BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF STATE & JUSTICE SEEKERS

In some contexts, the court under CJI Chandrachud's leadership fell short of expectations. There is no point in creating physical spaces and amenities without upholding the essence of justice

- KIL SIBAL

The soul of justice cannot be enclosed in world-class brick and mortar structures, just as the cause of liberty is not served by sermons in structured judgments. The constitutional protection for the right to privacy is not ensured by declaring it a fundamental right but by holding unconstitutional intrusive acts of the state through its enforcement agents. Upholding constitutional values is in the nature of a sacrament; any willful infraction or apparent insouciance in protecting those values makes the justice delivery system suspect in the eyes of the public.

Over a billion people in our country are watching how our courts attempt to balance the interests of the state with the interests of those seeking justice. For a polity as divisive as one prevailing since 2014, the constant vigil of the court is the only way to ensure our constitutional values are safe.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud's tenure was high on optics and somewhat low on delivery. The court under his stewardship often compromised even on liberty, of which he was ostensibly a champion. His majoritarian tilt, reflected in some of his judgments, was worrisome. At the heart of the justice delivery system is the ability of the court to stand up to the excesses of the executive; to speak truth to power. The court's record in that endeavor has been rather weak.