Prakhar Ganguly*

Who is Justice Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud? Is he ‘left’ or ‘centrist’ or ‘right’? This piece tries to make sense of the CJI’s politics as his term ends soon. I claim that Chandrachud is a judge par excellence aware of his reality and the realities of ‘right’ India and that neither of these visions necessarily coincide. Through his judgments and judgements, it is visible that he has subdued the left in him to give way to a more centrist interpretation of various matters in India’s ‘populous’ phase. I also claim that this characteristic enables him to call matters like the RG Kar case before him and set the narrative ‘straight’, for there were real possibilities of matters going ‘left’ in the State of West Bengal. Whom does he save in this process? No one but democracy.

Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud’s politics makes ‘sense’ in this era. He knows how to ‘balance’ between his understanding of what ‘ought’ to be and what ‘is’. There can be no doubt that he is a ‘centrist’ with tendencies towards the ‘left’, but since he is ‘surviving’ in an India that is ‘populist’, ‘far-right’ and ‘Hindu-nationalist’, his politics hasn’t proliferated the way it could have had it not been this dispensation in power and that too for so long.

Chandrachud understands the realities of this India and the position ‘elitist’ ideas hold in the population’s, at least the consolidated forty per cent’s, psyche. The clout he held before assuming office, as if some ‘saviour’ has arrived after a dismissal performance by his predecessors, has been followed by a lacklustre two years at the Supreme Court. At least, that is what his ‘believers’ believe. Nonetheless, Chandrachud has displayed what a centre-left judge should do when his ‘ought’ does not align with the populous psyche (‘is’), which is now borderline ‘right’.

This is visible from his judgments and judgements. It would seem that Chandrachud had a single motive of deciding important cases that were left rather ‘stale’ by his predecessors. And so he did, but not how his believers would have wanted him to do more. Except for perhaps the Electoral Bonds case,[1] where the BJP was unnecessarily ‘questioned’ and the Chandigarh Elections case,[2] where the BJP should have been decimated further, Chandrachud has shown a rather, as some would believe, ‘not doing enough’ and ‘playing to the gallery’ performance.

And it is not because these were bad judgments. As a matter of fact, commenting as a professor of law, Chandrachud’s judgments are a relief. They are well-structured and clear. You know what you are reading and what you are referring to. It is almost as if the reader has written it themselves. And this, of course, has to do with his training in the West. One does not expect this level of clarity and coherence in judgment writing from other judges who have not survived Western legal education. Again, this is not to say that other judges write bad judgments. But the clarity of his thought, as visible from his judgments, is second to few. No one expects another Bangalore Water Supply Case!  

Chandrachud has not taken his ideology (judgement) to his judgment. In a sense, he hasn’t ‘judged’. This is where the ‘marvel’ of Chandrachud lies. If he is a centrist bordering left, he ought to have decided many cases alternatively. And, the claim that he is a centrist bordering with the left is not a ‘problem’ or ‘aspersion’. I am merely calling a ‘spade a spade’. He has traits visible among classical centre-left elites. His personal and public life should be descriptive enough- benevolence and altruism in his personal space, i.e., thinking and caring for the ‘other’; and an elitist understanding of ‘procedure’ and ‘substance’ in law, i.e., in line with the Critical Legal Studies school – the statement concerning pregnant ‘people’ and not ‘women’ and his ‘weekend’ speeches must be enough to showcase his ‘side’.

That said, I claim that he has remained true only to his ‘procedural-democratic’ side. What do I mean by this? The two cases I have cited above indicate an attempt by the BJP, among many others, to malign the fair process of democracy. The electoral bonds matter gives an unfair advantage to the ones in power, and the Chandigarh election case violates the election procedure, which was ‘thankfully’ caught on tape. And he has come down heavily in these cases. He may not ‘substantively’ agree with how the country is headed, but as long as the procedures are fair, the centrist in him will do nothing more or less.

Let me explain this further. Chandrachud would have perhaps wanted different outcomes in many cases, and he would have had different outcomes. Still, he is also aware of his name, the name’s posterity and anteriority. And the state of the nation in which he is operating. He is so careful since the centrist in him will never allow the ‘left’ inside of him to be an ‘activist-judge’. And this is where his excellence lies. He knows the limits of his power in India’s politics today and knows that he should only push when there is a pull. Chandrachud, at least through his demeanour and actions, has perfected the art of being a centre-left judge in a ‘right’ democracy by subduing whatever is left of the left in him.

This ‘procedural-democratic’ side also enables Chandrachud to take certain stances and deliver opinions, such as commenting on the demeanor of governors in non-BJP-ruled states.[3] However, this ‘procedural-democratic’ side also protects smaller states ruled by regional parties. West Bengal is a classic example. This is not to suggest that he engages in any procedural infringements. He will, as the Narendra Modi-led government has done in many cases, ‘sit on it’. In the case of West Bengal, which is not to be confused as a general rule, the Dearness Allowance matter[4] has been pending for years now, the SSC recruitment matter[5] has been pending for months, and some other examples can be taken.

Why does he do it? He believes in procedural fairness. It seems that he knows that, in the Indian democracy, the smaller players right now, in this case, the regional parties, can never stand a chance against the juggernaut – the BJP. So, he takes the juggernaut by its horns and throws softballs to the smaller players unless something that violates his ‘taste’ has come before him – the RG Kar case. Why did he call before himself the RG Kar matter[6] when the High Court at Calcutta was very efficiently taking the State Government to task?

This is where Chandrachud’s brilliance is again displayed. He is a ‘democrat’ and has aligned himself to a more ‘procedure’, and not ‘outcome’ based judging methodology because of the political realities – the necessity of some smaller players surviving (in this case, the non-BJP state government of West Bengal), the undemocratic transfer of power in the neighbouring country and the cultural, social, and psychological similarities Bengalis have on either side of the fence. And he could sense a real possibility.

As a ‘democrat’ who believes in procedural fairness, his immediate impulse would be to call the matter before him on the premise of ‘not being able to wait for another doctor to die’. When this matter becomes, and as it became in the first hearing, about ‘national interest’, not limited to the state of West Bengal, a clear case of balancing rights-duties could be done. The ‘saviour’ of medical professionals would be able not just to create an infrastructure of hope and benevolence whereby doctors are treated with dignity and respect. Still, he could also ‘bottle-neck’ the issue within the constitutional framework.

What does this enable him to do? To bring a matter within the ‘constraints’ of the Constitution and align with his procedural-fairness principles, the matter just does not remain about that particular rape and murder or of that hospital. Since it is now a national issue, with a tinge of ‘public order’, he can ask doctors to withdraw from the strike and return to service as the law ‘will take its course’. He will continue to present a strict face to the counsel for the State of West Bengal, but he is aware that half of his objectives have been achieved. This matter is no longer something that would evoke the sensibilities of the ‘nation’ and, even if it does, since the matter is within the democratic process, nothing untoward, at least similar to Bangladesh, can happen out of it.

Since he got it within the process of the democratic constitution that doctors have to ‘call off their strike’. There must be a balance. Justice and medicine cannot cease work! Since this is within the rights-duty discourse, I will protect you, but you must call off your strike and go back to work. You will not be subjected to punitive measures if you return to work immediately. And this was paying off for some time. National associations did call off their strikes. Perhaps he played the role of ‘benevolence’, which was expected from the Government of West Bengal. In doing so, he possibly hoped to diffuse any chance of an undemocratic revolution. Also, this enabled him to give a fair opportunity for a small player in the ‘market of democracy’. 

While all of this was indeed paying off, a series of recent missteps by the state government has again ignited the fire. With very little of his tenure left, Chandrachud’s actions are now for many to contemplate and comment upon. In Bengal, bordering the state that has just come out of a revolution, as sitting doctors look with despair and hopelessness at the ordeal in the Chief’s court, it would seem that Chandrachud has managed to displease people on both sides of the spectrum. The right hopes for his speedy retirement and the left is dismayed, for he did not meet their expectations. But that is a true centrist and the best judge in and of a democracy.

[1] Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 113.

[2] Kuldeep Kumar v. U. T. Chandigarh and Ors., 2024 INSC 129

[3] Ananthakíishnan G, ‘Governors must act before state govts come to SC: CJI Bench on Punjab govt plea on pending Bills’, Indian Express, November 7, 2023. Available at: Governors must act before state govts come to SC: CJI Bench on Punjab govt plea on pending Bills | India News – The Indian Express.

[4] The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal & Ors., WP.ST 102/2022.

[5] The State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), SLP(C) No. 009586 – / 2024.

[6] In re: Alleged Rape and Murder Incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. Kar medical college and hospital, Kolkata and related issues, SMW (Crl) No 2 of 2024.

*Prakhar Ganguly has been a doctoral scholar at the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory since 2023. His PhD thesis concerns the transfer of labour laws during colonisation to India and Australia. He was formerly a professor of labour laws at NALSAR University of Law (2019-2023). More can be found here: https://www.lhlt.mpg.de/ganguly/en.