Well there’s no one talking here about judges in Bangladesh or Israel or Nepal either. I suppose because the thread is about an Indian judge. The Chief Justice. I don’t see anyone blaming Modi ji for this tbh- it’s clear that the disappointment is with the CJI for failing to put country and constitution over careerist aspirations.

Modi ji and CJI meeting over a private puja and making sure it is caught on camera and reaches the media was clearly a signal (the media coverage was avoidable to say the least, none of them needed it):

If you dont know why this is a big deal, judges are supposed to stay away from any association with the executive, and DYC is known to be a true blue liberal so it baffled everyone

Questions being

There are 3 relevant questions

1. What was the context, i.e. what triggered/precipitated this signal

2. What was the intended message

3. And for whom it was meant

What are your best guesses?

Going by the body language in the published video... I don't think CJI invited the PM; it was more of a self-invitation, and filming it was surely MODI's idea, which I don't think CJI would even be aware of. MODI achieved what he wanted to do to cast the doubt on the judiciary.

My own sense is that I dont really mind a judge of the court going to formal events where there might be members of the executive or the legislature as long as such an event is public and there are a number of people there.
I dont think its a good idea for any judge anywhere to invite a member of the executive or the legislature into his own home. Especially to do something as intimate as eat/ worship together.

Strange that the moderator censored my comments quoting secular lawyers and politicians, but reposting again:

Indira Jaising: Chief Justice of India has compromised the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary. Lost all confidence in the independence of the CJI . The SCBA must condemn this publicly displayed compromise of Independence of the CJI from the Executive

https://x.com/IJaising/status/1833912829075947777

Kapil Sibal: "The Court is deciding, day in and day out, issues relating to the Executive's actions in the highest court of the country. With this kind of viral clip circulated, then it may have implications, which are not fair to the individuals concerned and institutionally, they cause harm."

"Once you do this, what message do you send to those in the High Courts and judiciary functioning at various levels in the country. They also look upon these thing. Therefore, that sends a signal which is also unfortunate."

https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/pms-visit-to-cjis-residence-should-have-been-avoided-senior-advocate-kapil-sibal-269424

Sanjay Raut: "Our case is pending before Chandrachud Sahib, and we have doubts about its fairness,"

Since the Prime Minister, who is a party in our case, met the Chief Justice at his home, the Chief Justice should recuse himself from this case. Will CJI Chandrachud be able to give us justice in such a situation?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sena-vs-sena-case-pending-cji-should-recuse-himself-sanjay-raut-raises-fairness-doubts-after-pm-modi-cji-chandrachud-meet/amp_articleshow/113279605.cms

Would it really make any difference? I ask in all seriousness. The advocates who so invite these judges, in most scenarios have been associated with the judges as colleagues for years, before the latter come to be elevated. They would naturally have cordial relations, or at least basic professional relations, if they seek to invite the concerned judges to such functions.

That is true - the public opinion had been influenced to make DYC the darling of left-liberals and anti-RW. Now, in the past 1.5 years, there has been a shift in his own conduct and stance where though he takes a legally correct position in cases involving the govt. (as he is duty-bound to do so), there is increasing acknowledgement (and even appreciation) and involvement in judiciary related activities/events/programs by the PM or government. DYC seems to enjoy the attention of the PM. He is unlikely to follow the past of former CJI Gogoi, and in all probability would settle down abroad with his sons, but you never know what can follow.

Another aspect is that with his slight excursions into the centre, mainly through warm public chemistry with the PM, he has managed to turn the left-wing against him (Jaisingh, Bhushan etc.) who were earlier firmly in his camp. He already is ridiculed by RW as they consider him too elite and a subject of nepotism.

▮▮▮.

It’s not about whether this would bias the CJI or not. The CJI or any judge is not prohibited from having regular normal friends- and he can conflict out of cases when they involve those friends. And this is not being cordial or collegial or civil- inviting someone to worship with you at your house with your family indicates an intimacy between the head of the executive and the head of the judiciary that should make all citizens deeply uncomfortable.

It’s bad form for the CJI or any judge to curry favour with the ruling government in this way. It’s so obvious in its fecklessness I can hardly believe this really happened. I haven’t heard of such a thing happening in the past ever or in any other developed country. I don’t know how anyone thought this was a good idea and how he isn’t ashamed to have done this.

Is it any wonder that there’s so much corruption in the country and no one takes the CJIs sermons seriously when he himself behaves this way ? If this isn’t a crisis of legitimacy I don’t know what is.

While I understand that some people take it too far in expecting judges to only be antagonistic or aloof while engaging with the Government, it feels a bit weird to on one hand write judgements talking about how the government is actually violating fundamental rights or being discriminatory or whatever else, and there are some pretty egregious cases with this government, and then also filming a video celebrating a religious festival together with the PM. I'm sure it was well-intentioned and there is a distinction between personal and professional capacities but it still conveys a closeness that perhaps shouldn't be publicised even if it does exist. This is the same guy who claims to not really read what's written on social media or engage with the news cycle very much for fears of bias but inviting the head of the state as a guest somehow is okay and there is 0 chance of bias? Regardless of the soundness of reasoning in whatever few judgements he will author going forward, if it ends up being pro-government, people will suspect other factors being involved (as they already do).

I am not making any allegations and like I said, am sure this was just casual but was just wondering if this is a fair line of reasoning or if there's something I'm missing