Why Justice Is Broken In India: Free Speech, Money, Power & Law | DY Chandrachud | FO527 Raj Shamani

34:00and 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 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 clear message 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 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 rule book 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 yeah you know filing 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 I teach Harvard Law that you didn't teach your father okay why did I teach Harvard Law that's why I told you because it's an interesting question that I want to know that the Supreme Court's son who has 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 about 1980 I went to my father and mother with my father I was a little girl she went to official visit pe kehthei.

36:35There 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 judge of India, my son will not do 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 and because India can't practice and he announced and he said look at my Provident Fund 5 lakh rupees he was judged 5 lakh rupees in Provident Fund and he said take all the money go and go and study so what better way can I spend my money than to for you to for you to educate yourself.

37:35Fortunately, 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, you know, 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. meaning we were living in Delhi University you know the professor would begin by telling you what this legal principle means what is the content of this legal principle like it's rejudicated principle in law you have fought against this issue and against this party and against this issue you have not allowed to do that this is a rejudicator very simply put so in India you know our teachers would teach you what is the meaning of rejudicator 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 our professor was Professor Lawrence Tribe he was one of the top most constitutional lawyers of that time.

39:02A 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, Lawrence Tribe was a brilliant. On a trot, he would take his class. And, you know, he would only ask questions. They use 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? Say, privacy yeah gender equality yeah this is what principle has been what limits can be today can be bigger so they taught you how to think about the law and that was critical there was a movement called critical legal studies which then became critical race theory which which marginalized segments are in society like the African Americans or our scheduled tribes the backward classes what are special provisions what do they need to be special provisions what is the basis what is the philosophical basis what is the basis the beauty of Harvard was in that sense that they really enabled us to have a broad, should I say a public policy approach to understanding the law now when I came back last point which I want to make when I came back from Harvard I got my LLM, I had a PhD, the SJD in law.

40:33Here at the first day, we were standing in court for cases, we got some 200-300 rupees. So you have a PhD from Harvard. You are at the bottom of the ladder here. Any client will not give you 10 rupees or 1 ,000 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 on marriage equality.

41:35So, 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, you know, 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 medium. I mean, 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.

42:19What is good for, say, American society. may not be good for our society. For instance, you know, 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. Tell me you said something about freedom of speech. Yeah. And before you gave a statement about freedom of speech.

43:05If it's not right, 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 so in India, there is freedom of speech? Do you feel so? 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, freedom of speech emerges or doesn't emerge.

43:50But, you know, my own belief really is that with freedom comes a degree of responsibility. Now, does freedom of speech means that, you know, we can spew venom, hatred against others? No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that, you know, of course, I have the right to criticize. I may criticize the policies of the government. I may be a political. I mean, anybody who exercises their freedom of speech may be either on the side of the of the ruling government it may be against but you have to exercise freedoms in a responsible manner and it's it's not vague responsible manner is so vague because what is responsible to what is responsible according to you might not be responsible according to me or someone else completely not subjective then how do we 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 you know what you speak say in a classroom in the law may not be necessarily responsible when you are talking to a very sensitive audience.

45:19So 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, 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 about others, you must be conscious that everyone has a rightful place in this nation.

46:10Fair. Yeah. So now the law doesn't intervene in everything. For instance, the law may make a criminal offense if you create enmity between religious groups. Or if you say something 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.

47:04But 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 or the forces which are more way more powerful than you for example can you criticize the 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 society from the point of view society do we consider that as morally very high ground can we make 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?

48:39You 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.

49:28You may believe in what you say, but someone else believes in what they say. And they have, you know, exactly. And they have 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 take any recourse to humor as an affront to dignity and humor has its own place in allowing for uh in allowing for an easygoing discourse uh i have 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 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 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 are also scared because of what happened in the past a comedian doing one show Supreme got gone involved so everybody's scared even comedians I mean that's the last thing any society wants to see.

51:11You 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 a threat of arrest? The Supreme Court has to interfere to protect personal liberty. How do you get arrested? Like how do they get arrested in the first place is my question. Absolutely. Absolutely. I completely agree with you.

51:48Or see a young student writing somewhere, you know, something on social media or posting something with someone else's 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 bail. 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.

52:41There are so many areas which are crying for attention in terms of development, in terms of reduction of poverty, in terms of education, in terms of providing employable skills to the younger generation. There are so many important issues which concern the nation. We shouldn't be bothering about someone writing something on social media, even if it is 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. Then of course it's a matter of… Before it becomes a movement and a collective sentiment, it should be stopped.

53:26Absolutely. 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, 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.

54:09I 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. And they demanded him to return the money and pay a certain amount of, I think, the differences of all the companies which have lost some money.

55:00Do you think something like that can happen in India? Like a Supreme Court can overrule decision of 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 on the name of the president, it's always in the name. 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 a 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.

55:44More 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. You find a whole legion of cases where decisions which are taken by the government are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. In fact, I think we have a far more vibrant 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.

56:30In 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 we 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 yeah 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 american india compare indian justice system and american justice system which one do you think is way better in today's world دیکھیں in America Supreme Court their appointments are all political appointments or their appointments president nominate every time the president he changes no one time when appointment is in Supreme Court life is in life so a judge in America who is appointed is appointed for life to the Supreme Court no retirement no retirement until the judge doesn't say I'm going to resign and I'm going to do until they will continue and in India of course in the Supreme Court judges are appointed until the age of 65 65 years you retire so that's one big difference this is not a risk because if a judge at some point is very old and there's a risk of mental fatigue I don't know neuro divergent diseases and things because age with a little bit yeah, absolutely and judges when they go there another more fundamental problem another problem in their system is that you give a judge so much power that when they are alive they will sit in Supreme Court and stay and stay that is the government or the legislation or not That's a huge power which you give people.

58:45Which is not our way. Because when you retire, the next PD is that you can see whether it was or not. So this is a big difference in our systems. And when there is a nomination for the president of the judge, then the nomination of confirmation goes to the Senate. And in the Senate, you know that all states from member states為什麼. So in Senate hearing generally al Watch just after the narrative question comes about that often its own ballot

59:25and then the Senate when reasons this vote In these iets than give I what

59:41of is. Now those judges will not give any more answers on any other thing. Because then they will say that it's biased. So this was the view. So this is a big difference. 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 Collision and ultimately made by the President of India. And can everyone choose a Supreme Court judge in America? vacancy when they come to tenure they can choose because there are 9 judges in Supreme Court our 34 judges so 9 judges if someone retire in the president then they nominate and then they nominate and then they nominate and then they nominate and then the next vacancy you have to wait and India in India you have to do collegium in India explain the collegium system in collegium in high courts High Courts High Courts High Courts

1:01:12two-thirds appointments are from the district judiciary. District judges who have appointment in high court in your head, their track record is recorded in front of you. How they have given them, what their personal file is, what their annual confidential reports are, what their complaints are, what their complaints are. So, all of them, دیکھ کر Supreme Court Collision, sorry High Court Collision recommendation کر دیتی ہے یہ High Court کی recommendations پہلے جاتی ہے Chief Minister کے پاس اور Governor کے پاس State کے ان کی جو comments ہوتے ہیں ان کے ان کی رائے جو ہوتی ہے وہ file پہ پرکٹ ہوتی ہے اس کے بعد ایک file government of India کے پاس جاتی ہے Ministry of Home Affairs اور Department of Justice میں ministry of home office IB inquiry ہو جاتی ہے intelligence 360 degrees inquiries what is what is what is what is what is what is what is moral impropriety charges and IB report file in the department of justice recommendations file in the file to prepare to Supreme Court Collision to send them in Supreme Court Collision in Chief Justice and two Senior Most Judges High Court appointments के लिए वो review करेंगे और पूरा file देख लेंगे और कई बार अब ये भी convention है कि वो judges को interview के लिए बुलाते हैं تو ان سے باتچیت ہوتی ہے کوئی ایڈورس ریپورٹ ہو آئی بی کا یا گورنمنٹ کا کوئی ایڈورس کومنٹ ہو تو سپریم کورٹ اس پہ رائے اپنے اچھا چھا کرے گی بچار بمش کرے گی اور اس کے بعد وہ گورنمنٹ کو فائل واپس بھیج دیتے ہیں گورنمنٹ سہمت نہ ہو تو وہ ایک بار واپس فائل کو بھیج سکتے ہیں سپریم کورٹ نے پھر سے اس کو ریٹریٹ کیا تو وہ ریکمینڈیشن is binding on the government and then it goes to the President of India for final clearance and the signing of the warrant یہ Supreme Court Judges بھی ایسے ہوتے ہیں Supreme Court Judges کے لیے اتنا ہی فرق ہے کہ High Courts کو کوئی اس میں رول نہیں ہوتا ہے Chief Justice of India اور اگلے چار Senior Most Judges recommendations کرتے ہیں اور وہ recommendations government کو بھیج دیتے ہیں Supreme Court میں بھی High Court Chief Justices یا High Court Judges سے appointment ہو سکتی ہے یا BAR سے یعنی Lawyers سے بھی appointment ہو سکتی ہے Lawyers کی ایک دو Lawyers ہوتے ہیں Supreme Court میں کئی تین کئی بار تین بھی ہوئے ہیں پر خاص طور پر ایک یا دو Lawyers ہوتے ہیں Supreme Court میں بار سے جو لائے جاتے ہیں Mostly Judges ہوتے ہیں Mostly Judges ہوتے ہیں جو High Court سے آ جاتے ہیں یہ 34 Judges ہی Next Judges Discuss کرتے ہیں Decide کرتے ہیں کون ہوگا Chief Justice اور چار سینے موس Judges ہیں وہ Decide کرتے ہیں انہی میں سے like the 34 people who are the judges currently جیسے ہمارے سپریم کورٹ کے جو جڑجز ہیں انہی میں سے کچھ لوگ ہوں گے جو decide کریں گے اگلا کون ہوگا ہاں یعنی جو Chief Justice اور J1, J2, J3 J4 جو ہیں in order of seniority وہ بیٹھ کے تیہ کریں گے کہ ہائی کورٹ کونسے جج کو آپ سپریم کورٹ میں recommend کریں گے لانے کے لئے so یہ this system یہ criticize بھی ہوتا ہے بہر بہت زیادہ کی how is it کچھ ہی لوگ decide کرتے ہیں there's no public accountability etc etc but tell me because you've been in the system and you understand this very well جو ہمارا انڈیا کا system ہے collegium of selecting a chief justice اس کی strength کیا ہے دیکھیں اس کی strength کیا ہے judges case جو ہوا تھا تین judges case ہوئے تھے اس میں collegium system کیوں devise کیا ہے کولیجم سسٹریم اس لیے لائے تاکہ گورنٹ کا انٹیفیرنس جوڈیشل اپائنٹمنٹس میں کم سے کم ہونا چاہیے اور شاید اس کا یہ فلسفی یہ تھا ججمنٹ کے پیچھے کہ سپریم کورٹ چیف جیسٹس اور ججز اور ہائی کورٹ چیف جیسٹس اور ججز اپنے سامنے جو وکیل پریکٹس کرتے ہیں یا ڈسٹرک ججز ہیں یا ہائی کورٹ ججز ہیں ان کے بارے میں ان کے علاوہ کون جان سکتا ہے کیونکہ ان کے ججمنٹس سپریم کیوٹ کے پاس آتے ہیں جو ہائی کورٹ میں بحث کرتے ہیں وکیل ان کی کیسے بحث ہے ان کا کیسے چرتر ہے ان کا کیا بیگراؤنڈ ہے یہ ججز جانتے ہیں تو that was the philosophy underlying the decision to set up a collision and this process اب اس میں criticism ہو گئی ہے کہ اس میں transparency نہیں ہے کیونکہ ہائی کورٹ میں چیف جسس اور دو سینے موز ججز بیٹھتے ہیں سپریم کورٹ میں چیف جسس اور چار سینے موز ججز یا دو سینے موز ججز بیٹھتے ہیں اب کیوں آپ نے یہ نرنے لیا ہے اس کا کوئی اندازہ نہیں ہوتا سماج کو جب میں چیف جسس آف انڈیا تھا تو ہم نے یہ رواز اپنایا تھا کہ جو ریزیلیوشن ہے اس کو ہم اپلوڈ کریں گے انٹرنیٹ پہ سپریم کورٹ کے ویب سائٹ پہ تاکہ لوگوں کو پتا چلے کیوں اس judge کو recommend کیا گیا ہے اب دیکھیں دو چیزیں ہیں ایک تو transparency ہونی چاہیے کیونکہ سماج کو بہت سماج کا بہت important role ہے اس میں کیوں آپ select کر رہے ہیں 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 interested to our judiciary I wouldn't say enormous powers but enormous responsibilities of decision making which are interested to the judiciary at the same time transparency کی جب بات ہوتی ہے transparency کس حد تک آپ transparency لے جائیں گے اب مان لیجے کسی وکیل کو آپ کو appoint کرنا ہے high court میں آپ جب appoint کرتے ہیں ان کے ہر چیز کو آپ طاقتے ہیں ان کے family life کے بارے میں چرچہ ہوتی ہے اکثر مان لیجے کسی کا divorce case pending ہے ان کے فیملی میں کوئی issue ہے ہر چیز کے بارے میں discussion ہوتی ہے اب آپ ہر چیز کو یادی public کے سامنے رکھیں گے تو اچھے لوگ شاید judge بننا نہیں چاہیں گے they'll say I don't want to put my personal life in front of everybody and for public make it a public spectacle and a source of public ridicule تو transparency ہونی چاہیے in the sense that آپ کے جو نومز ہیں کیا نومز ہیں جو آپ اپلائے کرتے ہیں اپوائنٹ پرنٹس میں وہ پبلک پلیٹ فارم میں آپ پبلک کو پتا ہونا چاہیے آپ نے کن لوگوں کو سیلیٹ کیا اور کیوں کیا یہ بھی پبلک پلیٹ فارم میں ہونا چاہیے کئی بار آپ کسی کو ریجیکٹ کر دیتے ہیں وہ ریجیکشن کی کئی وجہ ہوتی ہے اب مان لیجئے آپ کوئی ہائی کورٹ کے جاج ہیں آپ ان کا نام کنسیڈر کر رہے ہیں سپیم کورٹ کے لیے پر آپ ان کو نہیں چنتے ہیں اب آپ ان کے بارے میں کچھ openly بتائیں گے تو ہائی کورٹ کے جیچ کیسے continue کریں گے بات کوئی ان کے moral یا moral character یا misdemeanor کی نہیں ہوتی ہے پر کئی بار ایسے ہوتا ہے کہ آپ سوچتے ہیں کہ ان کو experience کم ہے اور یہ کام نہیں کر پائیں گے سپریم کورٹ میں تو یہ ہر چیز آپ یادی public platform میں پرکھٹ کریں گے تو ان کی credibility بھی نکل جائے گی 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 the collision آپ کو بتا ہوگا کی کئی سال پہلے National Judicial NJSE National Judicial Appointments Commission constitution amendment کر کے لیا گیا تھا اس کو Supreme Court نے strike down کیا تھا مجھے لگتا ہے my personal opinion is کی وہ strike down کرنے کی جگہ ہے اس کو تھوڑا چلنے دیتے دیکھتے کیسے چل رہا ہے because there is a need and there's a great deal of substance in in the opinion that there must be some transparency transparency and there must be input from outside the judicial system as well اور وہ reform لانے کی بہت ضرورت ہے fair now the only thing is this جو independent لوگ آپ باہر سے لائیں گے وہ independent لوگ آپ کیسے چنیں گے اور ان کو کون چنیں گا تاکہ آپ سرکار کو پوری پاور نہ دیں اب independent لوگ یادی آپ سرکار کو ہی بتائیں گے لانے کے لیے تو کیا وہ سچ میں independent ہوں گے تو independent کہنے کے لیے تو ٹھیک ہے پر independent لوگ آپ کیسے چنوں گے 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 because of the same reason you know it's not really an old boys club they are all less than 65 I don't know whether 65 can probably call me an old boy now that I'm 66 but you know the old boys club is really an expression of the lack of gender representation at all in whichever field whether it's 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 higher judiciary where you can have much more 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 and

1:11:39one of the lawyers was a woman lawyer she was brilliant but then she said مجھے آپ یہ اجان کر رہے ہیں دو تین دن کے لئے تو کل مت رکھیے کیونکہ میرے بچے کی سرجری ہے 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 ہمارے kollegium system کی 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.

1:12:29But 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 need. روت ہے but having worked this system this is perhaps on this at the present point of time the least imperfect system because if you have to 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 I believe a greater deal of objectivity and I would think the need for a permanent secretariat collection of data now today we are in the age of technology a better data analysis of the kind of work which high court judges are doing statistical analysis qualitative analysis 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.

1:14:03Interesting. We're talking about India and America. Then we want to lighten on. 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 even assuming that you make a difference for standard of living, cost of living in America is much higher. But what you pay our judges is abysmal. آپ Supreme Court judge chief justice of India کی salarii دیکھیں. 80 ,000 for the chief justice of India. What you will find is that a middle level lawyer will make much more than that in one case.

1:14:55what a Supreme Court Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court makes at the end of a month. Like 80 ,000. And you know and the judges less. Now the you know the 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. چاہما؟ یرمی علیہم کحanten

1:15:31ändrale Naryman 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 آپ کو achche wakil chahiye achche judges chahiye Supreme Court میں or High Courts میں تو آپ کو achche tan khaha dene padegi 1214 judges آپ کے ہوں high courts میں کیا cost ہے nation کو پر ہمارے یہ تکلیف ہے کہ آپ high court judges کی تنخواہ بڑھا ہیں تو بیوراکسی کہتے ہے کہ ہماری تنخواہ ان کو link کر لیجے that's the real problem problem is not about what will be the overall cost to the exchequer but it's a cost which you pay in the interest of the nation to keep ین سloudیaudți oùigious من ہے اور ادخاء جو کہ جویuscتے ہیں

1:17:00س poor история ب тобой س aireان ہے بواسبت نہیںу ہر میں جات لдержů من جوشی رہا founding جواری بڑھری

1:17:25جوشی reuse 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. ایک case جو فائل ہوتا ہے وہ case کا نرنہ ہونہ چھی ہے تین سال میں across the system. Not that cases should remain pending for years and years for decades together. So there is something that we have to learn not just from the US but 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. Because you'll be biased.

1:18:13Sare jahan se achcha. I mean, that's where we are. That's why you'll be biased. 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. And the common law has evolved in countries like the UK, Australia, the Commonwealth, basically. Every system has its pluses. Every system, for instance, in say, in the financial world, in the commercial world, The English system is extraordinarily Efficient 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 the SIAC The Singapore International Arbitration قرآن so you know there is 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 are not talking of a country of 1.4 billion people and that makes the whole difference to the inflow of cases 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 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 at some point we need to start looking at رکھوں started 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 a non-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 Talk śotserin وہ ضرور جنہیں کی عملци fezک complimentary Abd pesہ کا سٹری جلی onda upsرドン تنہین پر امسکتا یہ جاتہ کے لہے دڈا میں ج تحول ا幹嘛 تو ای moon وجود جس 프로وظواب چ ABD multin seraicularly عبر ایتر hvor ایس طرحی پاے جنہ کی לחتہ ہمی ملتے بات کہ China is a different model altogether And I think 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 scarfیکی اور جاہر فرمیں یہاں پونٹ کے لئے ق Kabul ووسائید ویدیetti bases کواری جاہر مكشورد باستمت Jangان نے دوسرے ن markets کوئی باستم منہ علیہ رہا ہی نمیلی 회원 joy اور چندگ senators impulse z кас FARM values ملہابی ہم بھی تجار vampire سے عجد کو Peregranctu انگیIS کیا جدی بھی او من العزمانی و مامیان سب palاقcloud طرب پر لن کا ن estan پ�یار.

1:22:24والن جئتنا بعد داری جدی بس استاد رواصل ہیماری انگید سرگے و قنات روری اور داری بھرسکار بزارج پوری اور میں bustند capeی پدي Bauطند ، تاخر شکید چیاری درباری جدی بھی لط compartりました اjar میرا جدی دستائی اینک Working Expert Stuur و داری اس کا بکت kedیری نے آجوی کیاred Chloe でسیدی دیکھ CBD نگر باستم من خودین جدیوی کی اس نèmes نظروری ماذا جدیوی نیوی نهاید اپنی اپنی صرف اگر بلا بلاریم داری سریٹ خود بلا مینن میکننی حدیب جوی ن gheeیتی طورز رائع BU PlayStation بار جوارہ ہےlehٹ جاملیناوس ٹھیکٹ کا مرضتpier کردئے ہیں پارن Schulen giant won cream اور م 나오hov kingdoms پر مانئے در محورة سے حictionہ کا اλο۔ جدا وologists بار الام Stephanu باکورو تسلو ا крутیر دمائpp کی بار ایسا در قنا�� quién promises وارد حيا رہا فوجودahaha ہر 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.

1:23:55And 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 thrive with 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 you know regret what we have adopted یہ تو شکتی ہے دیش کی true sometimes do you find it fascinating because you talked about شکتی ہے جو دیش کی 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 which was 70 years old older than your generation when you know you talk of laws Indian Penal Code جو ہے پہلے تھا 1860 میں بنوا گیا تھا 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 is a different aspect altogether constitution Savidhan کو frame کیا جب by the constituent assembly the constitution was a document which was made relevant to its time when it was framed and adopted and eventually 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 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 اب دیکھلجے آج constitution کا content judicial decisions سے بھی بدل گئی اپنی سا ویدان کی پوری ویاکیا in 1950 for instance was the right to education a fundamental right?

1:27:40no 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 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 میں کھائیں نہیں ہے کہ right to privacy ہے 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 اور despiteこう تعالی کےenas اللہن کا ان Malaysia کیونہ کہ مش��ہ ویسالاتر دیса ہے پاتل کرنے کے لئے تک لن ب cả کے دες کہ there was this whole conversation that women should be allowed menstrual leaves and it's their 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 question or 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 you 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 jab mein chief justice of India tha aur us same mein mere pas 5 mahila hai young women lawyers who are 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 if you impose an obligation on employers to grant من tiếp quản استbungارے پیepher choose جب پیش ب Parumہ اس کا ا Lily her сто zwei می رہن کر دنچانے میںinin تاید احورا کیلے وہاںاری شہی امریک مجھوسیان کے لیچاس دراستی طوری واق ، پ immense شهوری کلٹین دوسری وجہ کامل کا اربی و tapi owning پر من guy شہری ا گرام کیل �одар iڈ تمامότεンネル تھANDی کمی جیب میں اس کیونی کی ڈهار کے دوراناتی ڈی breasts تیگ رہن اور ب shooting جنمی ایسکار تک کا احساس ورہون کا شاہر استعمالärی اoungeاہ Bun candid ہے ب مشہہ تحصیزت کے نصول برو Grandême ڈ욱 کا اس کا�� دقاب اور کیوری خواص کر دیں

1:31:33ورہا مطلقا استعالی طرف بکر پر کjedیشREAM رہا مرتب ان کا مستق Malenn رہائے ظهرد رہے Kardashian زیرے آئیں pending I would always tell them and they would say, 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, you know, we must allow for the fact that at least some women would need to take time off during the period when they have 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 in hiring in the first place and you can't discount that.

1:32:32That'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 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 okay 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 to 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

1:34:30so how can you say that well after three months ients socioe先生���ņš 댓 areas�såbing Simoneопрос esp любойיכ

1:34:56Simone опрос esp любой יכ

1:35:02اورے contains دنسوا続ہ ناتشور المجبورد ، Czech ایلنے دنسوا زادہ سے бой posit iaox ازتا ہوں ، اور پر مجبورد وہ بنیار میں اعتنائی میںEvet Doy tsunami ، Scottish院ی professional Elite They are taking their own decisions Regardless of what the law says Or what the world will say Absolutely I think that's changing Everyone and it's not just me I know a bunch of my friends Who are running a far larger organization They do the same thing People will hire women left Even if you allow And as I told you I had between 5 and sometimes 7 law clerks اور مجھل sponsoring مجھلوں سوچ gran taly ضر مصوات فوڑی مiat باأی محجل ویانتی رہی ای steal ис Building ش profound شایع ویستpasوی

1:36:04حرمی تیارت دال sue در حالتے وال KAINTEE ہمتر Apohonhydrat تو ہمتر عام و مشترند فڈی tau Way از بات انا بات مطلب gäbe بلference تنسلیں یا بات مصابSpeci مدونهprofit منذ اگرانے انتر مقاتل انتختین اما اترداد اذا تربط تطرنت بات کے longo اجل انتصاف تربط تطرنت بات کے longo اجل انتصاف We are not just talking about say Organizations where we have 10, 20 Women You have to have some broader regulation But as a principle I think You need to take into account That women have Different needs For instance Can I just have slightly off the topic Please When we directed Permanent Commission for Women in the Armed Forces You know These women who had come to قاتل

1:37:11pre咖الesiistas ڈیو

1:37:34procedures کہ pong المجول کو مجھے ساعدے ہیں یہاں تداری میرے senate ایک ابر جانتا ہے کیون tollنijn پر آپ آپ اور فکرات porہ Swar میں اگراج کرنی

1:38:33تمش็악تِم بvit Nabar themselves 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 have been made in such a way they are misusing it against men have you have you ever gone through that kind of case like that in your case where women are misusing certain law just to maybe con or extract more money or extract certain things and بہت سارے cases میں کسی کسی کی life خراب ہوگئی ہے پوری پوری 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 75 سال کے بعد بھی آج بھی سماج میں محلاؤں کے خلاف اتیاجار ہوتے ہیں دہیس کے لئے the amount of cruelty which was practiced so see something like section 498A of our penal code which was brought in by way of an amendment criticism تھا oh this is 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 کیا آپ کہ سکتے ہیں کی مہلاں کے کھلاف اتیاجہ نہیں ہوتا ہے can you say that there is no cruelty practiced against women no you can't say that absolutely no society hasn't changed اور فرشترس کیδThanks��서 مema اور کامیاب قامیار disciplierung اور احسوس ، آرمیود اقوبار 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 are 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 quote 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 will take him years to just fight it and once there's a society cost also which a man has to pay that when 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 are 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

1:43:06موسیقی اور anciήσ Pamãieversy کے لئے لتا ج Country Phrمک لیست ویستی بتمارike باقع باپر رہارہ طور Brigان مارمين ، جги صلادیiah شخصی طورس اس پر اجلال سوری راجان اس کی تمام aumentاری اbu چیز رہا ہے ت mistی بہترونUP انت Brookہ اور سوری ک Prison code think possa

1:43:36عامbank bank

1:43:38to the possibility of misuse this must spread 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 you which is your adultery you decriminalize adultery right 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 میں لوگ vamosyu Diskہ لئے ایم اتہا ہے酒 niego اے ؟ But you know what the provision was very interesting Where 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 this situation by saying that if the husband of the woman condoned the adulterous relationship there would be no offence that meant that the woman is treated virtually like a commodity she has no autonomy she is not recognised 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 who is guilty of adultery and the woman was never guilty of adultery in my father's judgement in a case called Saumitri 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 Mokolei'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 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 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 is 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 is 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 is guilty of an offence but if a husband subjects a wife to involuntary sex ریپ سر مراتل ریپ is not a crime in India the Supreme Court only said that you know 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 کوئی بھی اور اب شادی جب ہوتی ہے 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 بھی ان قھیلو کا رخون見 ہے ہم شاہ cámara کوگانا نہیں مح ٹک Mangيát laی مسئلن اس گی پھ Herz mensen مسئلون وہ ان کے لئےūdサي طورUD تم别یےعلقانین ا lessons که شامل م millی منتظر تم سارے روحت کی ب Gerry tegen اگر انعادم مل victorious توجہ Megan ۔ انعادم مل victorious توجہ Megan ۔ برای مثل کا محوم اگر줄 قطعا اس قت HarcûR

1:49:49نمیت لوگان مدرد وقت influencing حموم measure true equality کا ایر است breast gigabytes parameters شو ہونا ہ trainee ہونے جوالی ہم ی require ис آپ کیون seper دوسر ی من hic ای

1:50:32ای ل ا choreography موسیقی

1:50:45But 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 19.1.F. 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.

1:51:28Second, 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 ج 한� doorway تو سے ی Harlem 한ою Clark Mhm h messenger کریں جس میں آ streamlined ہوتاendra براعہ وہیınt اللہ علیہانی لائیں اٹھرنان لاجہ چین موجود ٹمی ڈالی ہمارے حulum بیار ہے

1:52:06چی ملک aceptation for the acquisition of that property. But to my mind India has been in a continuum. 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 Hatha slogan, again 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.

1:53:03So 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, and 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 but you sit at a you sat at a position where you don't see one India every day you must be seeing a different India absolutely yes multiple multiple multiple identities within one India Okay, so let's just put multiple identities within one India if you had to put it down in like let's say 2, 3, 4 different sorts or types of identities of India, what will it be?

1:54:17How many Indias do we live in at this point? I would still think that 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 if you travel say to Maharashtra I am saying Maharashtra because that's where I was born you see a different cultural identity you go to Karnatak you will find a different identity you go to Kerala you go to Tamil Nadu so that's one identity the identity of regions the sense of asmita as we say in Marathi you know of my identity within the overall identity of citizenship. I am a citizen of India but we have multiple identities.

1:55:12So 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 خودڑی ق uwagę, plans , خروسڑی سingu Epic اس وابد ہیں ان Rugard رد و noises انتUMیں ان capturing marque terminions اکون معنی成 ہے وقات بھی gapورت

1:56:03gapورت 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 اور پاکچچے میں ہمیں نہیں ہے بardon باست دور جاتے ہیں encounter انہوں علیہ لیمچ میں دنیا کہ اور یارую بóm ایک یوم

1:56:54جو کے بعد تصالب و جو حول تصالب مط œuvداتی موجود حقاً قاطعệ جمعارنا میں التصالب route استفادري مطلوب اندار وری حقاً بحث Brain Patarian بالتصالب اچ وجود чего چیز رجل 모든 الإنسان ہوگاً اچم مسaco Complete جو حقاً جو سهر الدار جوش چیزδی اور ہerd اتہم 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 if private business and trade is a source of employment, productivity, revenue and therefore investment.

1:57:59At 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, because private enterprise rewards ، جنگ سافرense سے کا ایر خوچہ Bidenے کے لیے ر Beng skills god شفرت زیادی Creative کی اور خدایییور ساعتame اور ابات کیov somet Kur nome کے س 전� ، کا ایم نیست Anytime 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 reskilled But what if they are at an age Where there is no reskilling If you say 55 What reskilling can we imagine Of a person who is 55 Who has just got 5 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.

1:59:19True. 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 کتاب تکMY। certainty آسانشاً

1:59:55ہے soybeans کی تک인을 بہر browuz، کینگ در m случае اگر اگر 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 the facilities at those hospitals are upgraded to provide critical care to the poorest of the poor in the country true there are 2-3 things which I want to learn from you oh come on what can I so it's like forget the forget the law forget جیسور قرار کیجوری کی دیگر است financiallypectوری شخص کا تو ما اس کا تحفظ دیگرے کی وجگه توکvari ہوئے؟ تو ان اطر كرتان شکاہ کا ٹکار خواہ زیادن powers جمع فورت سٹر روییستر جسパ بی stand telling وس biomwość سبحان کرتے ہیں کوئی Pam شیں جاستی وقہ مجمات discussing ما جeen پہ writingöst بدتлушہ اللہ ہمیں فورم مڈک式 کام جسین بدتлушہ اللہ ہمیں فورم مڈک式 کام جسین 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 امتاز یہاں دا استردہ کامہ چر طگھر اینpotار تمل covers تحقیม جet reviewed دیک redo pemنوں تحمله

2:02:09ہم NEوراوبا نہ ستولیو اس بسکر آمonden بکنی ٹو سیکسیارتی فرم ٹruk الحقاق شارjekt 양 PO가는 Shiran تونس شات عاؤین ّ جو خیم ب Пока محال پر م46 جوانت ihnen سوئےкие شخصوے جدا کی temği Bazen bour그 کے لئے دیں زیادی ش phones really حاصلت Ludwig علی něکہیں انظ jelly Babylon اورem сложبرد اولئے انز امسکر

2:03:23And 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. and particularly in terms of you know 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 a you can retreat even when you're traveling by bus in that little time when 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're 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's talking about a movie somebody is talking about the latest cricket score somebody's talking about how a judge behaved in the court yet you have to you know focus and and get ready for the case so that that was probably my teaching ground but I think you know personal 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 okay 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 process is there a step that okay step one step two step three before you write anything or before you so when i was a judge you know uh 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 okay 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.

2:05:56And 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. Okay. Where the truth of the problem is. The second layer is trying to understand where the justice of the case lies. Okay. The third layer is trying to assess where the law of the case is situated. Okay. 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 are writing as an author in a novel, whether you're writing fiction, whether you're writing non-fiction, and whether you're writing as a judge.

2:06:43Because 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 just writes, you know, something which 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, so 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?

2:07:21Are 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? You know, the aspirational part means what is the impact of this story on wider society? You know, 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, you know, a more compassionate society, a better society?

2:08:12so that's the aspirational part of the story and then finally trying to provide some relief to the actual contesting parties within the framework of law so you don't want to have only an aspirational story because otherwise it will be a case of as we used to say as lawyers operation successful patient dead so you would 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.

2:08:55So then you are trying to find out how much can you give? How much can you stretch the law? Do you follow these same principles when you write a novel or a book? Right now, yes. I think I'm, for me now, when I write a book, I can give greater importance to the aspirational 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 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 where 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.

2:10:32Absolutely. 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.

2:11:09I, of course, have to write my bills at the end of the month. So 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 what we are doing at any given point of time because it's critical to life i think true so 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 yeah 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?

2:11:52Is 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. For 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 would 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 facts.

2:12:34If 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.

2:13:19So that when you get a case of that nature, you know, you have some connection, which is so, yeah, some reference form point, which is formed silently in your mind. So reading continuously was critical. Reading not just from India. I mean, today, you know, every, I mean, 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.

2:14:09How can we say we'll not look at anything beyond our boundaries? So that's the second context, of course, reading on the factual. Then you look at 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, there 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, who are people who are not represented before you. They're never before you. But you are thinking of what X, Y, Z, who are not before you, how will they be impacted in the outcome of this case?

2:14:55So that is, you know, the element of the dispute. From that, you cull 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 distant learning from the past because you know no one decides on a clean slate you always are enriched by the distant 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 uh you know on on uh on wider societies it it shouldn't be that you know hard cases make bad law as they say in in law hard cases must also make good law true has there been a specific point in your life where you're like let this be decided by the parliament judges should not enter yeah for instance you know where where after we decriminalized homosexuality, we got a petition where there was a plea that, please, you know, redefine marriage so as to also allow for marriage between queer individuals, same-sex couples.

2:16:38And we felt that, you know, 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, you know, 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?

2:17:15Yeah. 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.

2:17:55The British brought a sense of Victorian morality to India. We were a much broader society in our thinking, in our social life, 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 a ritual around a fire or a 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, a whole host of taxation.

2:19:03So these are all, you know, 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 recognize 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.

2:19:44But 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 decision 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 legislations 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.

2:20:31How 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 in terms of 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.

2:21:26So 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's still a work in 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.

2:22:11I 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.

2:22:55the table the one thing about India I think which really in that sense can I talk 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, just 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 the voiceless.

2:23:51and 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 we'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 which has been to which the citizen has been subjected That is part of the process of ensuring justice to that case, to that citizen.

2:25:23But 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 my last question was pending which was what pattern about human beings you have noticed in India which surprised you or fascinated you?

2:26:49Because 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.

2:27:49I 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 true and that's the great challenge of the times true 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

2:28:57India 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 system only has to figure out absolutely and that's the challenge for the next wave of reform yeah thank you so much it was pleasure having you thank you so much

2:29:33I didn't know all of you were going I would have worn my coat instead how are you? nice good thank you so nice to see all of you Hello! What a pleasure to see you. Pleasure to see you sir. How are you? Good, thank you. Have a lovely time. Please 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 by just being rooted in calm as well. You know, it's listening to people which is missing in society.

2:30:14And I think, you know, in that sense, you know, the work you are 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 until the end. Now, I have to do three things. Number one, subscribe to this channel so that we can bring you more valuable guests for this kind of like this. and we will ask them the questions you want. Number two, tell me in comments that you want to see any guest on our podcast so that we will take them and ask them the questions you want. And number three, this episode, you must have to share with someone with someone, which will change a positive change in life, because one conversation is enough for someone's life.

2:30:56I'll see you next time. Until then, keep figuring out. Thank you.