Former CJI DY Chandrachud
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has responded to the recent allegations by Uddhav Thackeray faction’s Shiv Sena. Justice Chandrachud said that my answer is very simple. Should any one party or individual decide which cases the Supreme Court should hear? Will one party decide what the Supreme Court decides? Excuse me. This is the work of the Chief Justice.
Sanjay Raut had made this allegation on DY Chandrachud
Following the defeat of the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) in the recent Maharashtra Assembly elections, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut had alleged that Justice Chandrachud had violated the law in the minds of politicians in the state by not deciding on petitions on disqualification of MLAs. Fear is gone. This left the door open for political defection and subsequent defeat. Sanjay Raut had said that history will never forgive DY Chandrachud.
Answer given to Sanjay Raut
Answering a question related to Sanjay Raut’s allegations in an interview to news agency ANI, DY Chandrachud said that this entire year we dealt with fundamental rights, decisions of nine-judge bench, cases that came before seven-judge bench. Were staying. Should one person or party decide which cases the Supreme Court should hear. This authority rests with the judge.
Uddhav’s government had fallen due to Eknath Shinde’s rebellion.
Let us tell you that after the rebellion of Eknath Shinde in the year 2022, the undivided Shiv Sena had to face division. This brought down the then ruling MVA government led by Uddhav Thackeray and led to the formation of the Eknath Shinde-led Mahayuti government. After this, Thackeray along with Eknath Shinde had filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the disqualification of the MLAs who left the party.
The Supreme Court had asked Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar to take a decision on the disqualification petitions of rival groups. In January this year, the Speaker had declared the Shinde faction as the ‘real’ Shiv Sena. When asked about the Sena’s allegation against UBT for delaying the decision on the Shiv Sena case, the CJI said, you see, this is the problem. The real problem is that a section of politics feels this way. We decided on electoral bonds. Was it less important? We have given decisions this year on important issues related to the federal structure, and these are all the matters on which we have taken decisions this year. We have decided on the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which has granted citizenship to certain people.
ANI- ANI
