Inside India's Supreme Court: Money, Justice & Free Speech | DY Chandrachud | FO527 Raj Shamani

Common citizens believe that until there is money, you cannot win the case.The danger in our system is that the well -resourced clients command the best lawyers.And I have seen this as a lawyer that a person who does not want to have justice done to the other side and who wants to delay justice and use every trick in the rule book to prevent justice being done immediately.And that is one of the failings of our system.

Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachur, the 50th Chief Justice of India.He has delivered historic judgments that reshape conversations around privacy, liberty, equality and individual rights.Watch this podcast to understand the future of India's legal system.Have you read that quote?Your friend knows the lawyers, my friend knows the judge.Does that hold any influence?

Knowing the judge and getting an order in your favor, that would be unacceptable.

Is there freedom of speech in India?Do you feel so?Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.Even in America?Even in America for that matter.

Supreme Court overruled Trump's decision on tariffs.Do you think something like that can happen in India?Like a Supreme Court can overrule decision of Prime Minister or President.

Governmental decisions are continuously assessed and overruled by the Supreme Court if they are found to be contrary to law.Why marital rape is not a crime?If a husband murders his wife, he is guilty of murder.If a husband assaults his wife, he is guilty of an offence.But if a husband subjects a wife to involuntary sex, rapes her is not a crime in India.And I feel this is one of those provisions of our law which is hugely problematic.

people in loose terms talk about that there are two Indias.There's an India which is progressing and then there's an India where people are struggling to just get access to basic health care.Do you think that's true?

Let's face it, the growth of private business and trade is a source of employment, productivity, revenue.At the same time, across the world, that has spurred greater inequality.And that's theone thing which India needs to guard against as we go into the future.

Compare Indian justice system and American justice system.Which one do you think is way better in today's world?For the salary of a Supreme Court judge in India, India's top court rejects the menstrual leave petition.A court said that if we allow this, then nobody will hire women.Do you think that's right to do that?If you have found anything valuable from this channel, please subscribe.

It's free, it takes less than a minute, but it means a lot to us.And to listen to the audio experience of this episode, please follow us on Spotify.When your workload gets heavy, you have multiple files open, have big tasks running in the background, you need a laptop that keeps up with you.Because even a little lag can slow you down.That's why I use the Asus ExpertBook Ultra.It's an AI PC that comes with up to 180 total platform tops, along with built -in copilot plus AI functionality.

So you get smooth, worry -free performance, no matter how heavy the work gets.Its CPU, GPU, and NPU all work together, which means faster performance, even when you're on the go.So whether you're traveling, switching between tasks, or handling something important, the laptop keeps up with you.It's fast, reliable and built for people who don't want to slow down.The ASUS expert book is available on Flipkart.Check the link in the description below.

a good lawyer?

and you don't get any money.Stage two, when you work hard and you get money.Stage three, you don't work hard and you get money.My juniors were saying, you are on the verge of going to stage two.Why do you want to be a judge now?A lot of people asked me, why do you want to be a judge?

I wanted to become a judge because I had seen judges.We admired the good judges.How much social service there is.You can do something good to other people while judging.So I used to think that really it's a matter of public service.And that was something which enamored me.

And since childhood, the environment was such that there was no money in the house.Because my father became a judge when I was one and a half years old, in 1961, in March.And so the environment at home was the same.The salary that my father has, the limited resources at home, I have to enjoy that.And I would see my parents do that.So, you know, in that sense, money didn't, in that sense, have any great attraction for me.

Were you enamored with your father?of your father?

Yes, very much.

I was...

You wanted to be like your father or better than him?No, I never thought of that.Because I thought, who could be greater than him?When I...I'll tell you a little story.One day when I became a judge at that time, I got a call at home in the morning.

So he said, I want to talk to Justice Chandrachud.So I said, you might have got the wrong number.I'll give you Justice Chandrachud's number.So I gave him my father's number.So he recognized my voice.He said, no, that's not Justice Chandrachud.

The Justice Chandrachud I'm talking to, I want to talk to him.So really, for me, for many days, Justice Chandrachud was the only one in the house.But later it also happened that the decisions he had taken, he was right, he was equal.Today's society had to see that.I had to decide on the validity of some of his own decisions, which I overruled.That's part of your work as a judge, you know.

Interesting.

Were you ever, I say, in your school, with your friends, while growing up, maybe in college, Did people treat you differently because you were Chief Justice of India?Oh, never.Never.

Why?I'll tell you one thing.When I was in school, my father was a High Court judge.Even then you were a High Court judge.Yes, but the environment in Bombay is a bit different.

We were not in a small city.

And in Mumbai, if your father is a film star or an industry person, then maybe you have more importance.So no undue advantage, just society made you feel?Absolutely.Never in school.I mean, teachers are very, very strict.in school.

Even in law college?You know, in law college, law college is college.But there were teachers who would give you some attention.But there were teachers who just treated you like they were very eminent teachers who taught us, like Professor Upendra Bakshi or Dr. Lotika Sarkar.In fact, my new book is dedicated to Dr. Lotika Sarkar amongst two other professors.So they were such eminent teachers in their own right that they never really in that sense gave great importance to what family you come from or whatever.

And probably almost like a lot of kids they would see every year, they would be the son of a lawyer or a distinguished personality.Is that also a reason that they don't care?

I'm not sure about that.But possibly, yes, there were other, you know, children from legal background.But, you know, in my, in those days in Delhi University, when I studied law, You didn't have the national law schools.Now, national law schools were established after 1990.So, national law school came to Bangalore, then to Hyderabad, Kolkata, Delhi, Jodhpur, and then it spread to all the states.At that time, Delhi used to be a center.

So, children from all over the country used to come to Delhi.They used to come from the Northeast, from the South, from the North.The net result was that our friends came from all over the country.So that was a beautiful part of, you know, learning law in Delhi University at that time because all the students came from all over the country.Was there a friend who was with you in college at that time and he also ended up becoming some stalwart in some field?There were so many friends.

friends went ahead and became very eminent personalities in the country.So, I'll tell you for instance, Mr. Arvind Subramaniam.who was with me and we were batchmates in St. Stephen's College.And he's become such an eminent person.He became principal economic advisor to the prime minister.He's a very distinguished professor.

I had another good friend who became secretary to the government of India, KP Krishnan.Abhishek Manu Singh is also in politics.We used to study together.Quite a few people, you know, they've become CEOs.Ajay Pal Singh Banga, who is the president of the World Bank, we used to study together in St. Stephen's College.What was there in that batch?

Tell me.A World Bank, a Principal Advisor, a Secretary, a CGI.What was in that batch?I don't know.What did you guys study and eat?

In the batch in our law college, from one or two sections, a total of 12 -13 people from the High Court and the Supreme Court became judges.of the High Court or of the Supreme Court.Wow.From that one batch.From that one batch.We were three in the Supreme Court.

Apart from me, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Rishikesh Roy, Justice Ravindra Bhatt.From one batch, we were four at that time.Wow.

If you had to give, point it out to some reason, any reason because of which every one of you killed it in life.

I think, you know, Delhi University really was inspirational at that time.And we were really inspired by the teachers who taught us.And Delhi University had this tradition, you know, when I was studying for my BA in economics at St. Stephen's College, it was a public policy course, essentially.Even then, we had some brilliant young teachers.Some of them later on became ambassadors of India.They joined the foreign service.

So, they used to teach at that time, waiting for their civil service results.Somebody became a Chief Justice of the High Court later on.As Justice Badadure Ahmed, you know, he became Judge of the Delhi High Court and then became Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court.So, when we went to law college, the teachers, you know, were of a public law background.Maybe because Delhi is the capital, the great emphasis on public law.In Mumbai, it's a commercial capital of the country.

So the emphasis is more on commercial law.But because of that, I also had a little bit of a drawback.Because when I started law, I was so interested in public law.And public law is when, you know, citizens' rights are violated.You know, liberty, equality, due process.But we didn't learn commercial law that well.

Now, when you start a law firm, you have to earn a living.So, you get your living from commercial law.You don't get it from money.That's where the money is.The clients, the paying clients, they are there.

Now, when I used to get a commercial law case, I used to get very scared.

Because the lawyers who were against me grew up in Bombay.They learned their law in Bombay.So I was a little scared that I'm not as equal to them as I am in say dealing with public law cases.When I became a judge, I was still a little scared.Because when you become a judge, you can't tell the Chief Justice that I will do this job.You have to do the job that is assigned to you.

So for six months, you will do cases of income tax.For six months, you will do cases of commercial law.So I used to be a little scared, frankly, as a judge, that how will I be able to do these cases.Big personalities appear in front of you.But you have to work hard.There's no substitute for hard work.

You know, you have to confront your own fears.

You dealt with Amazon and future retail reliance.And at that time it was richest man of the world versus richest man in India.

You know, by and by, When you start as a judge, of course, you know, you because you have these, you know, top lawyers and courts like Mumbai appearing before you.At that time, you have to go home and study.You have to work twice as much because you know in your heart that this is not my subject.And you have to work your way through it.You have to read your cases.You have to, you know, burn the midnight oil and you have to understand.

You know, The law, and particularly being a judge, teaches you a great deal of humility.Because, you know, you realize that as a judge, you are reading 50 cases.In the Supreme Court, you are reading 80 cases every day.The lawyer who comes in front of you reads only one case.So, he knows more about the case than you do.You have specialist lawyers in front of you.

So, you realize that, you know, the field of knowledge is so vast.be humble, you know, don't assert the weight of your authority.And I think that is critical that you understand.you know that you respect people of course you are the person who's going to take the final view as a judge at least a final view for your court yeah there's a higher court you know if you're in the high court but at least you know you feel that look people before you you must respect their knowledge.And when you learn to do that, you realize that you receive so much in terms of upgrading your own knowledge.Because when you have an open mind as a human being, you are open to different influences, that you are exposed to different ideas.

But still, if your personality becomes this key, Because everyone has an area of strength and an area of doubt.I wouldn't call it weakness.Because overall, as you grow, that weakness ends.So at some point when you were in CGI, were there any little fears or doubts from the past?let's say, this inferiority amongst the other specialists, I might have to overcome this inferiority by reading four more books.

This is a human being.You will hear 80 cases a day.How much time will you spend in each case?So, there is a doubt.Did I do the right thing in this case?In many cases, it doesn't happen that you have 10 days to think.

At that time, you will listen to the debate.At that time, you will give a decision.Sometimes, you just have to do this in the Supreme Court.No, thank you.I'm not going to hear this any further.Dismissed.

So you have that sense of doubt.If you don't have a conscience, you can't have a doubt.But that's a question of, you know, asking yourself these questions.Not because you are wrong, but because you're constantly questioning.And that's the task of self -improvement and also improving your institution of contributing better to the cause of justice.

At what point in your life?If you are okay with the fact that whatever decision I take, right, wrong, good, bad, I don't know, in any favor, party A, party B, whatever decision I take, lives will be affected.And as a Supreme Court judge, you know that it's the final destination.Now after this, a lot of lives can be affected by anyone.You don't know, maybe the whole city, the whole country, the whole community, town.bunch of things that are doubted.

Absolutely.And if you take any decision, the life of one side will be affected.So at what point in your career does this bothering stop?See, bothering never stops.You always think that whatever decision I take, either people's lives can be ruined, can be ruined, can die, can not die.Always these thoughts.

Yes.

In the Supreme Court, suppose someone's house has been demolished.We had a case in front of us, a journalist.I'm not maybe wrong about the district UP.without any due process.Their house was demolished.Now we decided in their favor.

But let's say it goes against them.The house is gone.Let's say someone's house is being demolished for road widening.Maybe they are unauthorized occupants.They have no title on the ground.But you feel that their children are there, their families are there.

Now sometimes it is also that you decide, you are governed by the rule of law.

Right?

So you're not like just some king emperor sitting there.You have to decide in accordance with law.Because the law determines what is fair, what is just.So you have to decide according to the law.And in that sense, you know, every case is a question of someone's pension.Suppose there is a young man.

Normally, there are many cases where after joining the armed forces, They have a disability.Now they want a pension.Many times they reject their pension.That your disability was a pre -existing disability.This disability did not increase because of the service, nor was it born because of the service.So you have to decide that the blood pressure that happened, because of which he was boarded out of the army.

Was their service in Ladakh?Was it in Heights?Because of which they had this disability?Now, let's say you refuse to give them a pension.For you, not just for the judge, it's dismissed.But to give relief, you have to think a lot.

Because when you give relief to someone, you have to think a lot.place that matter within the four corners of law.like a soldier in the army.But you have to give him relief.You have to give him disability pension.So you have to give him relief under the law.

But you're concerned with this fact.Let's say you're a primary teacher.The pension of a primary teacher has been stopped.Or someone has regularization.Many times such people come to court.They have worked for 30 years.

They are daily wagers.What have they done?They have worked as a gardener.What have they done?They have worked to build roads.They have worked for 30 years.

And their hands stop working.Won't you give them regularization after 30 years?Won't you give them a pension?There was a case in Ladakh, especially in the border areas.a politician in Jammu and Kashmir, Bheem Singh.He is no more.

He brought a case that see, in border areas, with the army, the mules that are taken to pick up goods, cars cannot even go to those mountains at that height.So, with the mules, there is water, food, all the provisions are there to guard India against our adversaries.Now, many times it happens that They can't serve anymore.They were only contract workers.And there was no social security for them.They were not permanent members of the armed forces.

And they are very, the army is heavily dependent on them.Of course, today there are satellites, you know, you have all the electronic facilities.But I am talking about that time, even today.So, what they said was that they are also the first providers of information.You see, like the Kargil war, who gave the first information?The shepherds gave the information to the Indian army that, see, this infiltration is taking place.

So these are very valuable sources of information, support for our armed forces.So we said, this is not possible.We have to do something for them.So then we told the government that you have made a scheme for them.After so many years, make them permanent or take insurance for them.If someone gets injured or unfortunately dies, there should be some provision for them.

The work of a judge is very, very human.And you're looking at life.From Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar to Sikkim, Gajchiroli, UP, Madhya Pradesh, whichever state it is.There is no place where we don't get cases.And while reading the cases, what is happening in that society, in that region?What is happening in that region?

You get a lot to understand.

Have you ever gone through a situation where you are told to leave?it is right, but emotionally it seems wrong?I should not.Maybe you've given some decision somewhere and you feel like on emotional grounds, I wish I could change it.But legally, I can only do what I can.It happens.

But you know, you have to take a decision in accordance with law because ultimately the job of a judge is to In our society, the Parliament and state legislatures have made laws.You have to make decisions according to the law.Now, it's a small matter.Let's say there is a tenant.Now, let's say that tenant is in a house for 30 years.Now, the landlord has filed a petition for eviction, that for my bona fide requirement, my children have grown up, my family has grown up.

Now, I want my house back.Now, that tenant comes and says, where should I go?I have kids, I have grandchildren, I have a family.We have lived in that house for 30 years.Now when you decide the case, emotionally you may well feel that the tenant is going to be subject to hardship.He may or may not be a person of resources.

But the law requires that the landlord is entitled to a decree for possession.You have to give it.So, you know, I remember a case came to us from Tamil Nadu.And there was a very old woman.She was on public land.And she refused to vacate.

The government needed that land.They had given her a little compensation.Now she was not leaving.And her situation was really, really heart -rending.And to get her out, we just say dismiss.The next day, the police would go there and the district administration would have removed her.

So, you know, we called upon the standing council for the state of Tamil Nadu.And we said, look, we know that she doesn't have a great case in law, but there is something called humanitarian justice also.Respect is achieved when you use your position for the benefit of others, for the benefit of the society.So he said, but sir, look at the facts.I said, yes, that's right, we know that, but look at the situation.And she was very tough.

She said, no, I want to stay here.I won't go anywhere else.So we said, now look, you know, we don't want to push this helpless person away.So she found a solution for him.

Have you read that very famous social media quote?Your friend knows the lawyers, my friend knows the judge.Yeah, of course, I've read the quotation.How true is that?How true is that?Does that hold any influence?

You see, sure, in lower courts, it does.

You see, I'll tell you what, knowing the judge, this quotation, that knowing the judge, it doesn't mean parting with the judge, or it doesn't mean, you know, having family relations with the judge.Knowing the judge really means, what's happening in the court is an intensely human exercise.You know, there are judges, for instance,who want everything done in two minutes.There are judges who are more patient.I'll give you just one example.

So knowing the judge also is one about understanding the temperament of the judge.Another thing about knowing the judge is also understanding the philosophy of the judge.There were some judges who were pronouncedly pro -labor.There were other judges who were pro -management.Not for any other reason, because in fact, there were some judges, you know, who were management lawyers, jab woh judge gun ban gaye, they became labor -oriented judges.Because judgeship is liberating.

You know, judgeship is something where you're wedded to deciding in accordance with law and doing justice.So, knowing the judge is also about understanding the philosophy of the judge.Then you know what is the area.Ki yahan par mujhe kya, what is the area open to me to argue before this court?Right?So that is all about understanding that judge.

But yeah, that last part, which you said, which is knowing the judge and getting an order in your favor, that would amount to misdemeanor and corruption.That would be unacceptable.You know, that you know him, that's why you got an order in your favor.That is not acceptable.But that must happen in small towns and cities all around the world, not just in India.You know, it is.

point of the matter is that if this does happen, the system has its own ways of correction.You know, you have an appellate remedy.Yeah, you have an appellate remedy because suppose in a trial court, the judgment has been deflected for some personal consideration.So, I mean, these are, I hope, aberrations.I can't say that there is no wrongdoing.I would be a hypocrite to say that there is an absence of wrongdoing.

But I think, you know, the system has to be alive to these issues.Because ultimately, the faith of the common citizen is what sustains the judiciary.

A lot of common citizens believe that until there is money, you can't win the case.Right?Until there is money, you can't be influential in the country.You can't get justice.There's a sentiment, right?That's fortunately never been in courts.

I don't know till now.But what do you think about this?Do you genuinely believe, I'm talking about I'm not talking about Supreme Court, not talking about Bombay, Delhi, big cities where there are a lot of repercussions.Small towns in small cities.Do you think that fighting a case against something that is very powerful is almost like you've lost it?

See, Raj, you know, the point of the matter is simply this.That the largest proportion of cases in the Indian judicial system are cases involving common citizens.citizens who claim compensation for acquisition of land, citizens who are charged with a criminal offence, citizens who claim damages for a motor vehicle accident.I'm just giving you some small examples, citizens who claim pension from the state.So, sabse zyada matra kis cases ki hai, chote cases ki hai?So when people say that we have so much pendency for cases, which cases do we have pendency for?

We have pendency for small cases.What does this mean?This means that people have faith that they'll get justice from the court system.Now, answering your question, the danger in our system is that the well -resourced clients command the best lawyers.because, you know, if somebody has a case involving say a thousand crores, they will have the best lawyers.And the best lawyers will, you know, you know, they will scramble for judicial time.

This is one issue which I think we need to look at, that how much of time do we allocate to the most resourced of clients?And I think, you know, one way would be to award real -time costs.The court's time has a monetary value because every minute of the time which a judge spends in the court is ultimately a billable value to the nation, you know, because the nation is paying for not just the judge's salaries but in the court staff, the technology, everything.So in that sense, I think, you know, we have to send a very clearmessage in the legal reforms, which I should, which I believe should come about as a third wave of reform in the country, that whoever tries to deflect justice must pay for, must pay for their acts.Because unfortunately today, you know, and I've seen this as a lawyer, I have seen this as a judge, that A person who does not want to have justice done to the other side and wants to delay justice can use every trick in the rulebook.

to prevent justice being done immediately.Yeah.And that is one of the failings of our system that, you know, you can, you know, endless appeals.

We allow people to pull certain tricks to just delay the judgment.

Yeah, you know, filing frivolous applications, arguing, you know, until eternity.filing appeals against inconsequential orders, getting stays, this kind of thing, which, you know, afflicts our system, this has to change.Because this is what brings the judicial system into disrepute.

You also went to Harvard Law, right?And tell me, what did you learn in Harvard Law that your father couldn't teach you?Okay, I'll tell you why I went to Harvard Law.It's an interesting question that I want to know.A son of a Supreme Court judge, who wants to practice law, goes to another country to learn, definitely.But what is something that you learn there and not here?

I went to Harvard because in 1980, my father and II was on leave, they had gone on an official visit.There was some, you know, allegation of judges' children benefiting from the positions of their fathers.My father went to the bar and said, so long as I'm a judge of any court in India, and he was the Chief Justice of India, my son will not be a lawyer anywhere.So which meant he was going to retire in 1985.And he said, you will not even practice in a court because there's no court higher than mine.

Every court is in that sense lower in the hierarchy than me.So I said, what do I do?So I applied for admission to Harvard Law School.Because India can't practice.Your father announced it.You can't practice anywhere.

And he told me, look, I have 5 lakh rupees in my provident fund.He was a judge from 1961 to 1985.He had 5 lakh rupees in the Providence Fund.He said, take all this money and go study abroad.So what better way can I spend my money than for you to educate yourself?Fortunately, I got a scholarship.

I didn't have to depend on my parents.I got a full scholarship to go to Harvard Law School.And at places like Harvard, your question They don't teach you what the law is.They don't teach you what the principle of law is.They teach you to think about the law.And that's the critical difference.

When we were studying our law in Delhi University, the professor would begin by telling you what this legal principle means.What is the content of this legal principle?principle in law.If you have fought a case against this party on this issue, and its decision has come against you, then you cannot bring it to any other court.This is a resjudicator, very simply put.So in India, you know, our teachers will teach you what is the meaning of resjudicator.

At Harvard, they would give you a thousand pages to read before a class, you were assumed to be ready with the lecture.So the conversation would be about thinking about the law.Which way is the law of constitutional law?Professor Lawrence Tribe, he was one of the topmost constitutional lawyers of that time.A person who never became a judge of the American Supreme Court because by then the Republicans had assumed office and he was essentially a Democrat.So Laurence Tribe was brilliant.

He would take his class for 3 -3 .5 hours on a trot.And, you know, he would only ask questions.They used the Socratic method in Harvard, not the lecture method.And through the questions, they would explore the limits of the law.That is, what is the limit of this principle?Is it privacy or gender equality?

Why is it a principle?What are its limits?So they taught you how to think about the law.And that was critical.At that time, there was a movement called critical legal studies, which then became critical race theory.The marginalized segments in society, like the African -Americans, or Scheduled Class, Scheduled Tribes, the backward classes, the special provisions for them.

Why should there be special provisions?What is their basis?What is their philosophical basis?So, you know, the beauty of Harvard was in that sense that really, they really enabled us to have a broad, should I say, a public policy approachto understanding the law.Now, when I came back, Last point which I want to make, when I came back from Harvard, I had got my LLM, I had a PhD at the SJD in law.

The first day we stood in the court for the case, we got some 200 -300 rupees.So you have a PhD from Harvard.

You are at the bottom of the ladder here.

No client will give you more than 10 rupees or 1000 rupees because you have a PhD.But later on, it really made a big impact on my life, particularly when I became a judge.And, you know, particularly when I became a judge of the Supreme Court, because as a judge of the Supreme Court, you know, we were writing on completely new issues, which were very critical to the time.And, you know, issues like gender equality, Even though they are in the menstruating group, 10 -50, or women should be included in the armed forces, or on marriage equality.So, you know, these were not easy cases to decide.They were first of their kind cases which were coming up before the courts.

And in that sense, the law which we learned, the way of analysis, the exposure to different ideological and ideas, not so much ideology, but ideas and ways of thinking, that was very important, I feel.Because the idea is to expose yourself to different perspectives, and then to try and find your own median.Merely because you studied at Harvard doesn't mean that you follow a principle which you learned at Harvard.I mean, you may still reject it because ultimately, you have to decide in India's cultural context.What is good for, say, American society may not be good for our society.For instance, in the US, pornography is permissible because they say it's part of the First Amendment, freedom of speech and expression.

I feel that pornography in India is unacceptable because we don't have that absolute freedom of speech and expression which American society has.All rights in India are subject to limitations.True.So, see the cultural context of India is very different from the US.

Rami, you said something about freedom of speech.Yeah.And earlier also you gave a statement about freedom of speech that if it's 100 % freedom of speech, it's not right.Some context to that.You said something similar.I don't remember exactly what you said.

I was reading about it.On the freedom of speech, you spoke about it.So I want to ask you, do you feel India has freedom of speech?Absolute 100 %?

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.It's only an abstract norm.In no society is there an abstract, absolute freedom of speech.Even in America?Even in America, for that matter.And you know, there are cycles.

There are cycles politically, sociologically.And through those cycles, you know, freedom of speech emerges or doesn't emerge.But, you know, My own belief really is that with freedom comes a degree of responsibility.Now, does freedom of speech mean that we can spew venom, hatred against others?No.Freedom of speech doesn't mean that, of course,

I have the right to criticize, I may criticize the policies of the government.I may be a political, I means anybody who exercises their freedom of speech, maybe either on the side of the of the ruling government, it may be against, but you have to exercise freedoms in a responsible manner.

It's so vague.Responsible manner is so vague because what is responsible according to you might not be responsible according to me or someone else.Completely agree.It's so subjective.Of course it is subjective.

Yes, of course it is subjective and therefore it is I think also responsibility is a part of something which is innate to citizenship.You know, we have to decide what is responsible.in our time, in the place where we are, in our own locality, in the neighborhood, based on the audiences to which we speak.What you speak, say, in a classroom, in the law, may not be necessarily responsible when you're talking to a very sensitive audience.So responsibility, of course, you're right, is a matter of subjectivity.But there are certain clear -cut lines which we should not cross.

Like?For instance, in India, we must accept the fact that we are a plural nation.What do you mean?A nation of diverse religions, a nation of diverse cultures.diverse regions.And the strength of India lies in our diversity.

And therefore, you know, we are not a monolithic civilization.We are an old civilization.But we are a civilization which has been enriched by people from different parts.And therefore, when we exercise our right to speak aboutothers, you must be conscious that everyone has a rightful place in this nation.Yeah.

So now the law doesn't intervene in everything.For instance, the law may make a criminal offense if you, you know, create enmity between religious groups, or, you know, if you say something which is in the, which is bordering on or which is obscene.So the law has some clear cut categories.But all this I accept is now under very severe and serious strain.particularly in the age of social media, because a, there's no concept of censorship, and you shouldn't have censorship.I mean, that's the vitality of democracy.

But particularly in the age of social media, where every citizen can be in that sense, a journalist.some of the traditional barriers or the restraints on speech have really in that sense come down.But that's the new normal.

But has it come down?Do you feel a lot of people believe that you are actually losing freedom of speech?You are no more free.You can't actually go out and speak about anything and everything in today's world because If you do, there'll be consequences, especially concerning the people who are way more powerful than you and the forces which are way more powerful than you.For example, can you criticize the top government?Probably not.

At a very open scale, at large scale, living here, people are scared.Can you make jokes about something that we consider as a society?from the point of view of society, do we consider that as morally very high ground?Can we make jokes on that?Probably not.Can we talk about other people, other states, other cities?

People make it it's it's a matter of identity.Like there are so many things that and I'm not saying probably this is probably courts doing or legally do we have right or no.But people have gotten so sensitive that it's difficult to be completely free out there because you will either get cancelled or you will be facing some kind of criminal charges by some small group or like institution and organization.

You know, what you've said has more than a grain of truth.And I think one of the products of, you know, perhaps the age in which we live, not just a product of social media or technology, is the gradual decline in levels of tolerance.And that is possibly also because of the fact that, you know, with the pressures of the age in which, you know, we all exist today, people have no patience.People have no time to hear a viewpoint which is contrary to the viewpoint which they are asserting.and there's this perception that you know well all that I stand for is the only correct perception.Now that is contrary to fundamental democratic values.

You may believe in what you say but someone else believes in what they say and they have you know exactly and they have their their right to not believe in what you say.But this is under threat and this is under threat globally and in India as well because it causes, you know, one of the problems as you've rightly emphasized is also we've lost our sense of humor, you know, and people, you know, tend to takeany recourse to humor as an affront to dignity.Humor has its own place in allowing for an easygoing discourse.I've been the target of trolling on and some of them, you know, satire, humor.Not that I agreed with it, but I felt that, well, everything has its place.

And this is equally an important part of democracy.But that is under threat because, you know, you feel across the spectrum.And, you know, in the political spectrum, I wouldn't name one political party, but this is happening across the spectrum.

And all over the world.

Yeah, all over the world, where people are extraordinarily resistant to critique and particularly critique which is, you know, which has, you know, satire and comedy.And yet you have, of course, the stand -up comedians who do brilliantly, but they do that at a risk.

They're also scared because of what happened in the past.A comedian doing one show, Supreme Court got involved.So everybody's scared.Even comedians.

I mean, that's the last thing any society wants to see.You can't stop people from filing complaints.

But do you think Supreme Court should intervene in such cases where it's just like five guys doing random things?Do we agree on it?Probably not.Do we think it's right?Probably not.But the highest court in the country wasting their time on something like this.

Do you think it's fair?

But what happens if a comedian is arrested or is under the threat of arrest?The Supreme Court has to interfere to protect personal liberty.How do they get arrested in the first place is my question.Absolutely.I completely agree with you.Or say a young student writing somewhere, you know, something on social media or posting something which someone else has written.

Yes.You know, is that a ground for arrest for that person?I completely agree with you.But suppose that person is then arrested and has been declined, bailed.Is it not the duty of the Supreme Court to interfere?The Supreme Court has to interfere.

Then the top court needs to enter.My point was more, how can somebody just saying something on social media, probably making a joke or expressing their own opinions.are in the jail, like they end up going, they end up getting arrested, they end up getting hatred of the entire nation in some form or sort.

I mean, that's like, and I also feel that look, there are so many positives, which can be done to the nation today.There's so many areas which are crying for attention.Yeah.In terms of development, in terms of reduction of poverty, in terms of education, in terms of providing employable skills to the younger generation.that there are so many important issues which concern the nation that we shouldn't be bothering about someone writing something on social media, even if it is, you know, a misplaced satire.You know, if that moves into the area of hatred towards a particular group, be it religious or regional or social, then of course, it's a matter of serious concern.

Before it becomes a movement and a collective sentiment, it should be stopped.

Absolutely.

So, you know, so there are lines, clearly lines which have to be drawn.You know, a young student saying something, you know, which is inappropriate, leave them alone.I mean, public memory is very short, you know, it ceases to matter in the next day.The doctors used to always have this little signboard, this too shall pass.The same thing in social media, this too shall pass.And I think, you know, we are becoming unduly serious about our own identities and rights and not cognizant about the counterpart of that, which is other people have identities and rights as well.

Allow the space for people.I once said in court that, you know, dissent is a safety valve of democracy.And that's important to maintain the social equilibrium, to allow people a genuine voice, to give expression to what they feel.And ignore them because you'll find over a period of time that in the din of the social media, it will cease to have relevance.Let's get on with the real issues which confront the nation.

Do you think something like what happened in America recently can happen in India?That Supreme Court overruled Trump's decision on tariffs, right?And they demanded him to return the money and like pay a certain amount of I think the differences of all the companies which have lost some money.Do you think something like that can happen in India?Like a Supreme Court can overrule decision of a prime minister or president some policy?

See, the president doesn't make policy.The president always acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.So we'll keep the president out of it.Even if a decision is in the name of the president, it's really a governmental decision.So governmental decisions are continuously assessed and overruled by the Supreme Court if they are found to be contrary to law.There are n number of cases which we'll get, whether it's on the commercial side, Taxation, high value tax cases where the government has taken a particular decision.

which is held to be arbitrary or illegal by the Supreme Court.More sensitive cases like the electoral bonds case.where we set aside the constitutional validity, we held that the electoral bond scheme was constitutionally invalid because it was arbitrary.That was another case.Or you'd find a whole legion of cases where decisions which are taken by the government are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.So in fact, I think we have a far more vibrant a process of judicial review than the American Supreme Court because the appointments to the American Supreme Court are essentially political appointments.

They're appointments made by the president and then ratified by the, confirmed by the Senate.In India, the process of appointment of judges is not political in nature.We have examinations for filling up positions in the district judiciary, in the high courts appointments made from the bar, in the Supreme Court appointments made from principally on the basis of seniority with due representation to different states.So our appointments in that sense are not political appointments in the same sense.So you wouldn't think of, you know, say the equivalent of Republican judges and Democrat judges in the Supreme Court.These are career judges in the Supreme Court.

We'll talk about India system and how judges are appointed here and stuff like that.But tell me, because we're talking about America and India, compare Indian justice system and American justice system, which one do you think is way better in today's world?

And in India, of course, in the Supreme Court, judges are appointed until the age of 65.So that's one big difference.

There's a risk of mental fatigue.I don't know, neurodivergent diseases and things, which you start seeing with age.Yes, absolutely.

And when the judges become old, another more fundamental problem in their system is that you give a judge so much power that as long as he is alive, he will sit in the Supreme Court and decide.Is this the decision of the government?Is there any legislation?Is it right or not?That's a huge power which you give people, which we don't have.Because when you retire, the next generation can see whether your decision was right or not.

So this is a huge difference in our systems.And in their system, when there is a nomination by the judge's president, then for the confirmation of the nomination, it goes to the Senate.And in the Senate, as you know, there are representatives from all the states.So, in the Senate hearing, they ask questions to the judge in the background.Sometimes, it becomes very political.Because the nomination of the President is political.

So, when the Senate gives them a confirmation hearing,they are asked about their philosophy, their ideology.Let me give you an example.Abortion rights.What is your view on abortion rights?Now the judge will not give a clear answer on anything.

Because then they will say that it is biased.

So this was your view.

There is no parliamentary process involved in the appointment of judges, nor is the nomination made exclusively by the government.The nomination is proposed by the Collegium and ultimately made by the President of India.

And can every president choose a Supreme Court judge in America?

If there is a vacancy in their tenure, then they can choose.Because there are 9 judges in the Supreme Court.We have 34 judges here.So if a judge retires in the tenure of the president, then they nominate him.And once they nominate him, they nominate him for life.

Then you have to wait till the next vacancy.And in India, there is a collegium.Explain the collegium system.

In collegium, when there are appointments for the high courts, For the High Courts, there are appointments of the Chief Justice and two senior most judges.They look at the names of the lawyers, the lawyers who appear in front of them, what is their background, how many cases they have argued in, what are their reported judgments, what is their specialization, what is their moral fiber, what is their moral character.And after that, they make the recommendations.In the High Courts, about two -thirds, Two -thirds of the appointments are from the district judiciary.What are their personal files?What are their annual confidential reports?

What are the complaints against them?So, after seeing all that, Supreme Court, Collegium, sorry, High Court Collegium makes recommendations.These High Court recommendations go to the Chief Minister first and then to the Governor of the state.comments.Their opinion is presented on a file.After that, a file goes to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of, or Department of Justice.

Now, Ministry of Home Affairs conducts an IB inquiry.So, Intelligence conducts a 360 -degree inquiry.What is their background?Are there any charges of moral impropriety against them?And keeping the report of IB in the file, the Department of Justice writes its own recommendations on the file, prepares the entire file and sends it to the Supreme Court Collegium.In the Supreme Court Collegium, the Chief Justice and two senior most judges will review it for High Court appointments and look at the entire file.

And many times, it is also a convention that they call the judges for an interview.So they talk to them.If there is any adverse report of the IB or any adverse comment of the government, the Supreme Court will give its opinion on it.And after that, they send the file back to the government.If the government does not agree, they can send the file back once.If the Supreme Court re -treats it, the recommendation is binding on the government.

And then it goes to the President of India for final clearance and the signing of the warrant.These Supreme Court judges are also like that?For Supreme Court judges, the only difference is that the High Courts have no role in it.The Chief Justice of India and the next four senior most judges make recommendations and those recommendations are sent to the government.Now, in the Supreme Court, the High Court Chief Justices or High Court Judges can be appointed or from outside, that is, lawyers can also be appointed.There are one or two lawyers in the Supreme Court.

Sometimes there are three.But there are one or two lawyers in the Supreme Court who are brought from abroad.Mostly judges?

Mostly judges who come from the High Court.So these 34 judges discuss the next judge and decide who will be the next judge?

It's the Chief Justice and the four senior most judges who decide.

Like the 34 people who are the judges currently, like the judges of our Supreme Court, some of them will decide who will be next, right?

Chief Justice and J1, J2, J3, J4, in order of seniority, they will sit and decide which judge of the High Court you will recommend in the Supreme Court.

So this system is also criticized a lot outside that how is it that only a few people decide, there's no public accountability, etc.But tell me, because you've been in the system and you understand this very well, What is the strength of our India's system of selecting a Chief Justice?

What is its strength?In the case of three judges, why did we devise a collegium system?We brought a collegium system so that the government's interference in the judicial systembe minimized in judicial appointments.Supreme Court Chief Justice and Judges and High Court Chief Justice and Judges who practice in front of them, or District Judges or High Court Judges, who can know about them other than them?Because their judgments come to the Supreme Court, the lawyers who argue in the High Court, what is their background, what is their character.

These judges know.So that was the philosophy underlying the decision to set up a collegium and this process.Now, there has been criticism that there is no transparency in this.Because in the High Courts, Chief Justice and two senior most judges sit.In the Supreme Court, Chief Justice and four senior most judges or two senior most judges sit.Now, why did you take this decision?

The society has no idea about it.When I was the Chief Justice of India, we had adopted this practice that we will upload the resolution on the internet, on the website of the Supreme Court, so that people know why this judge has been recommended.Now, look, there are two things.One, there should be transparency.Because the society has a very important role in this.Why are you selecting?

Society has a vital stake in understanding who is being appointed to the high courts or to the Supreme Court because of the enormous responsibilities which are entrusted to our judiciary.I wouldn't say enormous powers, but enormous responsibilities of decision making.which are entrusted to the judiciary.At the same time, when it comes to transparency,to transparency, to what extent will you take transparency?Let's say you want to appoint a lawyer in the high court.

When you appoint someone, you talk about everything.You talk about their family life.Suppose someone's divorce case is pending.There is an issue in their family.There is a discussion about everything.If you keep everything in front of the public, good people may not want to be judges.

They'll say, I don't want to put my personal life in front of everybody and make it a public spectacle and a source of public ridicule.So, there should be transparency in the sense that the norms that you apply in your appointments should be known to the public.The people you selected and why you selected them should also be on the public platform.Many times you reject someone.There are many reasons for rejection.Suppose you are a High Court judge.

You are considering their name for the Supreme Court.But you don't choose them.Now if you openly tell them about them, how will the High Court judge continue?It's not about their moral character or misdemeanor.But many times it happens that you think that they have less experience.So in fact, the American system shows us why absolute transparency in that sense is not necessarily ideal.

There has to be a balance.But there is one criticism about thecollision.You must know that many years ago, the National Judicial Appointments Commission was brought by a constitutional amendment.It was striked down by the Supreme Court.I think, my personal opinion is that instead of striking it down, they should have let it run for a while.

Because there is a need and there's a great deal of substance in the opinion that there must be some transparency and there must be input from outside the judicial system as well.Now the only thing is this.Why did you bring the collegium?So that you don't give full power to the government.Now, if you tell the independent people to bring the government, will they really be independent?So, it's okay to say independent.

But how will you choose independent people for the collegium?The real dispute will be on that.The real issue will be on that.

Why do you think it's called old boys club?You've heard this?Oh, yes, of course.Collegium is called old boys club because of the same reason.

You know, it's not really an old boys club.They are all less than65. I don't know whether 65 can probably call me an old boy now that I'm66. But, but, you know, the old boys club is really an expression of the lack of gender representation at all in the in whichever field, whether it's, you know, in the corporate field, it's in civil services, of course, civil services, there are a great deal of gender representation.but certainly in the judiciary, in the high judiciary, where you can have much more, you know, diversity in terms of gender.And I think that is the need of the hour, we must have more women appointed to the high courts, and more women appointed to the Supreme Court also.

Otherwise, women tend to become invisible.You know, you never give credence to the kind of work and the kind of responsibilities which women bear, and the kind of effort which women undergo to be where they are.Day before yesterday, I was doing an arbitration, and one of the lawyers was a woman lawyer.She had a very beautiful argument.She was brilliant.But then she said, ajan kar rahe hain 2 -3 din ke liye toh kal mat rakhiye kyunki mere bacche ki surgery hai.

So you know, this is the kind of, these are the kind of multifarious responsibilities which women bear in society.So there has to be a realization that we need to create a level playing field for women to join the higher judiciary.

What is the weakness, humare collegium system ki weakness, what do you think is?one big weakness?

The one big weakness of the collision system is the fact that broader society has no role to play at all in the appointment of judges.But should the broader society have role?Well, I think yes.I think so.Because if the decisions which judges are taking are going to impact the present and the future of our society and the nation, there must be some people who will give a broader perspective.And that will create a greater deal of public trust and confidence in the process.

So reform is very necessary.But having worked this system, this is perhaps at the present point of time, the least imperfect system.Because if you have to replace this system with something better, what kind of a system should you have?Something which is objective, transparent, which promotes the independence of the judiciary.You can't have a system which will forsake judicial independence.So, yes, there is a need and I believe a greater deal of objectivity.

And I would think the need for a permanent secretariat, collection of data, Now today, you know, we are in the age of technology, a better data analysis of the kind of work which high court judges are doing.Be it analysis, statistical analysis, qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis.So I think a greater deal of analytical reasoning into the kind of work which a particular judge has or hasn't done before you make those appointments.

Interesting.We're talking about India and America.Tell me on a lighter note, what's the salary of a Supreme Court judge in India?

If you're comparing the salary of an Indian Supreme Court judge with the US Supreme Court judge, The difference is enormous.Even assuming that you make a difference for standard of living.The cost of living in America is much higher.But what you pay our judges is abysmal.If you look at the salary of the Supreme Court judge or the Chief Justice of India, which is around Rs. 2 ,80 ,000 for the Chief Justice of India, what you will find is that a middle level judgewill make much more than that in one case, what a Supreme Court Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court makes at the end of a month.

And, you know, and the judge is less.Now, you know, what is happening now as a result of this is that good people are not willing to accept judgeship in the high courts.Supreme Court, of course, is different because you predominantly have judges from the high court.So obviously, people who have gone to the high court have made that choice.But I remember, you know, this is in the 1990s, 80s perhaps, Mr. Fali Nariman was asked to become a judge of the Supreme Court.And he turned around and told the Chief Justice that, Chief Justice, my premium on account of my life insurance policy is more than my salary as a judge of the Supreme Court.

So how do I become a judge?Of course, that was, you know, I mean, that was one individual.But the fact of the matter is that If you want good lawyers, good judges in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts, then you will have to pay them a good salary.If you have 1 ,200 -1 ,400 judges in the High Courts, what is the cost to the nation?But our problem is that if you increase the salaries of the judges in the High Courts, then the bureaucracy says that our salaries should be linked to theirs.That's the real problem.

Problem is not about what would be the overall cost to the exchequer.But it's a cost which you pay in the interest of the nation.To keep judges free from want and to attract the best talent is in the interest of the nation.

And talking about America and India, tell me one thing which American legal system should learn from India and something which American legal systemright and we are not doing in India.

One thing which the American legal system should learn from India is that we have widened access to justice to the poor.Our system does not cater only to, you know, the rich, the powerful, the elite and the corporate vested interests.That's something which I think America needs to learn from India.There are things which we have done in India, for instance, in terms of protecting women's rights, say rights to abortion, which America has gone back now.India is far ahead of the curve, but broadly in terms of access to justice.Something that we need to learn from the US in India, I think what we need to learn in India is the efficiency of the system in terms of holding timelines.

that a case should be filed within three years, across the system.Not that cases should remain pending for years and years, for decades together.There is something that we have to learn, not just from the US, but from other countries as well, which have been able to bring order to the trial of cases.

Which court do you think will be, or which country's justice system is the best, apart from ours?

Of course.I mean, that's where we are.I understand the limitations of the system as well, but we work within that system.We are proud of our system.I wouldn't be able to say that, well, which system is the best because every system has its pluses.Every system has its negatives.

You know, we are basically in the common law tradition, you know, and the common law has evolvedin countries like the UK, Australia, the Commonwealth, basically.Every system has its pluses, every system, for instance, you know, in say, in the financial world, in the commercial world, the English system is extraordinarily efficient, you know, and has a huge amount of respect.say Singapore, much smaller country.So Singapore will not have the problems of such a large country like India.But there's so many things that we can learn on how Singapore has brought tremendous efficiency in the disposal of commercial cases, including, you know, the SIAC, the Singapore International Arbitration Court.

So, you know, there's something to be learned from across the world.

Norway, do you like that?Scandinavian countries have very good system.

You know, these Scandinavian countries follow more of a social welfare model.But you must also, you know, we must also understand that their population size makes all the difference.You know, you're not talking of a country of 1 .4 billion people.And that makes the whole difference to the inflow of cases.

Fair, fair.You said that we should look at the compensation of judges, but then the administration people will have some of their issues and everything, right?So, for a country to thrive, we need to get richer, because as the economy gets better, as we make more money, we will be able to probably give more compensation to these positions so that then best talent can join us, right?At some point, we need to start looking at getting richer.What do you think, models like China, where China grew at more than 10 % for like 30 years.Are they better?

Because they're not democratic.kind of system versus ours, which is extremely democratic, but it has its own challenges and maybe the cost that we pay is of growth.You know, our country made that choice when the constitution was adopted.

True.right on the 26th of november 1949 and eventually when you know india became a republic that we will be a democracy governed by a written constitution which embodies fundamental rights and fundamental human liberties constitution which is founded on fraternity equality liberty and freedom China is a different model altogether.And I think, you know, there's no need to look at China as an aspirational statement on the rule of law.I think we have to be proud of the system which we have adopted and understand the limitations or the imperfections of the system.And now in the next wave of reform, try and find answers to it.Reforms took place in the 1990s when the market reforms took place.

Reforms have been taking place ever since on various areas, whether it's in terms of foreign direct investment, in deregulation, in reducing the burden of bureaucracy, as in the licensing provisions, restraints on capital control, and so on and so forth.So I think the next wave of reform has to be in terms of reforming the legal system.I was attending a conference many years ago when there was a judge from China.It was a conference on the environment and a group of judges were in a session and we were talkingabout, you know, the rule of law and the role of an independent judiciary in preserving the environment rule of law.And I made a presentation on the environment rule of law in a democratic society.

And the judge from China said that, well, for us, there's nothing called judicial independence.We want an efficient judiciary.You know, I don't think we are accepting of an efficient judiciary without judicial independence.Not at all.Not at all.But judicial independence cannot be an excuse not to have judicial efficiency.

You must have an efficient judiciary which is in sync with modern times while preserving judicial independence.

Fair.But do you think like that kind of model works because it's all around the world now people are talking about because the rise of Middle East, the rise of China, democratic versus non -democratic?

To my mind, in a country like India, with such a great amount of diversity, democracy is the stabilizing social equilibrium.And the reason why the country has continued to exist and thrive after 75 years is because of democracy's ability to allow for different identities, whether in terms of regional identities, cultural identities, social identities, identities based on language to coexist within one nation.And I think that is the strength of India.Just the other day, you know, the newspapers were reporting that the recent session of the Chinese parliament, there are about 46 tribes, if I'm not mistaken, in China.And the idea, I think, of a new law is to obliterate tribal identities and look at India on the other hand we are a country where we thrivewith the identities of our scheduled tribes.

We have special provisions in our constitution for protecting the tribes.And I think that's the strength.And we shouldn't really in that sense be rueful or regret what we've adopted.Ye toh shakti hai desh ki.

Sometimes do you find it fascinating ki because you talked about shakti hai jo desh ki, do you find it maybe fascinating, maybe weird that today we pass judgments or maybe just follow rules which were created by people who don't even know the complexities of today's world.It's like the whole law and the legal system is built in a way which is somebody in 1940s, 50s wrote down something which was true for that India.Today's India is very different, but today's India has to follow that system.And every year, this is what goes on.Like today's generation has to live up to the expectation or to the rights and wrongs according to somebody who is like 70 years older than your generation.

When you talk of laws, Indian Penal Code was made in 1860.That Penal Code continued to operate until recently.right.The original criminal procedure code was of 1898, then replaced in 1973.So, this process of changing laws has been going on in India through from independence and particularly after the liberalization of the 1990s.When it comes to the constitution, there

a different aspect altogether.Constitution, Samvidhan ko frame kiya jab, you know, by the Constituent Assembly, the Constitution was a document which was made relevant to its time when it was framed and adopted and eventually, you know, came into force.But our Constitution has had over 100 amendments.That's the one difference from, say, the position in the United States.Over 100 amendments have taken place to the Constitution to make it more relevant to the times and to deal with challenges as they arose.For instance, the 10th schedule on defection came in to deal with a peculiarly Indian problem, namely the problem of ayaram gayaram, as it was called, you know, when I was in college.

you have so many different provisions which have been made in the constitution which have really made that constitution keep pace with the live realities of the present.In 1950, for instance, was a right to education a fundamental right?No.Was the right to a clean environment a fundamental right?No.Right to information?

No.Right to public health?No.All these rights came in by judicial interpretation.Right to education up to the primary level, of course, came in by way of a constitutional amendment.So our constitution has kept pace with the changing nature of Indian society.

or judicial interpretation of the constitution, that judicial interpretation has kept pace with the changes.in Indian society over the years.So, in that sense, the Constitution has been a very resilient document.At a certain level, you can say, yes, this is the Constitution of 1950.But it's not the Constitution of 1950 in that sense, because the content of the Constitution, right to privacy.Constitution doesn't say that it's a right to privacy.

Thanks to you now.But we have the right to privacy.So, you see how the content of the constitution has kept pace to accommodate the aspirations of young India, should we say.

Did you see what, because we were talking about rights and the new problem which is going on, it's about the menstrual leave conversation.Yeah.You know what Indian court said?You saw?No one will hire women.You know, why did they say so?

Do you know about the entire case?There was this whole conversation that women should be allowed menstrual leaves.And it's there, right?They should be allowed for that.Whereas all around the world, countries are actually making it a point that women can opt for this, women can take it.Nobody can, you know, question or see them as a liability just because they are opting for certain leaves.

due to the menstruating period in a month.In India, a court said that nobody will hire women.Like if we allow this, then nobody will hire women.That's India's top court rejects the menstrual leave petition just by saying this.Do you think that's right to do that in today's world?

A similar issue had come before me when I was the Chief Justice of India.And at that time, I had five women, young women lawyers who were my law clerks.And I had a very detailed conversation with each one of my law clerks on this.And they were first generation lawyers who came from different parts of the country.The broader perspective which my female law clerks placed before me was this, that, you know, if you impose an obligation on employers, to grant menstrual leave to every woman, all right, throughout the period of her menstruation, this might lead to women being treated as less than equal members of the workforce.And you must understand this, this was a perspective from women, which I discussed with my own law clerks, that Don't place women in a position which leads to employers treating them somehow as less than equal members of the workforce.

At the same time, I'm very, very clear that if a woman does have an issue, and I know of women who have had serious problems during the period when they menstruate, the law must allow for that woman to get a period of, you know, recuperation or a day off or two days off or whatever.Speaking for myself, if any of my law clerks called me up and said, sir, I'm suffering from stomach cramps, I would always tell them and they would say, sir, can I work from home?And I would always tell them, please, suit yourself.There's no difficulty at all.You can be at home.I was confident of the fact that, you know, these women are not just going to sit at home and, you know, take a day off and relax at home.

Most of them stayed at home and produced some excellent research working from home.So I gave them that sense of freedom and they exercised it responsibly.And I therefore feel that we must allow for the fact that at least some women would need to take time off during the period when they are menstruating.I take the point that if you give every woman in the system, irrespective of her personal position, five days off every month, that might lead to employers actually discriminating against women and hiring in the first place.And you can't discount that.That's what the court is saying, that nobody will hire them.

Yeah.But I don't think it's that cut and dried.You must still allow for a woman who does have a problem to say that, well, I don't want to come for all five days.And not every woman is going to take five days off.If she wants to take two days off, you must allow for that woman to say, OK, I want these two days off from work because I need that.Because women do have special requirements by virtue of their position, by virtue of their gender and sexual identity, which the law must factor in.

And you must allow for those differences between men and women.So equality for women is not just formal equality, right?Equality must also factor in the special, should I say, burdens which women in our society face because women are not just members of the workforce.A woman is a mother.She may be a spouse, may not be a spouse.She's also the person who has to tend to relatives who are aging, who are in need of care.

These are some of the realities of our society.So you must understand that in that sense, you say, well, we'll treat the men and the women equally.Men don't get menstrual leave, so women will not get menstrual leave.This would be unfair.That would be unfair.But a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which I must equally compliment the Supreme Court for, was there was a rule which said that an adoptive mother will get only leave of three months until the child turns three months in age.

The Supreme Court struck it down.yesterday by saying that jab tak aapko adoption ka process complete ho jata hai, teen maine nikal jaate hain.So how can you say that, well, after three months a mother will not be entitled to a maternity leave?And in fact, the Supreme Court said, well, please now think of paternity leave also.Because why should we only postulate that it's the mother's duty to look after a child?Father has an equal role to play in bringing up a child and there should be a concept of paternity leave.

Left it to the government.to devise a suitable policy.Obviously, courts can't devise policies like this.But just the fact that the Supreme Court has led the government into thinking on these issues is very important.True.

Here, we have menstrual leaves here.Left, right, center, people can take.No questions asked.You can just go ahead and do it.You don't even need to work at home.And I think more and more young entrepreneurs or young people, when they come to position of leadership, they are taking their own decisions regardless of what the law says or what the world will say.

Oh, absolutely.That's changing everywhere.And it's not just me, there are I know a bunch of my friends who are running far larger organizations, they do the same thing.And you know, I had to say will hire women, even if you allow men.

And as I told you, you know, I had between five and sometimes seven law clerks.And An overwhelming majority of them were women.And they would call me up and tell me that, look, I have awful cramps today.And I'd say, that's fine.So, you know, you have to trust women to exercise.that discretion with responsibility, which they do.

Because why would a woman want to sit at home?Because she knows she's out of a position where she's delivering for the office.She will stay at home if only she's compelled to stay at home.But we must trust them as well.And you can, of course, have you can have some formal requirements in government, for instance.You can have some requirements like, well, you must have maybe a medical certificate from your dispensary in the court or in a public institution.

I certainly accept that there has to be some regulation, particularly in large organizations.We're not just talking about, say, organizations where 10, 20 women, you know, you have to have some broader regulation.But as a principle, I think, you know, you need to take into account that women have different needs.For instance, you know, when we, can I just have slightly off the topic, please, you know, when we directed permanent commission for women in the armed forces, you know, these women who had come to court, had been fighting the litigation for, you know, 10, 15 years.So when they were to be considered for the grant of permanent commission, we said you cannot deny permanent commission to women, which you are granting to men.But after our judgment, they had to be evaluated whether they are fit for permanent commission.

So what the government said was that these women must meet the same physical standards as their male counterparts.Now the fact of the matter was that their male counterparts got say permanent commission at the age of 28.These women were nearing 50 because they had been pursuing the litigation all these years.Now can you ask a woman who is say47, 50, to meet the physical standards which a man met at 28?Obviously not, because that would be, government argued that, well, this is equality.

We want the women, you say, well, we want equality, right?Meet the same standards as the men.So he said, sorry, A woman at the age of 50 has gone through the process of childbearing, or most of them, not all of them, but certainly a large part of them in our society.Almost all of them would have gone through menopause.Will the men meet those standards at 50 which they met at 28?Obviously not.

I can't do a hundred push -ups today.I could have done them, you know, 20 years ago.But the point of the matter was therefore we said, you know, equality has to be substantive equality.It can't be just formal equality.True.

Talk about men versus women because a new conversation is that there are few women because laws are being made in such a way, they're misusing it against men.Have you ever gone through that kind of case?Have you ever come across a case where women are misusing a certain law just to maybe con or extract more money or extract certain things.And in a lot of cases, someone's life has been completely ruined just because of personal vendetta or ego.And there is no remedy for men to actually come back.

See, the danger lies in treating an isolated case of misuse.as reflective of a norm.You may have an odd case, you may have certainly some case where there is a misuse of law, but can we deny the fact that even today, 75 years after independence,The amount of cruelty which was practiced.So see something like section 498A of our penal code, which was, you know, brought in by way of an amendment.Criticism that, oh, this leads to misuse.

Yes.Occasionally, there may be cases of misuse, but that's what courts are there for, right?But what about, can you say that there is no harassment on the ground of dowry?Can you say that there is no cruelty practiced against women?No, you can't say that.Society hasn't changed.

And therefore, to equate an isolated or more than isolated cases of misuse with a norm would be incorrect.

The question which a lot of people raise is, yes, these are cases in isolation.And yes, our country is 1 .4 billion people.So even isolation cases look like they're large in number.But they deal with a human problem.Yes, it's a human problem.And apart from human problem, our legal system and courts, fortunately or unfortunately, is designed in a way where if somebody wants to misuse it to the fullest, they can for a very long time cause damage to the reputation of a person, their mental wellness, their financial health, and their entire identity as a person.

So they can actually misuse and put man behind bars for a long time.And it'll take him years to just fight it.And once there's a society cost also which a man has to pay, that one you're even accused of, let's say, rape.After that, I don't think any good company will ever give you a job.Even though you're found innocent, nobody will give you a job.So you're socially incapable of making more money.

Your parents and your family and relatives would see you from a different lens.So you socially, economically, and personally and mentally, you pay such a big cost.

Raj, what you're stressing really is the imperfections of the legal system.which is based on just the inefficiency and the inability of the legal system to immediately deal with cases and to provide relief.Now, in the theoretical or abstract sense, a case of misuse must be detected at the earliest.and to ensure that nobody is incarcerated or wrongly arrested when a charge which is made or an allegation which is made is patently false.The problem with the system again is the inefficiency of the system.And there's no doubt about the fact that the system can be misused.

But my, and I think we are both on the same point on this, that that's no ground, therefore, to not have those protective provisions, because of the overall perspective of the system where the system is even today, the social system, I mean, is so heavily loaded against women.But yes, we need to therefore improve the efficiency of the system by bringing about fundamental legal reforms to ensure that these cases really don't, in that sense, cause serious injustice.Because there is a grave amount of injustice which is inherent in such cases.Whenever they've come before the Supreme Court, I know not just my court, but other judgeshave been equally alert to the possibility of misuse.This must spread down to the lowest levels of the judiciary.

so that judges must at the lowest levels be alive to these possibilities and where they realize there is a misuse that you must immediately act.Otherwise, you're absolutely right that this can cause very serious hardship for people who may be otherwise innocent.

One case which is interesting, which is your adultery.You decriminalize adultery.Why did this thing come in your head that adultery should not be considered a crime in a country which is very difficult or can get very difficult when issues like these come up?

Now, you know, when the court held that section 497 of the then IPC was unconstitutional, we didn't therefore say that we are encouraging adultery.Not at all.Of course not.We didn't make a societal value judgment that we were accepting of relationships outside marriage.But you know what the provision was is very interesting.Where a A woman who is, I'll just give you an example, where a woman who is married enters into a relationship outside her marriage with another man, the offense of adultery was committed by whom?

That man with whom she was in an extramarital relationship.The offense could be condoned if her husband condoned the act of adultery.The woman was never guilty.of the offense.Only the man was guilty of the offense.Now, look at the problem with the situation.

By saying that if the husband of the woman condoned the adulterous relationship, there would be no offense.That meant that the woman is treated virtually like a commodity.She has no autonomy.She is not recognized to have any agency.She is treated as if she is the property of her husband.If her husband accepts her relationship, then there is no adultery.

So we said this is fundamentally anachronistic.This is fundamentally contrary to constitutional values.Second, the man was guilty of adultery and the woman was never guilty of adultery.In my father's judgment, in a case called Soumitra Vishnu in 1983, My father, he was not speaking as a sole member of the bench.It was a bench of other judges as well.They said the reason why the woman is not guilty of the offence under section 497 of Mokale's 1860 penal code is because in a relationship, it's only the man who is the seducer and never the woman.

So we said that, you know, this is unacceptable, both in terms of factual logic as well as constitutional logic.That is again denying the woman a sense of agency in a relationship.So we struck down the provision by striking down the provision I mean, let's be very clear.The court was not condoning in that sense or accepting a relationship outside marriage, but saying that the basis of this law was constitutionally invalid.

Got it.There is one, every time we talk about men and women, there's one question which always comes up.which is marital rape.Why marital rape is not a crime?

Marital rape has to be a crime.It is not a crime by virtue of the exception in our penal laws.If a husband murders his wife, he's guilty of murder, as in the case of say, bride burning for dowry.If a husband assaults his wife and causes grievous hurt, fractures her leg or breaks her neck, he's guilty of an offence.But if a husband subjects a wife to involuntary sex, rapes her.Marital rape is not a crime in India.

The Supreme Court only said that if the woman is a minor, that would constitute rape.But otherwise, and I feel this is one of those provisions of our law, which is hugely, hugely problematic.A woman who enters upon marriage, she does not accept to being subjected to involuntary sex.And I think marital rape, that exception in our law has to be struck down.Now, let me deal with the other viewpoint.

Will this lead to the breakdown of marriage?No.

Will every wife who has been you know, subjected to an act of sexual intercourse when she was not exactly willing to make a complaint of rape against her husband.Most of these cases are cases where there is repeated, prolonged domestic violence against the woman.A woman would not go and file a criminal complaint unless she's driven to it.And to say in India today, look at the advancement which is being made in terms of women's education, in terms of the status of women across society.But yet we accept this, that if a woman has agreed to marriage, she allows for her body to be controlled by her husband.That's what it basically means.

I think that provision has to go.

It's sad that we don't have a provision at this point.

Yeah.I mean, that provision which allows for that exception has to be struck down as unconstitutional.That is when we would really say that, well, we have true equality, at least in the context of marriage.

True.What would you call India, just looking from a bird's eye view?Do you think India is a capitalist country or a socialist country?

You know, given the level of entrepreneurship, You know, India has recognized entrepreneurship, recognized the importance of private property since the birth of the Constitution.We had provisions for nationalization.We've had provisions for acquisition of agricultural property from, you know, big landowners as part of social reform.But that was in the context of allowing for the ownership of property to go to the actual tillers of the soil.And those laws were protected from challenge in courts.That's how the whole basic structure doctrine was evolved.

And the Supreme Court said that the right to private property is not a fundamental right.That's why after the emergency, when the 44th Amendment was brought in, property was deleted as a fundamental right.Article 98..FF was deleted from the Constitution and became a constitutional right.But though property is no longer a fundamental right under Article 19 .1 .

F, it's yet a constitutional right.Second, we have laws which protect against arbitrary acquisition of property.So if somebody's property has to be acquired, under the Act of 2013.And there was an earlier Act of 1894, you have to pay compensation.Now the 2013 Act has provided more stringent protections to citizens whose lands have been acquired.So, while on the one hand, India has had these provisions for nationalization, but so also various capitalist societies have laws which authorize eminent domains.

Suppose you want to lay a railway line, you're constructing a dam.even in a country like the United States, you may have to acquire property and you have to pay compensation, just compensation for the acquisition of that property.But to my mind, India has been in a continuum.You know, if you look at India in the 1950s and 60s, you had a dominance of the position of the state.After Mrs. Gandhi came back to power in 1971 on the Garibi Hatao slogan, again, you know, the move towards socialism, the 42nd Amendment brought in the word socialism in the preamble to the Constitution.That didn't make India a socialist economy.

It was only in the preamble.We still had then, notwithstanding the 42nd Amendment, the right to property as a fundamental right.Even after property was deleted as a fundamental right in 1978 by the 44th amendment, we are a country where essentially the heart of productivity today and employment is through the private sector.So to say that we are a socialist society would be far, far from the truth.We are anything but a socialist nation.Our constitution, I would say, has a social welfare bias.

A social welfare bias for the good, because it's a constitution which speaks about improving the conditions of life of the most marginalized segments of society, the Dalits, the Scheduled Caste.then of course the scheduled tribes, the backward classes.So it's a constitution which speaks to the need of upliftment of the most marginalized segments of our society, while at the same time recognizing the important role which private entrepreneurship has to play going forward.

True.See, you've sat at a position where you don't see one India, every day you must be seeing a different India.Absolutely, yes.

Multiple identities within one India.

Yeah, okay, so let's just say multiple identities within one India.If you had to put it down in like, let's say, two, three, four different sorts or types of identities of India, what would it be?How many Indias do we live in at this point?

I would still think that, you know, we live in one India.It's one nation.which is a nation which has been really broad enough to accommodate diversities.And I think, you know, if you travel, say, to Maharashtra, I'm saying Maharashtra because that's where I was born, you see a different cultural identity.You go to Karnataka, you'll find a different identity.You go to Kerala, you go to Tamil Nadu, right?

So that's one identity, the identity of regions, the sense of Asmita, as we say in Marathi, of my identity within the overall identity.of citizenship.I am a citizen of India, but we have multiple identities.So It may be an identity which is based on language.Language is a very important source of identity.And that brings the richness of our culture.

The literature, the stories, the traditions which are handed down from generation to generation.Identity is based on our food preferences.Identity is based on religion.Identity is based on region.The Seven Sisters, the Northeast.has such a distinct identity, which is founded on cultural traditions, on regional aspirations.

So I think that in that sense, you know, sums up what India is all about and our ability to preserve those identities, which has contributed to the continued strength of the nation.

But what I meant was, you know, how Like a lot of people in loose terms talk about that there are two Indias.There's an India which is progressing at a rampant speed and everybody is just about growth, education, success, money, everything is flowing.And then there's an India where people are struggling to just get access to basic healthcare or basic education or just food.for example.So, people say that there are two Indias, which is one is completely different than others.So, do you think that's true?

Or are there like not even two, you could go ahead and be like, there are four or five different types?

You know, one of the success stories of India is being, you know, the absolute reduction of the number of people who are below the poverty line.by lifting people who are in poverty outside of poverty, right?That is one of the success stories of the nation, which has been recognized even in critical parts of the international media, such as The Economist, you know, which is one of those, you know, news magazines, which is extremely well read and perceived.At the same time, while we have lifted a large segment of population from out of the absolute poverty line, the next thing is, how do we ensure that there is a uniform growth in the standard of living?And that's the challenge.Because let's face it, while market reform and the growth of private business and trade is a source of employment, productivity, revenue, and therefore investment.

At the same time, across the world, that has spurred greater inequality.And that's the one thing which India needs to guard against as we go into the future.which is that just as you encourage private enterprise, and that will therefore result in some people being, you know, because private enterprise rewards people who are at the upper echelon, either in terms of their ingenuity, their enterprise, the spirit of creativity and innovation.No segment of society should be left behind.And therefore, particularly in the context of emerging technology, we must be thinking of something like a universal basic income, particularly with the growth of technology?Will some segments of the population just be left behind with the advent of artificial intelligence, where it's good theoretically to say that people

should be re -skilled.But what if they are at an age where there is no re -skilling?If you're, say, 55, what re -skilling can we imagine of a person who's 55, who's just got five years to retire?So we need to also, going forward, ensure that we protect those segments of the population which would otherwise be left behind in the growth and progress of the nation.And yes, you're right.I mean, even today, I mean, there's some great work which has happened in terms of, you know, providing universal basic insurance for health.

At the same time, we need to upgrade, you know, the facilities which are available in public hospitals, say.The public hospitals do amazing work, consistent with the kind of volumes that they handle, say, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, or any big public hospital in the country.But then you have public hospitals where even basic infrastructure is lacking.And that's the challenge.Because let's face it, for a large segment of our population, the go -to hospital is always the public hospital.So on the one hand, you have these critical care hospitals, which have the cutting edge technology and the latest in medical equipment.

But then it's the public hospitals who cater to the poorest.And we need more of them.And we need to ensure that, you know, the facilities at those hospitals are upgraded to provide critical care to the poorest of the poor in the country.

True.There are two, three things which I want to learn from you.

Oh, come on, what can I remember?

So it's like, forget the law, forget the Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice, like the best, the good writer you are, everything like, okay, let's just talk about, I want to understand framework.of certain things that first is when I was reading about you I told you right like for a couple of days I was just thinking what what can I learn from you I think the best thing that you could teach which probably nobody in the country can teach you the way you will teach is art of thinking clearly and expressing that because every day, you would take certain judgments and decisions.And then you have to write it in a way which is so self -expressive that everybody gets it.So what is your framework to just think clearly after getting all the information and then write it?Is there a process like a step by step process that you follow?

I think more than a step by step conscious process, it really is something which we imbibe over a period of time.maybe with age, maybe with experience, with exposure to different aspects of life.You know, you have issues which come up in your personal life, challenges at a professional level.But if I have to really boil it down to a framework, and I'm really just responding almost intuitively right now, as I go home in the evening, I probably will feel, why didn't I say this as well?But I'll boil it down to two facets.First, discipline, and the second, space.

I found that in the kind of, I wouldn't say stressful work, but responsible work, which you handle in matters of public governance as a constitutional authority that a judge is, the two critical things which have assisted me in life are my own personal discipline.I've led a very disciplined life.Somebody would think it's very boring that you do the same thing over and over again.I think discipline is the key to sort of setting a certain framework for yourself.That framework which allows you to be rooted and to be stable, you know, despite all the noise and the din and the dust around you.And the second is, when I said space, Space is very important.

And this is not just, I feel, for a judge, but for people around as well, where you must have the ability to retreat and take that moment of self -reflection.It's difficult to find space in today's times.In urban areas, even physical spaces are so difficult because, you know, homes are becoming smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.particularly in terms of distances which people travel to work, long working hours.So space is not just a product of how much time you allocate.Space can be just a few moments of reflection.

But everyone has to have their own mantra of how do you create that space for yourself?It could be just space, you know, and maybe you can retreat even when you're traveling by bus in that little time.And you just sort of allow yourself to retreat away from the noise.Maybe I learned that, you know, sitting in our bar libraries, where, you know, you sort of working on a on a brief, which is going to be argued in the court in the next half an hour.And you have somebody in your bar table talking about the stock market.Somebody is talking about a movie.

Somebody is talking about the latest cricket score.Somebody is talking about how a judge behaved in the court.Yet you have to, you know, focus and get ready for the case.So that that was probably my teaching ground.But I think, you know, personally,discipline in following a schedule.

Every day can't be different in terms of a schedule.You have to sort of lay down a certain disciplined lifestyle.And then, of course, there are days when, you know, you cheat.Yeah.Because, you know, you feel that, OK, I can't follow my own food discipline today, or I can't follow my exercise discipline every seven, all seven days of the week or all 30 days of the month or 365 days in a year.But so long as you have it at the back of your mind, I think it contributes towards sort of, you know, laying a framework for life.

But no, like the way you write or How do you express yourself?Is there a process?Like, what do you think about?Is there a question that you ask?Is there a step that, okay, step one, step two, step three, before you write anything?

So when I was a judge, you know, the ultimate writing was preceded by a great deal of thought.And that thought would be taking place when the case was being argued itself.So when two different lawyers are arguing, you know, you're putting together a structure.First, you're trying to understand where the truth is.Because, you know, finding the truth is the key.And you're constantly, you know, there are layers and layers of the working of a mind.

One layer of your mind is constantly trying to assess where the truth lies, where the truth of the problem is.The second layer is trying to understand where the justice of the case lies.The third layer is trying to assess where the law of the case is situated.And the final layer, which is perhaps important and most important, is telling the story.Because, you know, writing is all about telling a story.whether you're writing as an author in a novel, whether you're writing fiction, whether you're writing nonfiction.

And whether you're writing as a judge, because ultimately you're telling a human story as a judge, right?And if you can't write the story, you've lost your audience.Yeah.If a judge writes, you know, something with some gibberish, with Latin phrases, which, you know, your reader doesn't understand, the story is lost.What's the point?So you have to write a story.

I mean, a story is not make -believe.It's a real life story.So you have to have the...When you're thinking about the case, even when it is being argued, you're working on these multiple layers within yourself.

Is there a structure you follow personally when how to write a story?Are there like pillars to that story?

Of course, yes.For a judge, for instance, those pillars are pretty well defined by training.One pillar is the factual part of the story.The second is the legal part of the story.The third is the aspirational part of the story.What do you mean by aspirational?

The aspirational part means, what is the impact of this story on wider society?So I'm not just dealing with a case of A versus B, but what is this A versus B going to do with other multiple A raised to the power of X and B raised to the power of Y?So that's the aspirational.So how will this impact?compassionate society, a better society.So that's the aspirational part of the story.

And then finally, you know, trying to sort of provide some relief to the actual contesting parties within the framework of law.So you don'twant to have only an aspirational story, because otherwise it'll be a case of, as we used to say as lawyers, operation successful, patient dead.So you have to make all the right noises in the judgment, but you have not provided relief to the parties.So you don't want to do that.So, you know, sometimes you give the entire relief to people who are before you.

Sometimes you realize that you can't give them relief.Sometimes you know that, well, I can do this much.So then you are trying to find out how much can you give?How much can you stretch the law?But do you follow these same principles when you write a novel or a book?Right now, yes.

I think for me now, when I write a book, I can give greater importance to the aspirational.Right?Because as a judge, you're bound by the restraints of cases which were decided before you.When you are a judge in say the High Court, you're bound by cases decided by the Supreme Court.In the Supreme Court, you're bound by, to a certain extent, by cases by people who went before you, eminent judges who went before you.As a citizen, what you're bound by, you know, this is aspirational.

That's why you write a book.So, in that sense, I feel more liberated now.

Yeah, I follow a sort of a similar framework, little more extended than this.Every time I give a speech or have to write a story or tell a story there, there's a factual part in it.There is the aspirational part of it.There's definitely an emotional part of it because I want people to move.But the fourth, which you call legal, I call it social part of it because I don't have to be legally probably, I don't think about legal constraint.But every time I enter a room, I think about what is the social constraint of this room.

And how much I can expand that or in what limits do I have to.stand in this particular room because with every age group, every city, every country, that social aspect just changes.

Absolutely.So when I said aspirational, I meant the social as well.The social is included in the aspirational because the social impact of what you write is critical.And I feel that when we write, why are we doing what we are doing?It's because we are deeply involved with the impact of our work on society.In fact, after I retired, you know, I've been obviously, I've been doing some consultancy and some arbitration.

At the same time, I said that, you know, for the rest of my life, and you know, all of us have some pre -decided time around.I just don't want to be only spending my life earning money.I, of course, have to write my bills at the end of the month, for which I have to earn my money.But at the same time, you know, that's not the be all and end all of life.So, you know, there's a wider purpose to existence and a wider purpose to the impact what we are doing at any given point of time, which is critical to life, I think.True.

Tell me about How do you make, how do you prepare for a judgment?Like, what are the steps, the way you would prepare for a story, we just went through it.How do you prepare for a judgment?Are there like steps and process?Like I was going through something and then I found that there are seven steps that you guys take in order to reach a judgment.Is that, like, do you have that particular process?

You know, the process is not in that sense, you know, a carefully calibrated or identified process.So instance, you don't say, well, step one, what are the facts?Step two, what are the issues?But yes, you're right.I mean, you know, it comes by training.And every case you follow with nuances, of course, that process, for instance, you know, you first want to know the

essence of the factual background of a case.Right?Without facts, there can be no law and there can be no conclusion.Okay.So I always said that, you know, you must be clear on on facts.If it's a pure dispute between two private parties, husband and wife, you know, or partners in a business, you look at the facts of that marital tie or that partnership business or that corporate relationship or contract, there are some cases where you're looking at facts from a more historical perspective.

So, you're looking at the history of that constitutional provision.Why did that provision come in?To what extent is it relevant today?So, the factual part is critical.For the facts, for instance, in constitutional cases, you have to read extensively and read extensively beyond the law.And that's not when you are just confronted with the case, you're constantly reading.

So that when you get a case of that nature, you have some reference point which is formed silently in your mind.So reading continuously was critical.Reading not just from India.I mean, today, there are some judges who say, why should we look at, say, something which is happening across the world?Why can't we have our own Swadeshi jurisprudence?My answer is very simple.

India, the civilizational enrichment of India has come from all over the world, and we have built our civilization by being open to influences from all over the world, which is not to say that we are borrowing, you know, mindlessly, but we must be open, especially in today's context, which we are being enriched by the movement of human resources, capital, ideas across boundaries.How can we say we'll not look at anything beyond our boundaries?So that's the, you know, that's the second context.of course, you know, reading on the factual.Then you look at, you know, the rival viewpoints of parties.The rival viewpoints in a case give you the exact issues of dispute, right?

Because you have two conflicting viewpoints.Now, in a case, they may not be just two conflicting viewpoints.There's a viewpoint of A versus B, and then the viewpoint of, should we say, X, Y, Z, or people who are not represented before you.They're never before you, but you're thinking of what X, Y, Z who are not before you, how will they be impacted in the outcome of this case?So that is, you know, the element of the dispute.From that, you call out what we call the issues or the points for determination.

Once you've done that, you then look at the overall canvas of the case and say, how do I now proceed with my reasoning?And the process of reasoning in that sense is a much broader perspective in which you amalgamate the finding of facts with the application of the facts to the law.Apply distilled learning from the past because no one decides on a clean slate.You always are enriched by the distilled learning of past, of past judges, of past societies.and then see to what extent is it relevant now, and then go towards the outcome.And you must always, as a judge, bear in mind what is the impact of what you are deciding, you know, on wider societies.

It shouldn't be that, you know, hard cases make bad law, as they say in law.Hard cases must also make good law.

True.Has there been a specificpoint in your life where you're like, let this be decided by the parliament judges should not enter?

Yeah, for instance, you know, where the, after we decriminalized homosexuality, we got a petition where, you know, there was a plea that, please, you know, redefine marriage so as to also allow for marriage between queer individuals, same -sex couples.And we felt that the Special Marriage Act, in terms of which the petitions were filed, the Special Marriage Act spoke of relationship between a man and a woman in marriage.We couldn't read it as man and man and woman and woman.That's plainly the role of Parliament.Because this involves critical social issues as well.At what point of time is society ready to accept same -sex marriage?

This is not something for judges to venture upon.It's for Parliament.And the fact that Parliament may not do it today is not for judges to therefore do it today.

But then you decriminalized same -sex love, right?

Yeah.

So if you can decriminalize that, because that will also have social implications.I mean, at that time when you were about to do it, you must have thought that there will be social implication, there will be a large section of society which will not be happy about it.You still went ahead and did it because you felt that's the right thing to do based on all the facts, all your legal judgment.Why didn't you do this?

See, when the court decriminalized homosexuality, it was not creating a new social institution.Queer relationships have always existed and they have existed from time immemorial in our society.The British brought a sense of Victorian morality to India.We were a much broader society in our thinking, in ourlife, in our cultural life.The British who brought this Victorian morality.

And, you know, when we said that Section 377 of the Penal Code was unconstitutional in relation to adults, involved in consensual relationships involving the same gender.And we said that is contrary to the right to equality, the right to freedom, the right to liberty under the constitution.Creating a new institution like marriage, marriage is essentially a matter, which is not just about holding, you know, a ritual around a fire or contractual relationship, as in the case of Islam, but marriage is also a matter of regulation by statute.Because with marriage comes so many other entitlements, succession, adoption, you know, a whole host of taxation.So, these are all matters which are regulated by statute.So, when it comes to creating a new social institution, it's appropriate to leave it to Parliament.

Having said that, in the marriage equality case, two of us were in the minority, where we said that we should still recognise the right to form civil unions, short of marriage, where we at least give dignity to unions, even today.I mean, the government said in that case before us that there's no bar on queer individuals residing together in unions.So we felt that we should give recognition to that.in a more dignified way as allowing for civil unions to be recognized as valid unions.But for marriage, we felt that, well, we have to draw the line there, allow Parliament to step in whenever the time is ripe.And it's important in a democracy to understand the limits of judicial discretion.

-making.Judges are not the answers to every social reform that should be brought in society.So much of it is a product of, you know, citizens' movements, legislation, and legislation is ultimately driven also by citizens' movements, right?

You know, but because there have been enough movements in the past, the country and the judicial system, at least on paper, they've promised equality, justice and rights.How far do you think in reality are we from that promise?

It's always work in progress.You can never say that we have even approximated to the ideal.How far do you think we will be?Let us look at how far we have come in the last 75 years.And there's no manner of doubt that we have achieved a tremendous amount in terms of just the change towards realization of rights, whether it's done in terms of, you know, enabling marginalized segments of society, like the Dalits, the Scheduled Tribes, the backward classes, to have the benefit of being in the mainstream of society.So India has made huge progress on the anvil of all the progress which was made in our laws, in terms of the way the laws have been interpreted.

So there has been progress, undoubtedly, in terms of, say, gender equality.Just the fact that we now recognize that, you know, there's no area which is reserved exclusively for men, whether it's fighter pilots in the skies, whether it's women in boxing, whether it's women in cricket, whether it's women as doctors, whether it's women as professionals.But it still works.progress.You still have only one judge in the Supreme Court who's a woman, which is just an indicator that progress is still, still hugely a matter for the future.And we have anything but attained the ideal.

But that's true about every society.I mean, You know, the fact that there is work in progress is, I think, a sign of strength and not a sign of weakness.It's all those change of cultural mindsets that is involved.Changing the mindsets of people in power, people who are in decision making authority in the judiciary, for instance.That's equally part of the process.

You said we should realize how far we have come.I want to ask you.based on all your knowledge and based on your experience, what do you think is one uncomfortable truth about India that you've realized, which is the reality?And if people truly understood it, it will make a lot of people uncomfortable.

The one thing about India, I think, which really in that sense, can I talk to you about the legal system, for instance?You can talk about anything you want.about the legal system, I still feel that despite the aspirations which we have expressed of promoting access to justice, access to justice for many today, even now, is a dream.And I think we need to come face to face with the face of injustice within the system.And then in a broader context is going beyond the judiciary.I think justice, not just in terms of access to legal justice or access to the courts, but access to giving voice to

voiceless and, you know, giving voice to the most underprivileged.Even today, in terms of giving them a better standard of living, access to quality health care, we are still far, far before the ideal and it can be achieved.

True.I have last two questions for you.Okay.One is, you keep talking about They're far from the idea of justice to a lot of people.But what's more fascinating is when I was asking you about your process, you said understanding truth.And next point was justice of the case.

Are they two different things?What is justice?What is justice?Well, according to you.Yeah.

Justice is finding the equilibrium.In that case, you arrive at the truth.which is part of the process of arriving at justice, but making a real difference to the citizen who has been wronged and providing a remedy to a citizen, providing an answer to the injustice to which the citizen has been subjected.That is part of the process of ensuring justice to that case, to that citizen.But Looking beyond each case and looking at that case as part of a continuum, where you look at individual cases in the wider spectrum of ensuring justice to that class of citizens, particularly those who belong to deprived segments of society.So justice is not just, in that sense, ensuring that you provide remedies or righting the wrong in that case, but using that case to also create a groundwork in the future where it can be utilized to right wrongs of a historical nature, whether it's in terms of discrimination.

discrimination against women, discrimination against marginalized groups of citizens.So justice in that sense is individual centric, the facts of that case.But justice is also beyond being just individual centric to becoming a broader societal norm of providing justice to broader groups of citizens.

Interesting.Tell me, my last question was pending, which is what pattern about human beings you have noticed in India which which surprised you or fascinated you because you must be seeing people fighting, shouting, doing right, doing wrong on an everyday basis.What is one pattern which stands out for you?

The one pattern which stands out despite obvious exceptions and aberrations is the yearning.The yearning for peace, the yearning for betterment and the yearning for a happier life.What do you mean by that?In every dispute that I came across, some of the most difficult disputes which had to be resolved and solved, people who came before the court had their own idea of what a better future would be.And whether it was in the context of an individual dispute, a social dispute, a dispute between communities, a dispute between levels of government, I think this was the aspiration of what their vision of a better life is.And I think for me, that's been a standout feature.

Maybe that's because as you use the word irrational optimist, I would say even a rational optimist.But that's something which has guided me throughout my career, that people come to you with a sense of hope.And when people come to you with a sense of hope, they entrust a problem and they place a degree of trust.And how do we ensure that that sense of trust is not eroded?And that's the great challenge of the times.

true well here was the last thing we asked everybody these days that fill in the blank and the fill in the blank is india will grow only when dash india will grow only when the last person on the ladder is not left behind nice nice That's the, a large part of it is the challenge that our legal system only has to sort.

The justice system only has to figure it out.Absolutely.And that's the challenge for the next wave of reform.

Yeah.Thank you so much.It was a pleasure having you.Thank you so much.

I didn't know all of you were going to be here.I would have worn my coat instead.How are you?Good, thank you.So nice to see all of you.Hello!

What a pleasure to see you.

Pleasure to see you, sir.

Lovely to meet you.How are you?

Good, thank you.I had a lovely flight.Please, sir, sir, have a seat.

How are you?Thank you.Very happy.Thank you so much.Pleasure, indeed.

And, you know, you sort of, I think you're sending a message that Listen, you don't have to be just aggressive and shouting down each other to succeed.You can succeed in life, you know, by just being rooted in calm as well.You know, it's listening to people, which is missing in society.And I think, you know, in that sense, you know, what you, the work you're doing and the kind of work, I hope more people like that do that kind of work.

Thank you so much for watching this episode till the end.Now you have to do three things.Number one, subscribe to this channel so that we can bring more valuable guests for you.And we can ask them the questions that you want.Number two.Tell me in the comments that what other guests do you want to see on our podcast so that we can bring them and ask them the questions that you want.

And no. 3, do share this episode with a person whose life will have a positive change.Because one conversation is enough to change someone's life.I'll see you next time.Until then, keep figuring out.