Mahua Moitra’s Criticism and the Facts of My Long-Standing Critique

Mahua Moitra commented on the silence of former Supreme Court judges during CJI Chandrachud’s tenure

I HAD WRITTEN an article calling former Chief Justice of India Chandrachud a rank careerist, who was unwilling to give an honest judgment where he felt his chances of becoming the CJI might be jeopardized, and perfectly willing to give a dishonest judgment to ensure his chances.

I specifically mentioned his observation in the Gyanvapi mosque case, which has opened a Pandora’s box and fueled communalism in India, benefiting the BJP, which thrives on it. You can read the article here:

The Crass Dishonesty of Former CJI Chandrachud

The well-known Member of the Indian Parliament, Mahua Moitra, tweeted this in response to my article:

“Well said, sir. But all of you are very active once he has retired. We heard only silence or praise from his colleagues while he was in office.”

I regret to say this, but Mahua has been uncharitable to me. I have been criticizing Chandrachud for a long time, even when he was a sitting judge whose only single aim was to become the CJI by hook or crook (like his father Y.V. Chandrachud, who gave a dishonest judgment in the ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla case to ensure his becoming CJI).

I wrote this article in the portal The Wire and elsewhere in November 2019, i.e., five years before Chandrachud retired in 2024.

• The Ayodhya Verdict: A Strange Feat of Logic
• The Ayodhya Verdict

The Ayodhya verdict was the blackest judgment in Indian judicial history (along with the ADM Jabalpur verdict). It sanctified the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid, and this demolition was, in my opinion, the greatest tragedy in Indian history, along with the Partition of India in 1947, tending to tear apart India’s social fabric.

Although the Ayodhya verdict does not make it clear which of the five judges on the bench wrote it, it becomes evident that Chandrachud wrote it, since he himself stated later that he asked God what judgment he should write.

So Mahua Moitra is not right when she says in her tweet, “We heard only silence or praise from his colleagues while he was in office.” I was repeatedly criticizing Chandrachud while he was in office.

I had criticized Chandrachud when he was in office for not saying in a case regarding the Gyanvapi mosque, which came before him, that the suit regarding the Gyanvapi mosque was not maintainable as it was barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

In a later case, he held that despite the POW Act (which prohibits changing the nature of a religious structure as it stood on 15.8.1947), the court could enquire into its history (which enabled surveys that could be a precursor to its demolition by a fanatic mob, as happened to the Babri Masjid, and could happen to the Shahi Masjid in Mathura, the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Ajmer Sharif dargah, and countless other masjids and dargahs).

I also often criticized Chandrachud in my Facebook posts when he was in office for talking too much, both inside and outside the court, despite the oft-quoted dictum of former Lord Chancellor of England, Sir Francis Bacon, that “A much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal.”

He liked to always be in the limelight (when a judge should be reclusive and avoid publicity). One way he would do this was by picking up high-publicity cases suo motu and listing them before himself, e.g., the Kolkata case of the rape-cum-murder of a lady doctor, which was unnecessary and totally uncalled for, as I mentioned in my interview with Kapil Sibal.

While he was CJI, and even before that, almost every second or third evening, Chandrachud would go to some function or gathering to give lectures, etc. (which could be seen on YouTube), instead of sitting at home, which judges should do in the evenings—reading books, watching TV, reviewing the next day’s files, etc. I said this when he was in office, not just after his retirement.

So, to say that I only criticized Chandrachud after his retirement is not correct. Mahua Moitra should check her facts before making a statement.

Also Read:
NO MORE BLINDFOLDED?
———————
Keep the Communal Pot Boiling

Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.

Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.

— Team PT