Why A Controversy Has Erupted Over PM Modi's Participation in Ganesh Puja at CJI DY Chandrachud's Residence

On Wednesday night, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended a Ganesh Puja held at the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice DY Chandrachud in Delhi. The Prime Minister shared a photo on the social media platform 'X' alongside Justice Chandrachud, with a caption that read, "Attended Ganesh Puja at the residence of Chief Justice Justice Chandrachud. May Lord Ganesha bless us all with happiness, prosperity, and good health."

However, the Prime Minister's visit to the Chief Justice's home has sparked a debate about the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary in India. Several legal experts and commentators have raised concerns about the independence of these branches as outlined in the Indian Constitution.

Diverging Opinions Among Legal Experts

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Dushyant Dave criticized both the Chief Justice's invitation to the Prime Minister and the latter's acceptance, calling it inappropriate. 

In contrast, another senior Supreme Court lawyer, Pinky Anand, defended the event, stating, "Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. The PM's visit to the CJI's residence is a good example."

Renowned Indian lawyer Indira Jaisingh took a more critical stance. On her 'X' account, she accused Chief Justice Chandrachud of compromising the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. She further expressed that this incident has caused a loss of faith in the independence of the Chief Justice.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also issued a statement, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and ensure unbiased justice. The organization asserted that the judiciary should remain entirely independent of the executive branch.

Political Reactions to the Controversy

The controversy has drawn mixed reactions from political circles. Milind Deora, a Rajya Sabha MP from Shiv Sena's Shinde faction, condemned the criticism directed at the Prime Minister's visit, calling it "unfortunate." He argued that when the Supreme Court's decisions favor the opposition, they commend its credibility, but when they do not, they accuse the judiciary of compromising its integrity. Deora warned that such allegations could set a dangerous precedent.

SC is currently hearing  Maharashtra govt's case: Raut

Conversely, Shiv Sena's Uddhav Thackeray faction leader, Sanjay Raut, questioned the Prime Minister's motives.

Raut claimed, "We question whether the guardians of the Constitution should engage with political leaders in this manner. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Maharashtra government's case, which involves a party Prime Minister. Can the Chief Justice ensure impartiality in this situation? We keep receiving postponements. He should recuse himself from this case."

The case concerns the legitimacy of the Shinde government, which was established in Maharashtra following the split in Shiv Sena and NCP, and is also under review by the Supreme Court.

 asking how many homes he has visited during the Ganpati festival. Raut suggested that political leaders meeting with key constitutional figures could undermine the independence of ongoing judicial proceedings. 

With assembly elections around the corner in Maharashtra, this issue has become highly sensitive.

Counterpoints from the BJP

To counter Raut's allegations, BJP spokesperson Shahzad Poonawala pointed out a previous instance where a sitting Chief Justice attended a private event hosted by a Prime Minister. He noted that former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, KG Balakrishnan, attended an Iftar dinner hosted by then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, implying that such interactions have historical precedence.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, who has presided over several high-profile cases, is set to retire on November 10 this year. The ongoing debate around his recent interaction with the Prime Minister underscores the sensitive balance between maintaining judicial independence and fostering healthy relationships among the branches of government.

As the controversy continues to unfold, it highlights the delicate lines between tradition, governance, and the expectations of constitutional propriety in India's democratic framework.