No my Lord, it doesn't add up

I took that limited-time subscription of Rs. 99 just to watch the full interview of ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud to Newslaundry. At the end of it, I was left wondering what was he thinking when he organised or agreed to the interview – there had earlier been a devastating takedown of former CJI Gogoi by the same interviewer. I think, his Lordship was very keen to be interviewed – the possible twin purposes may have been promoting his upcoming book (Why the Constitution Matters) and managing a governmental position or a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization) or some such. 

The ex-CJI was visibly rattled from the get-go by the first question when Sreenivasan retailed the google results for his legacy – Consequential, Confounding, Controversial, Contradictory. When Sreenivasan got to specifics, it kept getting worse. 

The first one was the Ayodhya judgement. Right from Day One, everyone and his uncle knew that Justice Chandrachud was the author. At one point while still in office, he decided to go public with ownership of the authorship but it backfired badly because he attributed it to divine guidance, etc.. Now, in interview after interview he is trying to get out of the authorship saying “I’m a disciplined soldier of the system and will not reveal"; "all five judges have authorship"; "unanimous agreement", etc.. However, once the genie is out, it can’t be put back. While defending the judgement during the interview, he tied himself up in knots and finally blatantly misled saying there was evidence of a Hindu temple having been desecrated for building a mosque. This was in direct contradiction to the judgement as per which there was no evidence that an underlying structure was “actually demolished” to build a mosque. He then tried to justify not dividing the land for both parties quoting law and order apprehensions. Hello, my Lordship, that was not your remit; your remit was pronouncing on the evidence and the law; it’s the Executive which is supposed to look after law and order. 

Where was the law and order consideration when he allowed the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque to determine the religious character of the place when changing the same is not permissible under the Act? In the interview he tried to justify it by talking about determining whether it was a place of archaeological importance (an exception allowed) whereas that was not a part of any of the pleadings. It was just somehow artificially finding a justification after a decision. He also claimed that there has always been undisputed Hindu worship in the cellar (this was fact-checked as wrong assertion). Plus, the structure is a mosque so if any Hindu worship has ever been allowed in any part of any mosque premises, the structure would be erased? That one action allowing the survey opened such a Pandora’s box that many parts of the country were simmering, many suits were filed all over the country and there were several deaths until one of his successors finally put a lid on it through a stay. While questioned on the law and order implications and outcomes, suddenly he switched to “truth” even at the cost of unpopularity. 

He ducked the question of abrogation of Article 370 saying the judgement has spoken. Then why was he answering all those other questions? Restoration of statehood for J & K/ Kashmir was a related question raised. His bench didn’t go into it apparently because the government assured that it wants to restore statehood. On the question of not fixing or asking for a timeline, his defence: one has to trust the government. OMG, if Supreme Court trusts the government, then where is the need for its existence? Every time there is a question, government will just say, “Trust us, it’s all good.” 

There was the extraordinary matter of Ganesh Puja celebration at his residence with the PM attending. [It is not understood why these things happen with uncanny regularity. Whenever there’s any important matter being handled by the Supreme Court and is likely to be grossly inconvenient to the ruling party, the PM decides to visit the Supreme court premises or the President invites the CJI or the PM participates in a Puja at the CJI’s residence or the CJI’s mother is invited as Chief Guest at an RSS function.] While justification regarding the Ganesh Puja matter was advanced in terms of the invitation being in a personal capacity and it being a private matter, there was no information as to why the cameras and the photographs then. 

At the end of the interview, I wondered what happens now to the governmental position or the non-governmental QUANGO which could be a possible motive for the interview. Well, it takes two to quango but Sreenivasan was not playing ball.

[To be continued]