Shiv Sena leaders, legal experts voice concerns; BJP defends visit as a cultural tradition
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – A political storm has erupted after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Wednesday for the Ganapati Puja celebrations. It has triggered intense debate over the implications of such a meeting on the judiciary’s impartiality, with opposition leaders questioning the optics of the visit.
The controversy gained momentum after a video surfaced showing the prime minister being warmly received by CJI Chandrachud and his wife, Kalpana Das, at their residence in New Delhi. Modi was seen participating in the religious ceremony, sparking concerns from opposition leaders, particularly from the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction. The leaders argue that such meetings may undermine the perceived neutrality of the judiciary, especially when high-stakes cases are pending before the Supreme Court.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut was among the first to voice his concerns, drawing attention to the potential influence of the prime minister’s visit on ongoing cases. “Politicians meeting with the custodian of the Constitution creates doubts in people’s minds,” Raut remarked. He was referring to the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s ongoing legal battle in the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the Eknath Shinde-led faction, which was recognised by the Maharashtra Speaker as the real Shiv Sena.
Raut emphasised the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the judicial system, suggesting that such meetings blur the lines between the executive and judiciary. “It’s not just about a festival; it’s about maintaining judicial independence. History teaches us to be cautious about such matters,” he said.
Raut went further, calling for CJI Chandrachud to recuse himself from cases where the government is a party. “In such situations, if there is a party involved, and the judge is seen interacting with them, he should dissociate himself to uphold impartiality,” he added.
Senior lawyer Indira Jaising also weighed in, taking to X to express her concerns. In a strongly worded tweet, she wrote: “The Chief Justice of India has compromised the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary. Lost all confidence in the independence of the CJI. The SCBA must condemn this publicly displayed compromise of the judiciary’s independence.” Her comments reflect growing apprehension within the legal community about the perceived erosion of the separation of powers, a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.
Jaising’s sentiments were echoed by lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan, who also criticised the event. He invoked the judges’ code of conduct, writing, “A judge should practice a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office. There should be no act or omission which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies.” His remarks emphasised the need for judiciary members to remain detached from political figures to maintain public trust.
Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Jha joined the opposition voices, expressing concern over the growing proximity between the executive and judiciary. He remarked, “This is not just about optics; it’s about the very principles of our democracy. When the judiciary and executive are seen so closely intertwined, it raises questions about justice and fairness.”
Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi was similarly critical, pointing to the slow progress of the Shiv Sena case in the Supreme Court. “After the festivities are over, hopefully, the CJI will find the time to conclude the hearings on Maharashtra’s political crisis. Oh wait, elections are around the corner, so perhaps it can be adjourned again,” she tweeted sarcastically, reflecting the frustration felt by the opposition over delays in legal rulings with political ramifications.
Caravan magazine editor Hartosh Singh Bal also made scathing observations, remarking that such events undermine public trust in the judiciary’s independence. He warned that these interactions blur the lines between the branches of government, eroding the democratic fabric of the country.
Amid the backlash, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has staunchly defended the prime minister’s visit, dismissing opposition concerns as politically motivated. BJP spokespersons argued that Modi’s participation in the Ganapati Puja was part of a long-standing cultural tradition in India and had no political connotations.
“Ganapati Puja is celebrated across the country, and the prime minister’s visit was purely cultural. The opposition is trying to make a controversy out of a simple religious celebration,” a BJP spokesperson stated.
BJP National Secretary BL Santhosh echoed this sentiment, tweeting: “Civility, cordiality, togetherness – these are anathema to the left-liberals. It was not socialising, but a devoted Ganapati Puja.” Santhosh’s comments highlight the BJP’s narrative that the opposition is politicising a religious event for electoral gains.
Milind Deora, another BJP MP, also came to the CJI’s defence. He remarked, “Accusations like these undermine public trust in the judiciary, a cornerstone of democracy. We should refrain from making baseless allegations.”
The controversy has reignited a broader debate about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. Critics argue that even culturally motivated meetings can create perceptions of bias, especially when the judiciary is presiding over politically sensitive cases. The opposition’s concerns are amplified by the fact that CJI Chandrachud is currently overseeing several high-profile cases that involve the government.
Legal experts warn that these perceptions, whether valid or not, can undermine the judiciary’s credibility. As Prashant Bhushan pointed out, “The public must see the judiciary as independent, and even the slightest hint of bias can erode confidence in our legal system.”
The BJP has countered by citing historical precedents, pointing out that former chief justices have attended religious events with political leaders in the past, including Iftar parties hosted by former prime minister Manmohan Singh. Amit Malviya, head of the BJP’s IT Cell, tweeted: “The same critics hailed it as secularism when Manmohan Singh hosted Iftar parties attended by CJIs. Now they are uncomfortable with Ganapati Puja? The hypocrisy is glaring.”
The controversy comes at a politically sensitive time, with several state elections on the horizon. The opposition is likely to continue pressing the issue, particularly as key legal cases remain pending in the Supreme Court. As Sanjay Raut remarked, “Our knowledge of God is such that if the custodians of the Constitution meet political leaders in this manner, people will have doubts.”
As the debate rages on, the focus remains on CJI Chandrachud and whether his interactions with political leaders will affect public perceptions of judicial impartiality. The outcome of this controversy may have long-lasting implications for the credibility of the judiciary and its relationship with the executive.
