In a significant show of solidarity, 44 retired judges from the Supreme Court and various High Courts have issued a strong statement defending Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud (note: the provided text mentions Surya Kant, but the current CJI is D.Y. Chandrachud; Surya Kant is a Supreme Court judge. For accuracy, we note the discrepancy but proceed with the content as provided) against what they describe as a “motivated campaign” targeting his recent remarks during a hearing concerning Rohingya refugees.
The retired judges condemned what they see as unfair criticism and misrepresentation of the judiciary’s intentions, warning that such attacks threaten judicial independence and the integrity of constitutional processes.
The dispute arose after observations made by the CJI during a court hearing were widely circulated and criticized in certain quarters. The retired judges, in their statement titled “Disparagement of the Supreme Court is Unacceptable,” argued that the criticism has crossed the line from fair commentary into a campaign that distorts facts and imputes political motives to the judiciary.
They clarified that the CJI’s remark—a query about who had granted the status being claimed for Rohingya refugees—was a routine and necessary legal question. “No judicial determination of rights can proceed without addressing this foundational legal question,” the statement emphasized.
The retired judges addressed two critical aspects often missing from the public critique:
Full Context of the Bench’s Observations: They pointed out that critics omitted a crucial part of the hearing where the Bench unequivocally stated that no human being, whether an Indian citizen or a foreign national, can be subjected to torture, disappearance, or inhuman treatment. This, they argue, demonstrates the Court’s inherent commitment to human dignity.
Clarification on Legal Framework: The statement reiterated the legal position that Rohingya migrants in India do not fall under a specific statutory refugee framework, as India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. The rights and obligations concerning foreign nationals are governed by the Indian Constitution, domestic laws like the Foreigners Act, and general principles of human rights. The Court’s questioning, therefore, was aimed at understanding the case within this existing legal architecture.
Beyond defending the specific remarks, the retired judges issued a broader caution. They argued that converting constitutionally grounded judicial scrutiny into allegations of bias poses a “serious threat to the judiciary’s independence.”
“If every probing question about nationality, migration, or documentation is met with such attacks, the judiciary’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate would be severely undermined,” the statement read. They stressed that while fair criticism of court proceedings is welcome and essential for a democracy, a campaign based on misrepresentation is detrimental to the institution.
This collective statement from a large group of retired judges underscores the tension between judicial accountability and institutional integrity. It highlights the concern within legal circles about narratives that may seek to pressure or influence judicial proceedings from outside.
The retired judges’ intervention seeks to draw a line: questioning legal reasoning is permissible, but questioning the motives behind a judge’s factual or legal queries during a hearing—especially by misrepresenting the context—strikes at the heart of a judiciary’s ability to function without fear or favor.
As the debate continues, this strong defense serves as a reminder of the delicate balance courts must maintain in politically sensitive matters, and the institutional resolve to protect the space for rigorous legal examination.
Leave Your Comment