DY Chandrachud Responds to UBT Allegations Blaming Him for MVA’s Poll Defeat, Asks ‘Should One Party Decide What Cases the Supreme Court Hears?’

New Delhi, November 26: Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has cleared the air about recent allegations by Shiv Sena (UBT), which has sought to blame him for the drubbing of the Opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in the recent Maharashtra Assembly elections. The Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut had alleged that Justice Chandrachud had removed the fear of law from politicians in the state by not deciding on petitions over the disqualification of MLAs, which kept doors open for political defections and subsequently led to the defeat of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in the polls. Raut said this in a press conference after the declaration of results adding that "history will not forgive them."

In the November 20 Assembly elections the Sena (UBT) was able to notch up a mere 20 out of 94 seats it contested as part of the MVA alliance. Its other allies in the MVA also fared poorly with Congress winning only 16 out of 101 seats and the NCP (Sharad Pawar) managing to win only 10 out of 86 seats it contested. In an exclusive interview with ANI, Justice Chandrachud responded to criticism by the Sena's Uddhav Thackeray faction stating, "Well, my answer is very simple...Throughout this year, we were dealing with seminal constitutional cases, nine-judge bench decisions, seven-judge bench decisions, five-judge bench decisions. Now, should any one party or individual decide what case the Supreme Court should hear? Sorry, that choice is for the Chief Justice." 'I Have Always Granted Bail From A to Z, From Arnab to Zubair': CJI DY Chandrachud Says He Tries To Grant Bail to Everyone in Accordance With the Law.

In the year 2022, the undivided Shiv Sena suffered a split after a rebellion by Eknath Shinde which toppled the then-ruling MVA government led by Uddhav Thackeray and led to the formation of the Eknath Shinde-led Mahayuti government. Thackeray then filed petitions in the Supreme Court on the disqualification of MLAs who defected from the party along with Eknath Shinde. The Shinde faction also filed counter petition.

The Supreme Court asked Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide on the disqualification petitions of the rival factions. In January this year the Speaker declared the Shinde faction as the "real" Shiv Sena. Justice Chandrachud in the interview with ANI highlighted that cases have been languishing before the Supreme Court for 20 years. DY Chandrachud Retirement: From Abrogation of Article 370 To Triple Talaq, Key Judgments of 50th Chief Justice India As He Demits Office on November 10.

"You point out to us that we are not working even for a minute of the time that we are assigned to do our work. And such a criticism would be valid. Important constitutional cases are pending before the Supreme Court for 20 years. Why is the Supreme Court not taking up these 20-year-old cases and dealing with some recent cases? And then if you take up old cases, you are told that, you didn't take up this particular case. Well, you have limited manpower and you have a given complement of judges, you have to draw the balance," the former CJI said.

Asked about Sena UBT allegation over the "delay" in the decision on Sena case, the CJI stated, "You see, this is the problem. The real problem is this, that a given segment of the polity feels that, well, you're independent if you follow my agenda... That, you know, you pursue my agenda, which is inclusive of cases, which I think, I think you should be deciding. "We decided electoral bonds. Was that any less important?, Justice Chandrachud said.

"We decided recently the Aligarh Muslim University case, the closure of the madrasas under an order of the Allahabad High Court. We have dealt with issues pertaining to the disability rights of individuals. Is disability in any way less significant? than any of these cases that we are referring to. We have decided critical issues pertaining to the federal structure. This year, and these are all cases which we have decided this year, we decided the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which gave citizenship to certain people who had migrated from Bangladesh prior to 25th of March 1971. Was that less significant?," the former Chief Justice said.

"We dealt with a case on whether a constitution bench case on whether lakhs and lakhs of individuals belonging to not the highest strata of society, but the lowest state of society question was whether a person who has a license to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle below 7,500 kgs. Now that would have affected the livelihoods of lakhs of people. We delivered judgment on that just before my term came to an end. Are these cases that we have decided, in fact, we decided 38 Constitution Bench references during my tenure, including this year itself, are these cases any less significant than a particular case which we didn't decide or we couldn't decide?" he added.

"Now, the cases which we decided this year, any of these cases which I have referred to earlier, are these cases less significant? Or do we then follow an agenda which others set for us that, well, you have to decide this case for me today. If you don't decide my case, then, well, you are not independent." "This is something which is unacceptable." the former CJI said. "And the real problem today is this, and that's why, you know, I must say this. It's because we have refused during my tenure as a Chief Justice. We have refused to be dictated by any third party on which cases to decide.

Sometimes, you know, very highly resourced persons come to the court and they try and they try and, you know, suborn the system by saying, well, my case should be heard first," he added. "And this was a matter of concern to me as Chief Justice. Should we be listening to those cases only because the most resourced in terms of lawyers, in terms of the clients whom they represent, come to court and say, well, here, my case first. Sorry, we are not going to give that priority to people who are merely because they have resource and they have the ability to afford the best in terms of legal representation. When you sort of take cudgels for the system, for the ordinary Indian and say, this is not going to be how the court will work. Obviously, there's going to be a backlash," the former Chief Justice of India further said.

On being asked whether there is any political pressure on the Supreme Court to take up certain cases by the ruling party, Chandrachud replied in the negative. "On Article 370, on Ayodhya, on Sabarimala, all these very important cases. Look at Article 370, it was pending before the Supreme Court for a long time. So if there was pressure, why did the Supreme Court wait to take such a decision on that case? I mean, the decision came in 2019. The case was heard much, much later, several years later," he said. Justice Chandrachud retired on November 10 after his two-year stint as the Chief Justice of India.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)