The CJI DY Chandrachud-Meetings between the Executive and Judiciary are for administrative purposes or social etiquette

 The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, stated that meetings between the Executive and Judiciary are for administrative purposes or social etiquette, and not for negotiation of deals. He emphasized that while their interactions may create a perception of deal-making, this is not the reality. Such interactions are just one aspect of the ongoing dialogue between various branches of government. Meetings between Judiciary and Executive heads are not intended to discuss judicial matters, but rather focus on administrative or social issues, clarified CJI DY Chandrachud on Saturday. He emphasized that these engagements do not involve any deals and are simply part of a healthy exchange between different arms of government. "The perception of deals being made is incorrect," he added. This forms a crucial aspect of the extensive communication among various branches of the government. The efforts of all three branches are committed to enhancing the welfare of the country. The conversation does not pertain to our roles as judges; we maintain full impartiality in that regard. The Chief Justice of India highlighted the overlap between the administrative functions of the judiciary and the executive branch. He underlined the longstanding practice of the head of government at the state or union level consulting with the head of the judiciary. This practice has led to speculation about the subjects of their discussions. The focus of the conversation does not involve ongoing legal matters. The political system's maturity is evidenced by the significant deference shown to the judiciary by the political class," he remarked.

CJI Chandrachud made these comments during the Loksatta Lecture at Mumbai University on October 26.

He further elaborated that during his time as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and as a member of the administrative committee in Maharashtra, it was customary for the Chief Minister to visit the Chief Justice's residence, and vice versa.

"In these meetings, agendas are set regarding infrastructure or IT projects, funding opportunities, and prioritized projects by the executive." Is there an opportunity for us to engage in dialogue? These interactions often lead to a heightened sense of maturity within the political system. Through my own experiences, particularly during my tenure as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and overseeing the construction of the Lucknow bench building, I have observed the value of such engagements. "The discussions that took place were," stated the CJI in response to inquiries about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's attendance at the Ganesh puja at the CJI's residence. Additionally, he clarified that interactions between a Chief Minister and High Court Chief Justice are essential due to the Executive's responsibility for handling judicial budgets. "A Chief Minister never engages in conversations about ongoing cases as that falls within a distinct realm." The administrative connection between the High Court and State government differs from the judicial duties performed by judges. Similarly, the administrative dynamic between the Supreme Court and the current government varies significantly from the judicial responsibilities we undertake," he expressed. When it comes to the consultation process for nominating judges, the CJI noted that consensus may or may not arise, a trait he viewed as a positive aspect of the system. "The interaction between various levels of the Executive and Judiciary is handled with a high degree of maturity, with communication playing a crucial role in this regard." The Chief Justice of India must engage in discussions with the Minister of Law to assess the validity of any concerns raised regarding a potential candidate. You are required to engage in discussion with one another. "The CJI noted a significant display of maturity in this instance," the Chief Justice of India articulated.

Concerning critiques of democratic establishments, the CJI remarked that the opportunity for enhancing institutions should not suggest inherent deficiencies within the institution.

"The key consideration is whether we have implemented a more effective system." We need to recognize the ease with which we critique the institutions established in the past 75 years. He explained that every institution has its strengths and potential for improvement.