Disturbing Optics At Chief Justice’s Ganesh Pooja Plant Doubts In People’s Mind

Narendra Modi is not a friend of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud; nor is he a family member of the CJI. Had Modi fulfilled either of the conditions, his presence at the Ganesh Pooja organized by the Chief Justice would have been fine. Considering that the CJI is also a private person, there is nothing wrong with his performing the pooja, but inviting the prime minister for the event is the height of indiscretion on the part of the CJI, surpassed only by Modi’s acceptance of the invitation.

The BJP has defended Modi’s attendance as a cultural gesture rather than any kind of political engagement. However, the optics of the Prime Minister participating in such an event have inevitably been compared to his role in the Ram Mandir consecration at Ayodhya. The symbolism of Modi’s presence in both contexts raises questions about the potential for these events to influence political dynamics and perceptions.

The presence of a sitting Prime Minister at a religious ceremony hosted by the Chief Justice is unprecedented. On one hand, it can be seen as an attempt to bridge the gap between the political and judicial spheres through shared cultural practices. On the other, it risks undermining the neutrality and independence that are cornerstones of the judiciary’s role in a democracy.

Senior legal experts and commentators have expressed concerns regarding this event. They argue that inviting a high-profile political figure like Modi could be perceived as compromising the Chief Justice’s impartiality. The judicial system relies heavily on public perception of its neutrality; thus, any action that might suggest otherwise can have far-reaching consequences.

Activist advocate Indira Jaising, criticised the visit on social media, claiming it compromised the independence of the judiciary. She went to the extent of calling upon the Supreme Court Bar Association to condemn the event, asserting that such public displays blur the lines between the judiciary and the executive.

Prashant Bhushan described the development as a ‘bad signal’ about judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights and ensure the government adheres to the Constitution. He further cited a ‘Code of Conduct for Judges’, which required a judge to practice a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of the office and implied that the CJI’s conduct was ‘unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held’.

The BJP’s justification of Modi’s attendance as a cultural engagement simply fails to make the grade. While cultural engagement is an integral part of Indian society, the context of the event and the roles involved are crucial. The Chief Justice, by virtue of his position, represents the judiciary, which is expected to maintain a certain distance from political influences. Modi, as the head of the government, represents the executive branch. Their intersection at such an event could be seen as a tacit endorsement or endorsement of mutual interests, whether intended or not. It is essential for both the judiciary and the executive to maintain a clear distinction between their roles and responsibilities to uphold the principles of democracy and fairness.

Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena has used the development to take potshots at both the CJI and the prime minister. Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut asserted it created doubts in the minds of people about the impartiality of the judiciary. Thackeray’s Sena has every reason to feel upset as a bench headed by the Chief Justice is hearing the crucial case in which it has challenged the Maharashtra Speaker’s decision to recognize the faction led by chief minister Eknath Shinde.

In fact, Raut has asked the CJI to recuse himself from the case as PM is a party to the case as BJP is a partner in the Eknath Shinde government. “Our case of Maharashtra… the hearing is going on before CJI Chandrachud, so we have doubts if we will get justice because the PM is the other party in the case. The Chief Justice should distance himself from this case because his relation with the other party in the case is openly visible. Will CJI Chandrachud be able to give us justice in such a situation?” Raut wondered.

The Ganesh Pooja controversy has thus an unseemly context. it is crucial for public figures to be mindful of the implications of their actions. The separation of powers and the independence of institutions are fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. Ensuring that these principles are upheld requires careful consideration of the optics and potential consequences of high-profile engagements. (IPA Service)