Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the residence of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for Ganesh Puja has sparked a fierce political controversy, with opposition parties accusing the move of compromising judicial independence. The opposition’s backlash, led by the Shiv Sena (UBT), highlights concerns over the perceived erosion of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. In response, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has hit back, defending the visit as a part of India’s cultural tradition and accusing the opposition of playing politics over religious celebrations.

BJP defends PM Modi’s participation in religious celebration

The controversy erupted on September 11, 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended Ganesh Puja at the residence of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud in New Delhi. The visit was perceived by many opposition leaders as a breach of protocol that could potentially influence ongoing legal proceedings. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut expressed concerns over the impartiality of the Chief Justice, urging him to recuse himself from cases involving political leaders, particularly those from Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court is currently reviewing a significant case involving the party.

Raut stated that when leaders of the judiciary and the executive meet in a non-professional setting, it raises questions about the judiciary’s independence. He claimed that such interactions could impact public confidence in the judicial system’s fairness, especially in cases directly involving the government or its allies. He also argued that the Chief Justice’s presence at such a gathering could influence the outcome of the ongoing case involving the Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Thackeray.

Senior lawyer Indira Jaising also criticised the Chief Justice, asserting that his actions blurred the lines between the executive and judiciary. She suggested that the Supreme Court Bar Association should publicly denounce the event as an inappropriate mingling of two separate branches of government. The Congress party and other opposition voices joined the chorus, questioning the ethics and propriety of such a high-profile interaction.

BJP accuses opposition of political opportunism

In a robust rebuttal, the BJP dismissed the opposition’s criticism as political opportunism and accused them of hypocrisy. BJP National Spokesperson Sambit Patra argued that the visit was not a social call but a spiritual occasion, and that the opposition’s selective outrage was evident. He pointed out that during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance government, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended several Iftar parties alongside high-ranking judicial figures. Patra contended that the opposition did not raise similar objections then, revealing a double standard in their approach to religious celebrations involving political leaders.

BJP National General Secretary BL Santhosh further defended the visit, stating that it was a reflection of India’s secular culture, where leaders from various domains, including the judiciary and executive, participate in religious festivities. He dismissed the idea that Modi’s participation could compromise the judiciary’s integrity, labelling the opposition’s concerns as “baseless” and “reckless.”

Expert opinion: A dangerous precedent or a cultural practice?

Legal experts are divided on the implications of Prime Minister Modi’s visit to CJI Chandrachud’s residence. Some believe that the visit sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the public’s trust in the judiciary. Such meetings between political leaders and top judicial figures, even if rooted in cultural practices, can be perceived as an attempt to influence or forge personal relationships that may impact future rulings. The optics of the Prime Minister visiting the Chief Justice’s home amidst high-stakes legal battles, particularly those involving government interests, could raise valid concerns about judicial impartiality.

On the other hand, some constitutional experts argue that cultural and religious gatherings should not automatically be interpreted as inappropriate conduct. They assert that as long as there is transparency and a clear separation of roles, such interactions should not be blown out of proportion. They also note that the Indian judicial system has long-standing traditions of its members participating in various social and cultural events without compromising their responsibilities.

Judiciary’s response to criticism

As the political storm intensifies, the judiciary has remained largely silent, with no official statement issued from Chief Justice DY Chandrachud regarding the controversy. Legal analysts suggest that the CJI’s silence could be a strategic choice to avoid escalating the situation further. However, some within the judiciary are reportedly concerned about the potential long-term implications of the controversy on the perception of judicial independence in India.

The ongoing debate underscores the delicate balance between maintaining public trust in the judiciary and participating in cultural and religious events that are integral to India’s social fabric. It remains to be seen whether the controversy will prompt any official guidelines or policy changes regarding such interactions in the future.

  Bharatiya Janata Party, DY Chandrachud, Ganesh Puja, Indira Jaising, Maharashtra, Manmohan Singh, Narendra Modi, Sanjay Raut, Shiv Sena, Supreme Court of India, Uddhav Thackeray, United Progressive Alliance