File Picture
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has said the legislature can enact a fresh law to cure a deficiency in a judgment but it cannot directly overrule it.
According to PTI report, Speaking at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi, Chandrachud said judges don’t think about how the society would respond when they decide cases and that is the difference between the elected arm of the government and the judiciary.
“There is a dividing line between what the legislature can do, and what the legislature can’t do when there is a judgment of the court. If a judgment decides a particular issue and it points out a deficiency in law, it is always open for the legislature to enact a fresh law to cure the deficiency,” the CJI said.
“What the legislature cannot do is to say that we think the judgment is wrong and therefore we overrule the judgment. The judgment of a court cannot be directly overruled by the legislature,” the CJI said.
He also said judges are guided by constitutional morality and not public morality while adjudicating cases.
“We have disposed of at least 72,000 cases this year and there’s still a month and a half to go,” Chandrachud said.
Contending that there are structural barriers in the entry-level of the judicial system, Chandrachud said more women will enter the judiciary if there is a level playing field.
“We need to redefine merit in an inclusive sense. If you open a level playing field for entry, you will have more women in the judiciary,” he said.
The CJI also extended best wishes to the Indian men’s cricket team for the World Cup and said they inspire him.
On Judges retirement, CJI said Judges should retire so succeeding generations point out errors of the past and rejig legal principles for society to evolve, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said .
Chandrachud said while the American constitution has no age of retirement for judges, in India, judges retire after a particular age.
The CJI said it would be “too much of a responsibility” cast on human beings in terms of their own infallibility by postulating that they should not retire from office.
“We have followed a model where judges retire. But as someone who has been in the system for 23 years as a judge, I have a different take. In a sense, it is important that judges must retire because its too much of a responsibility to cast on a human being in terms of their own infallibility by postulating that they should not retire from their office.
“Judges are human beings prone to errors and societies evolve. You must pass on the mantle to succeeding generations who would be able to point out errors of the past and rejig legal principles for society to evolve. Because to give that sort of power to unelected judges to continue for life, in the Indian context, it is wisely not adopted by the Indian Constitution. So as to allow for a source of change for the transformation of legal principles,” he said.
