CJI Owes an Explanation to the People of India Over Puja with PM

CJI and PM: A Breach of Judicial Boundaries?

On September 11th, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted two messages on X, formerly Twitter, featuring images of him attending a private Ganesh Puja at the residence of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice DY Chandrachud. The same day, a 29-second video was also uploaded on PM Modi’s official YouTube channel, showing the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice praying together during the same ceremony.

As a lawyer and a staunch believer in the sanctity of our judiciary, I find this troubling. There is—and must always be—a clear and inviolable distance between the judiciary and the executive. When the head of government is seen participating in a private religious celebration at the home of the Chief Justice, the lines of separation blur dangerously.

The judiciary is the final guardian of the Constitution, the one institution that, until now, has largely retained public trust. However, moments like this undermine that trust. The appearance of such closeness between the PM and the CJI risks weakening the perception of the judiciary’s independence, which is paramount to its legitimacy.

While some may argue that this was a harmless cultural interaction, the implications cannot be dismissed s

CJI and PM: A Breach of Judicial Boundaries?

On September 11th, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted two messages on X, formerly Twitter, featuring images of him attending a private Ganesh Puja at the residence of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice DY Chandrachud. The same day, a 29-second video was also uploaded on PM Modi’s official YouTube channel, showing the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice praying together during the same ceremony.

As a lawyer and a staunch believer in the sanctity of our judiciary, I find this troubling. There is—and must always be—a clear and inviolable distance between the judiciary and the executive. When the head of government is seen participating in a private religious celebration at the home of the Chief Justice, the lines of separation blur dangerously.

The judiciary is the final guardian of the Constitution, the one institution that, until now, has largely retained public trust. However, moments like this undermine that trust. The appearance of such closeness between the PM and the CJI risks weakening the perception of the judiciary’s independence, which is paramount to its legitimacy.

While some may argue that this was a harmless cultural interaction, the implications cannot be dismissed so lightly. The judiciary must not only be independent but also appear independent. In a time when the public's faith in democratic institutions is being tested, such actions chip away at the judiciary's ability to be seen as a neutral arbiter, free from undue influence. This video will likely be remembered as a moment that damaged the very fabric of judicial independence in India.

The questions that arise from this event demand answers from both the CJI and the PM. First, out of millions of homes where similar Ganesh Pujas are taking place across the country, how did the Prime Minister choose the residence of the Chief Justice? More critically, why did the Chief Justice of India, one of the highest constitutional authorities, allow the Prime Minister not only to attend this private religious ceremony but also to take on the role of officiating the puja—a position usually reserved for the elders of the household? Was this a symbolic gesture meant to signal closeness between the executive and the judiciary? If so, it sends the wrong message at a time when the judiciary’s independence must be fiercely protected.

The objections raised are not trivial; they go to the heart of the integrity of the judiciary. Firstly, the Government of India is the largest litigant in the country. What impact will this public display of camaraderie between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice have on judgments where the government is a party? Can the judiciary, particularly the highest court, be seen as truly impartial in cases where the government’s actions are under scrutiny?

This raises another pressing question—what message does this send to the lower judiciary? Judicial officers across the country look to the Supreme Court as the standard-bearer for independence and impartiality. But when the head of the judiciary is seen in such close quarters with the head of the executive, the very idea of judicial autonomy starts to erode.

Moreover, what about those who seek to litigate against the government, against the Prime Minister himself, or his party, the BJP? Will they have the confidence to pursue justice when the Chief Justice is seen engaging with the very figure they might seek to challenge? The Chief Justice is not only the senior-most judge but also controls the roster as the ‘master of the roster’ and plays a huge role in the appointment of judges nationwide. This position of immense power requires an even greater responsibility to remain above suspicion, detached from political or executive influence.

History is littered with examples of how the actions of judges, and their proximity to the executive, have eroded public trust in the judiciary. Time and again, we’ve witnessed how even a few missteps—whether through orders, public statements, or private correspondence—can undermine the very foundations of judicial independence. 

Consider the case of Justice S.R. Sen’s disturbing remark that only Prime Minister Modi could prevent India from “Islamisation.” Or Justice M.R. Shah’s open declaration that “Modi is my hero.” Then, of course, there’s the historic instance of Chief Justice M.C. Chagla writing to Jawaharlal Nehru, praising him for elevating India’s global stature, and Justice P.N. Bhagwati's congratulatory letter to Indira Gandhi after her return to power in 1980. These actions greatly compromised the public's faith in the judiciary.

But what we’ve seen with CJI D.Y. Chandrachud crosses a line that was once unimaginable. This isn't a controversial statement or a letter quietly sent to a head of state—this is something far more personal and visible. A private prayer session with the Prime Minister at the Chief Justice’s residence, broadcast for all to see. If this does not signal a breach of judicial independence, then what does?

The question that looms large is how this 29-second video might be used—or misused—by Prime Minister Modi's most visible and influential friends, such as Gautam Adani, Mukesh Ambani, and M.A. Yusuff Ali, among others. What could this short clip, posted on the Prime Minister’s own social media handle, mean for them as they navigate the judicial system? One cannot ignore the potential for this video to be wielded inappropriately by these well-known friends or party leaders, particularly in lower courts or even High Courts, where the influence of the executive on judicial matters can be more direct and visible.

The real danger, however, lies in how this video may be perceived, especially in the context of controversial judgments in which the CJI himself was involved—rulings that favoured the government, PM Modi, Amit Shah, or their industrialist allies. The impression created is deeply unsettling. What are the people now to think about those judgments? Could this video reinforce the perception that the judiciary, particularly at its highest levels, is susceptible to influence from the executive? This is the kind of speculation that erodes the very foundation of justice.

The most damaging consequence of this video is not just its immediate impact, but its long-term effect on the public’s faith in the judiciary. For many, the judiciary remains the last refuge in a democratic system where other institutions have faltered. But now, this brief video risks shaking the trust people have placed in the courts. It gives rise to doubts about the impartiality of past, present, and even future rulings, particularly in cases involving the government or powerful figures closely linked to the Prime Minister and his party, the BJP.

The Chief Justice of India undoubtedly owes an explanation to the people of India. This is why, more than ever, there is an urgent need for a formal protocol that governs the public and private interactions between the three pillars of our democracy—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. A clear boundary must be established to prevent such incidents from undermining the judicial system’s credibility and the sanctity of the Constitution. This incident has the potential to shake the very trust that people have in the Indian judiciary. Now, it falls to the members of the judiciary, the Bar, and the broader legal community to take steps to restore the confidence that has been so deeply shaken. It’s not just about damage control; it’s about safeguarding the sanctity of the judicial system and protecting the Constitution that millions depend on for justice.