—————–

In a revealing statement, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted significant flaws within the Internal Investigative arm of the judiciary, raising concerns about its functionality and effectiveness. According to Chandrachud, this investigative body lacks essential tools and mechanisms required for a thorough probe, which calls into question how the truth can ever be uncovered in judicial matters. His comments have sparked widespread discussion about the independence of the judiciary and its relationship with law enforcement agencies.

### The Lack of Investigative Tools

Ex-CJI Chandrachud’s admission that the Internal Investigative arm has “NO INVESTIGATIVE ARM” is alarming. He emphasized that there is no established mechanism to conduct investigations, leading to concerns about accountability and transparency within the judicial system. The absence of investigative tools means that the committee is essentially powerless to uncover the truth, which is critical for upholding justice. This situation paints a picture of a system designed more to protect its own than to serve the public interest.

### Judicial Independence and its Implications

Chandrachud’s remarks also shed light on the delicate balance between judicial independence and the need for effective law enforcement collaboration. He pointed out that the judiciary does not rely on police investigations due to a principle of judicial independence, which is essential for an unbiased judicial process. However, this independence raises questions about the mechanisms in place for internal investigations, leading to the perception that the judiciary is self-protective rather than accountable.

### The Call for Systemic Reform

The implications of Chandrachud’s statements are profound. With a system that allegedly lacks the capacity to investigate its own members, there is a growing call for reform. Legal experts and advocates argue that a transparent and effective investigative mechanism is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Without such reforms, the integrity of the judicial system may remain in jeopardy, leading to a lack of trust among the populace.

### A System Designed to Protect Itself

Chandrachud’s critique suggests that the Internal Investigative arm operates within a framework that prioritizes self-preservation over truth-seeking. This raises ethical questions about the role of judicial bodies in handling misconduct or corruption within their ranks. The perceived “Exceptional Luxury” of operating without accountability could lead to a culture of impunity, where issues go unaddressed, and justice is not served.

### The Need for Accountability and Transparency

In light of these revelations, the need for accountability and transparency within the judiciary is more pressing than ever. A robust investigative mechanism is essential not only for addressing allegations of misconduct but also for restoring public faith in the judicial system. Stakeholders, including legal professionals, policymakers, and citizens, must advocate for reforms that enhance the investigative capabilities of the judiciary without compromising its independence.

### Conclusion

Ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s insights into the Internal Investigative arm highlight critical flaws that need addressing. The lack of investigative tools and reliance on self-protective mechanisms pose significant challenges to truth-seeking and accountability within the judiciary. As discussions around judicial reform gain momentum, it is crucial to consider how to balance independence with the necessary oversight to uphold justice effectively. The future of the Indian judiciary may depend on these reforms, ensuring that it can serve its fundamental purpose: to deliver justice fairly and transparently.

Ex-CJI Chandrachud admits the Internal Investigative arm has NO INVESTIGATIVE ARM. No mechanism. No reliance on Police due to judicial independence
~ Then how is truth ever uncovered

A committee with NO TOOLS to probe. A system designed to protect itself. Exceptional Luxury pic.twitter.com/dncGVhNb31

— The Analyzer (News Updates) (@Indian_Analyzer) March 25, 2025

Ex-CJI Chandrachud Admits the Internal Investigative Arm Has No Investigative Arm

The recent revelations from former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud have sent shockwaves through the legal community and the general public alike. In an eye-opening statement, he admitted that the Internal Investigative arm of the judiciary lacks any real investigative mechanisms. This raises serious questions about the ability to uncover the truth in a system that is supposed to uphold justice and accountability. With no reliance on police due to the principle of judicial independence, one must wonder: how is truth ever uncovered?

No Mechanism for Investigation

Chandrachud’s admission that there’s essentially *no investigative arm* within the Internal Investigative committee is startling. This is a major concern for those who expect impartial investigations into judicial misconduct or any other issues. Without a dedicated mechanism to probe into allegations or complaints, the integrity of the judicial system is at risk. It feels like a car without an engine—functional on the surface, but ultimately unable to reach its destination.

When we think about justice, we often envision a system that is robust, transparent, and equipped to handle accusations with a certain level of seriousness. Yet, if the tools for inquiry are non-existent, how can we expect accountability? The lack of a proper framework leaves the public questioning the efficacy and reliability of judicial processes.

No Reliance on Police Due to Judicial Independence

One of the primary reasons cited for not having an investigative arm is judicial independence. While it’s crucial to maintain this independence to avoid external influence, it also creates a paradox. If the judiciary cannot rely on police investigations, does that mean it must operate in a vacuum? This could lead to a scenario where serious allegations remain unaddressed simply because there are no resources to investigate them.

It’s essential for the public to understand that *judicial independence* should not equate to a lack of accountability. A system that doesn’t rely on any external agencies for investigation is a double-edged sword. On one side, it protects the judiciary from undue influence; on the other, it risks creating an insular system where the truth can be easily obfuscated. This is where the questions start surfacing: *How can we hold the system accountable when it lacks the tools to investigate itself?*

Then How is Truth Ever Uncovered?

Given the current state of affairs, one might ponder, “How is truth ever uncovered?” This is a valid concern. When the very mechanisms that should allow for scrutiny and accountability are absent, the likelihood of discovering the truth diminishes. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack with no tools at your disposal.

Chandrachud’s statements compel us to think critically about the systems in place. Without the capability to investigate properly, there’s a risk that the judiciary could become a self-protective entity, prioritizing its own interests over those of justice. This is not just a legal issue; it impacts public trust in the entire judicial system.

A Committee with No Tools to Probe

Let’s talk about the implications of having a *committee with no tools to probe*. This is not just an internal matter; it affects everyone who relies on the judicial system for fairness and justice. If a committee is established to address grievances but lacks the necessary tools or authority to conduct thorough investigations, how effective can it truly be?

People expect a system that can act decisively and transparently. A committee that can’t investigate is akin to a council that can’t legislate; it becomes ineffective and merely symbolic. This raises alarms about whether these committees are merely a facade to give the impression of accountability while failing to deliver on their promises.

A System Designed to Protect Itself

Chandrachud’s remarks lead to another unsettling thought: is the system designed to protect itself? When the mechanisms for investigation are weak or non-existent, it opens the door for misconduct and negligence to flourish. A protective system might ensure its continuity but at the cost of justice and transparency.

The very essence of a fair judicial system lies in its ability to scrutinize itself effectively. If the system is designed to shield itself from accountability, the public’s faith in it can wane quickly. And when public trust erodes, the foundations of any justice system become shaky.

Exceptional Luxury

The term *Exceptional Luxury* is a striking way to describe a system that operates without sufficient checks and balances. While judicial independence is essential, a luxurious detachment from reality can lead to a disconnection from the very people it serves. Those in power must realize that a lack of accountability isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a moral one.

In an environment where the judicial system can operate without the necessary mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency, it risks becoming insulated and unresponsive to the needs of the public. This is a call for reform, to ensure that the judiciary is not just independent but also accountable.

The Path Forward

Addressing these concerns requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders involved. It’s time to rethink how we approach judicial investigations, ensuring that there are robust mechanisms in place to facilitate transparency and uphold justice. Perhaps it’s time for a genuine dialogue about reforming the internal investigative processes so that they can be equipped with the necessary tools to do their job effectively.

In conclusion, the revelations from Ex-CJI Chandrachud serve as a critical reminder that a strong judicial system must not only be independent but also equipped to seek the truth. This is vital for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld.

By addressing the gaps in accountability and investigative capacity, we can begin to rebuild the faith of the public in a system that is meant to serve them. It’s about time we demand that our judicial system not just exist, but thrive in its pursuit of truth and justice.