Expeditious Trials
Chandrachud highlighted the importance of prompt trials, especially for those incarcerated for extended periods. He cited the case of Umar Khalid, who
has been in custody since 2020 under UAPA charges related to the Delhi riots. With Khalid's trial yet to commence, Chandrachud asserted the need to consider the right to an expeditious trial, stating that if a trial isn't possible promptly, bail should be the norm, not the exception. This stance underscores the fundamental right to a fair and timely legal process, which is often compromised when trials are delayed, leading to potential injustice and prolonged suffering for the accused. His arguments stress that long delays can erode the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of any justice system.
National Security Claims
Chandrachud cautioned courts to meticulously scrutinize national security claims made by the state. He stressed that the court must assess whether national security is truly at stake and whether the detention of the accused is proportionate to the threat. He pointed out that stringent national security laws have sometimes distorted bail jurisprudence, shifting the presumption of innocence towards a presumption of guilt. This shifts the burden of proof, potentially leading to unfair detentions. Chandrachud's remarks highlight the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual rights within a democratic framework.
Fear in Courts
Chandrachud observed that the hesitancy among lower court judges to grant bail stems from a pervasive fear of being questioned about their motives. He described a system where trial judges tend to defer to higher courts. This creates a gridlock, where judges might err on the side of caution rather than making decisions based solely on the law. He explained that this environment of fear undermines the independence and fairness of the judiciary. This issue, according to the former CJI, ultimately delays the dispensing of justice, leading to a system struggling with inefficiency and a lack of clear legal standards.
Judicial Corruption
Chandrachud acknowledged the existence of corruption within the judiciary, but he suggested that it is often exaggerated. He emphasized that judges in higher offices are held to higher standards and that allegations must be handled firmly within the established system. His comments suggest a balanced approach to addressing the issue. The former CJI indicated that while the problem cannot be ignored, it should not be amplified to the point of discrediting the entire judicial system. His observations acknowledge the need for internal mechanisms to maintain integrity and public trust.
Institutional Reforms
Chandrachud advocated for institutional reforms to enhance the Indian democracy. He described the democracy as vibrant but imperfect. He defended the collegium system for judicial appointments, while acknowledging its flaws. As a judge, he had implemented the collegium system, but as a citizen, he recognized the need for reforms. He cautioned that the details of any reform plan are critical and that the ‘devil lies in small print’. He also discussed the controversy surrounding post-retirement government roles for judges. While there is no constitutional barrier, such appointments raise concerns, particularly if they follow judgments shortly after retirement. He described such perceptions as largely unfair. The former CJI's call for reforms emphasizes the ongoing need to improve the judiciary's functionality and credibility to sustain public confidence.
