Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has responded to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut’s allegations. In fact, after Mahavikas Aghadi’s crushing defeat in Maharashtra, Sanjay Raut had blamed the defeat on the former CJI. On Raut’s allegation, the CJI has said that it is the job of the Chief Justice to decide which case the Supreme Court will give priority for hearing. No person or party can decide this.
Speaking to the agency on November 26, the former CJI said, ‘Throughout the year we continued to resolve fundamental and constitutional issues. We heard many issues, including cases that came before 9-judge, 7-judge and 5-judge courts. Will a person from one party now decide which case should be heard by the Supreme Court? The Chief Justice has the authority to make this decision.
Raut’s statement came after the crushing defeat of the MVA.
Let us tell you that Sanjay Raut had accused the CJI when Shiv Sena (UBT), Congress and Sharad Pawar-led NCP (SP) had lost badly in the Maharashtra elections. In fact, MVA could only win 49 of the 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra. While Mahayuti has set a record by winning 233 seats.
“Politicians have lost fear of the law”
After the crushing defeat in Maharashtra, Sanjay Raut said that DY Chandrachud did not take a decision on the MLAs’ disqualification petitions. Therefore, fear of the law disappeared from the minds of politicians and political defection occurred. In the end, the MVA alliance was defeated.
‘Cases from 20 years ago are also pending in the Supreme Court’
CJI Chandrachud said, ‘If we do not work even a minute of the time we have to work, then they can criticize us. Important constitutional cases have been pending in the Supreme Court for 20 years. One can also say: why isn’t the Supreme Court taking up these 20-year-old cases and hearing new cases? If old cases are examined, the court is accused of not dealing with recent cases.
‘The decisions of the electoral bonds to the AMU count’
Responding to the allegations from the Uddhav camp, Chandrachud said: ‘The real problem is that a political class feels that if you follow my agenda then you are free. We decided on electoral bonds. Wasn’t it necessary? The former CJI also spoke about the decisions taken in other cases, including the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Act and Aligarh Muslim University case. He said that during our tenure we decided on 38 references from the Constitution Bench.
