Last Updated:
Ex-CJI Chandrachud reacted to Shiv Sena UBT leader Sanjay Raut’s allegations against him over defection pleas in Supreme Court.
Former CJI DY Chandrachud (PTI Image)
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has responded to the allegations by Shiv Sena UBT which blamed him for its poll drubbing in the recent Maharashtra Assembly Elections, stating that a party or an individual cannot decide the priority of the Supreme Court.
This comes after Shiv Sena UBT MP Sanjay Raut reacted sharply to the poll results and alleged that Justice Chandrachud had removed the fear from the politicians by not delivering a verdict on the petitions seeking disqualification of MLAs who switched sides in the middle of a running tenure of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. He alleged that no decision on the issue kept doors open for defections which led to the MVA’s defeat in the polls. He added that “history will not forgive them”.
In the November 20 polls, Uddhav-led faction of Shiv Sena won merely 20 out of 94 seats it contested. Its allies Congress won only 16 out of 101 seats while NCP-SP won only 10 out of the 86 it contested. The ruling Mahayuti won 234 seats in the 288-seated state Assembly.
In the ANI Podcast with Smita Prakash, Justice Chandrachud, who retired on November 8 this year, said that it is the choice of the Chief Justice to take up and prioritize cases and no party can decide it.
“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,” he said.
What Are Allegations Against Justice Chandrachud?
The undivided Shiv Sena underwent a split in 2022 due to a rebellion by Eknath Shinde-led MLAs who pulled out of the MVA government, then comprising Congress, undivided NCP and Shiv Sena (then led by Uddhav Thackeray). Shinde later allied with the BJP and formed the government, becoming Chief Minister.
It was then that Thackeray filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking disqualification of the defected MLAs. The Shinde faction had also filed counter-petition.
The top court had directed the Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide on the disqualification pleas of the two factions and in January this year, the Speaker declared that the Shinde faction was the “real” Shiv Sena.
Justice Chandrachud Responds To Allegations
“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 in the podcast.
When asked about the UBT’s allegations over the “delay” the verdict in the case, the former CJI said, “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?”
“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 that 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, you know, suborn the system by saying, well, my case should be heard first,” he added.
(With ANI inputs)