Thu Sep 12 07:36:00 UTC 2024: ## Controversy Erupts as PM Modi Attends Ganpati Puja at CJI’s Residence

**New Delhi, India** – Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at a Ganpati Puja hosted by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud at his residence in Delhi on September 11th has sparked a fierce debate about the neutrality of the judiciary.

The event, where Modi was dressed in traditional Maharashtrian attire, has drawn criticism from opposition parties, lawyers, and activists, who argue that such meetings between the head of the executive and the judiciary undermine public trust in the judiciary’s independence.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut voiced concern over the CJI’s ability to remain impartial in cases involving the government, especially given ongoing legal battles over the legitimacy of the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the true Shiv Sena. He demanded CJI Chandrachud recuse himself from these cases to safeguard the judiciary’s image.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising echoed these concerns, urging the Supreme Court Bar Association to denounce the event, which she described as an intrusion of the executive branch into the judiciary. Activist Prashant Bhushan also condemned the visit, emphasizing the need for judges to maintain detachment from cases, citing the Code of Conduct for Judges which emphasizes the preservation of the judicial office’s dignity.

Meanwhile, BJP leaders, including national organizing secretary B.L. Santhosh, dismissed the criticisms as exaggerated. They described the event as a cultural gesture, highlighting its significance in demonstrating manners and cultural understanding. They asserted that the visit should not be interpreted as a compromise of judicial independence.

The debate continues to intensify as politicians and legal professionals weigh in on the implications of this high-profile encounter. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches of government and the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.

Read More