PM Modi’s visit to CJI Chandrachud’s home stirs up a row

A photograph shared by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and videos allegedly circulated by the PMO on the evening of Wednesday, 11 September, have raised eyebrows. The videos show Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and his wife receiving the prime minister and joining him as the PM performs an aarti.

Several legal luminaries have questioned the propriety of the PM visiting the CJI’s residence and taking part in a private event.

Totally inappropriate, asserted lawyer Prashant Bhushan, pointing out that such an act went against the code of conduct that the apex court has adopted for judges. “Why would a supposedly private visit for a religious festival be videographed with multiple cameras and lighting, and then disseminated far and wide by official sources?” asked Chander Uday Singh.

Lawyer Sanjay Hegde pointed out that “Separation of church and state was actually an anti-Christian concept arising out of the French Revolution”, which also gave us the beacons of liberty, equality and fraternity, enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution. He also recalled former CJI M.N. Venkatchalaiah speaking of an encounter with the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.

Delivering a lecture in memory of the late prime minister, the former CJI recalled, “It was during his [P.V. Narasimha Rao] tenure as PM that I served as the CJI and our relationship was not smooth from the beginning…every time a CJI leaves the office and the new one comes in, there is a customary dinner. At the customary dinner after I was sworn in, Narasimha Rao casually after the dinner said, ‘Our relationship will be cordial’ and to which I shot back ‘It should not be cordial’… PM Rao was taken aback but replied ‘okay it will be both cordial and propitiatory’."

Most lawyers held back from commenting publicly on the controversy even as former additional solicitor-general, lawyer and legal activist Indira Jaising commented, “Chief Justice of India has compromised the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary. Lost all confidence in the independence of the CJI. The SCBA must condemn this publicly displayed compromise of Independence of the CJI from the Executive”.

Lawyer and author Gautam Bhatia sardonically quipped on social media, “Executive-judiciary relationship seems to be coming along very smoothly these days."

New Delhi-based investigative journalist and researcher Saurav Das, who writes on legal affairs, was less inhibited as he posted on X, “…disturbing visuals come from the residence of the Chief Justice of India. For those who hold the sanctity of the judiciary close to their hearts, this sends an ominous signal — a dangerous erosion of the distance that must exist between the Judiciary and the Executive.

"A public display of blurring of lines. More worrisome is the absolutely dangerous signal it sends to not just future Chief Justices of India, but to every Judge in the Supreme Court, High Courts and the district courts across the nation. Chief Justice Chandrachud has potentially compromised the integrity of the entire institution.”

Former Union health secretary Sujata Rao exclaimed, “Never ever seen anything like this in the past 75 years!”

Supreme Court advocate Sanjoy Ghose posted a congratulatory letter written by justice P.N. Bhagwati in 1980 following Indira Gandhi's electoral victory, and followed it up by posting an icy comment made by justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, who dryly said, “If judges start sending bouquets or congratulatory letters to a political leader on his political victory, eulogising him on assumption of high office in adulatory terms, the people's confidence in the judiciary will be shaken.”

Even as most political leaders refrained from commenting, Rajya Sabha member Priyanka Chaturvedi of the Shiv Sena (UBT) could not resist the temptation of saying with just a trace of sarcasm, “After the festivities are over hopefully, CJI will deem it fit and be slightly freer to conclude the hearing on Maharashtra and the blatant disregard of Article 10 of the Constitution in Maharashtra. Oh wait, elections round the corner anyway, it can be adjourned for another day.”

Political scientist and columnist Suhas Palshikar conceded on X that he was baffled. “Genuinely puzzled and curious: if a guest is specifically 'invited' or invitation extended since the guest was anyway going to drop in… Will we ever know? Does it make a difference? How does one avoid such situations?”

The PM’s visit to the residence of the CJI, who is from Maharashtra, to attend a puja on Ganesh Chaturthi was clearly meant as a gesture to the voters in the state in an election year. The allegation that officials in the PMO circulated the video clips, the PM himself shared the photograph and the fact that a camera crew followed him to a private visit appear to strengthen the suspicion that the visit had less to do with devotion and more to do with politics.

The most important question, however, remains unanswered till now. Did the CJI extend an invitation to the PM but not to the President and other ministers? Or was it the PMO which had conveyed the wish of the PM to attend the puja at the CJI’s residence? Assuming this was the case, could the CJI have politely turned it down and pointed out that it would send out an awkward and inappropriate signal?