must be maintained. There is a view in some circles that unless you take a decision against the government, you are not an independent judge. This is not the right approach. A judge must decide the case based on the facts and evidence before him and apply the law correctly. To say that you are free only when you take decisions against the government is not the right approach.

From the comments on Lord Vishnu to the shocking incident of shoe throwing, there was outrage on you personally on social media. How did you process that public gaze?

I completely ignored it because I had no intention of disrespecting any God. I believe in secularism. Therefore, there is no question of insulting any god, be it a Hindu god or a god of any religion. When I was confident that I had no intentions, criticism barely bothered me. Social media has become a threat everywhere. As a judge I strongly believe that judges should not be influenced by social media. A judge should not decide whether his decision is liked or disliked. He has to be true to his oath, true to the Constitution and decide what he believes is right and what is wrong.

Why is the philosophy of bail not spreading like a rule?

I have grown up considering the principle of bail as a rule. Even in my decisions since 2003, I have always been in favor of independence. If a person is kept behind bars for years without a trial starting, it is punishment without trial. Where the trial cannot proceed and the accused cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Constitutional rights of freedom are superior to statutory restrictions. Before Prabir Purkayastha, there were judgments like Justice Bopanna, and in Teesta Setalvad’s case I was surprised that the HC refused to grant relief on Saturday and directed her to surrender immediately despite SC’s temporary bail. After these judgments, and the judgments of Justices Surya Kant and AS Oka, I am told that the trend is changing and judges are less afraid of granting bail in sensitive cases.

What basic principles should guide the future CJI?

I personally believe that the CJI should keep in mind that he is the first among equals. They should take together all the stakeholders — colleagues, bar, registry and employees. Everyone in the organization contributes. No single person can individually further the cause of administration of justice. A system involving all stakeholders will help every CJI.

Should retired judges take up public roles?

I personally feel that it is everyone’s personal perception. I do not think there is anything wrong in retired judges accepting office after retirement as the statutes themselves provide for such positions for retired SC and HC judges. They are performing very well in tribunals and contributing to the society. My personal decision is that after serving as CJI, I should not accept any assignment because any assignment will always be less than the position of CJI. This is my own opinion; I would not persuade any other judge to adopt the same approach.