‘Will political parties tell which cases the Supreme Court should hear?’, former CJI DY Chandrachud’s rebuke to Sanjay Raut – Ex CJI on Sanjay Raut remark Supreme Court cases priority Shiv Sena UBT ntc
Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has responded to the allegations of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut. In fact, after the crushing defeat of Mahavikas Aghadi 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 to hearing. No person or any party can decide this.
Speaking to the agency on November 26, the former CJI said, ‘Throughout the year we kept settling fundamental and constitutional matters. We heard many issues, including cases that came before benches of 9 judges, 7 judges and 5 judges. Will now a person from one party decide which case should be heard by the Supreme Court? The Chief Justice has the authority to take this decision.
Raut’s statement came after the crushing defeat of MVA
Let us tell you that Sanjay Raut had accused CJI when Shiv Sena (UBT), Congress and Sharad Pawar led NCP (SP) had lost badly in the Maharashtra elections. In fact, MVA could win only 49 out of 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra. Whereas Mahayuti has set a record by winning 233 seats.
‘Politicians have lost fear of law’
After the crushing defeat in Maharashtra, Sanjay Raut had said that DY Chandrachud did not take a decision on the disqualification petitions of MLAs. Therefore, the fear of law vanished from the minds of politicians and political defection took place. Ultimately the MVA alliance was defeated.
’20 years old cases are also pending in the Supreme Court’
CJI Chandrachud said, ‘If we do not work even for a minute in the time we have got for work, then you can criticize us. Important constitutional cases are pending in the Supreme Court for 20 years. It can also be said that why is the Supreme Court not taking up these 20 years old cases and is hearing fresh cases? If old cases are heard, the court is accused of not taking up recent cases.
‘Count the decisions ranging from electoral bonds to AMU’
Responding to the allegations of 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 talked about the decisions taken on other cases including Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Act case and Aligarh Muslim University. He said that during our tenure we decided on 38 Constitution Bench references.
