Civil rights body says ‘unconstitutional bonhomie’ between PM Modi, CJI

In a strongly worded statement released on Friday, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has condemned what it termed the "unconstitutional bonhomie" between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, following the prime minister's recent visit to the CJI's residence to perform Ganesh pooja.

On 12 September, PM Modi attended Ganpati Puja at Chandrachud's residence in New Delhi. While critics have raised concerns about the appropriateness of the event, the BJP and some legal experts have dismissed the objections as unfounded, emphasising that it was a private affair between two individuals.

PUCL says such interactions are not about personal freedom but “about the propriety and indeed the constitutional morality which the visit violates. It is fundamentally about questions of law, ethics and constitutional morality”.

Founded by renowned socialist leader Jaiprakash Narayan, the civil rights organisation has argued that public displays of camaraderie between these high constitutional functionaries undermine the core tenets of India's democracy, particularly the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

The PUCL statement has emphasised that the issue transcends personal freedoms or individual relationships, focusing instead on the ethical and Constitutional impropriety that arises when figures from the executive and judiciary appear too closely aligned.  

The civil rights organisation has underscored two primary concerns: the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Both, it noted, are essential to the functioning of a democratic state and have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. 

“It is vital that the constitutional Laxman Rekha, which delineates the relationship between the executive and judiciary, must not be crossed or even perceived to be crossed by individuals who embody these two pillars of the state,” PUCL asserted.

The statement highlighted that commitment to constitutional morality, as articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is vital for the health of democracy and the rule of law.

Quoting Ambedkar, PUCL reminded the public that "constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment; it has to be cultivated". The organisation urged those in high constitutional offices to nurture this principle rather than undermine it. 

This strong rebuke from PUCL has intensified the ongoing debate regarding the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, raising critical questions about the role of constitutional morality within India's democratic framework.