Political Uproar Erupts After PM Modi's Ganesh Puja Visit to Chief Justice's Home: Opposition Questions Motives

PM Modi’s Visit to Chief Justice’s Residence for Ganesh Puja

A political storm has erupted following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud’s residence for Ganesh Puja. While the BJP has defended the visit, stating it is part of Indian traditions, a section of opposition leaders has voiced concerns, suggesting that it sends an "uncomfortable message" regarding the judiciary's independence.

PM Modi shared images from the event on X (formerly Twitter), highlighting his participation in the Ganesh Puja alongside CJI Chandrachud and his wife, Kalpana Das. The photographs showed the three performing the Aarti before a Ganesh idol, a gesture that was intended to display cultural harmony and reverence. However, these images have now fueled a larger political debate about the appropriateness of such interactions between high-ranking political leaders and members of the judiciary, particularly given the sensitive nature of the judicial office.

Opposition’s Concerns Over Judiciary's Independence

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut expressed discomfort with the meeting, questioning why the Prime Minister specifically chose to visit the Chief Justice’s residence during the Ganesh festival. He argued that such meetings raise doubts about the impartiality of the judiciary, especially when legal battles of great significance are ongoing. Raut went further to suggest that CJI Chandrachud should consider recusing himself from cases involving Shiv Sena due to the appearance of potential bias.

Raut’s colleague, Priyanka Chaturvedi, echoed his sentiments, pointing to the delays in the ongoing legal tussle between Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena and the Eknath Shinde-led faction. She sarcastically remarked on X that perhaps, once the festivities end, the CJI might "be slightly freer to conclude the hearing." Chaturvedi also questioned the frequent adjournments in the case, hinting that the timing of the Ganesh Puja visit may raise uncomfortable questions in the public eye.

RJD MP Manoj Jha also weighed in, stating that while personal religious practices are a private matter, making them public with cameras and photographs sends the wrong message about the separation of powers in the Republic. He stressed that independence in public institutions must not only exist but be perceived as unquestionable. Jha further emphasized that high-profile figures such as the Chief Justice and Prime Minister should be cautious about how their actions are perceived, especially in times when public trust in institutions is a matter of concern.

BJP Defends the Visit

In response to the opposition's criticism, BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla hit back, defending PM Modi's visit as a traditional and cultural gesture. He argued that attending Ganesh Puja is not a crime and emphasized that such interactions between the judiciary and politicians are common at various cultural and religious events. Poonawalla cited a 2009 instance when then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted an Iftar party attended by the then-Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan. He underscored that this was not seen as a controversy back then and accused the opposition of politicizing a cultural event for electoral gains.

Poonawalla went further, accusing the Congress and its allies of trying to undermine the judiciary’s image. He said that questioning the PM's attendance at a religious function reflects the opposition’s lack of understanding of Indian culture and constitutional practices. He also pointed to past incidents where opposition figures had attacked the judiciary, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s criticisms of the Supreme Court, labeling these as a "shameful contempt of court and abuse of the judiciary."

Debate Over Separation of Powers

The controversy has highlighted the ongoing tension between India’s executive and judicial branches, particularly with regard to maintaining the perceived independence of the judiciary. Critics argue that in a vibrant democracy like India, the judiciary must not only be free from political influence but must be seen as being free from it. Public interactions between key political and judicial figures, especially in the current political climate, can blur these lines in the eyes of citizens.

On the other hand, the ruling party maintains that cultural and religious traditions are integral to Indian society and should not be politicized. They argue that politicians and judges frequently share stages at public functions, marriages, and other social gatherings, and it is unfair to suggest that such meetings inherently compromise the independence of any institution.

As the debate continues, it raises larger questions about the boundaries of public and personal interactions for those in positions of power. The controversy underscores the need for a careful balance between cultural participation and the public perception of judicial impartiality in India’s complex political landscape.