The recent visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, which was followed by a video of a private prayer being circulated on social media, raises questions about the ethical boundaries that must be maintained between the judiciary and the executive. While the Modi government has made significant strides in areas such as digital infrastructure, national security, and anti-corruption measures, this particular incident reflects a disturbing trend of breaking conventions and undermining institutions that form the bedrock of democracy.

The circulation of a video from the CJI's private residence, especially one depicting a personal religious ceremony, is an unprecedented violation of an individual's right to privacy. In a country where the judiciary is seen as a cornerstone of democracy, any intrusion into the personal life of the Chief Justice is not just unwarranted but potentially harmful. Private religious or family gatherings should remain personal, not fodder for public consumption, especially when they are used to fuel political narratives.

For Prime Minister Modi to attend a private function at the residence of the Chief Justice is one thing. But to turn that private event into a public spectacle by allowing videos to be made and then amplifying them on social media sets a dangerous precedent. It brings the judiciary into the public eye in ways that could undermine its impartiality, demoralize its members, and create an environment where judicial independence is questioned.

One of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy is the separation of powers. The executive, judiciary, and legislature must operate independently, and their leaders should uphold a clear boundary between personal interactions and institutional relationships. By visiting the CJI’s house and making the event a matter of public discourse, the prime minister may have breached these boundaries, contributing to the politicization of an institution that must remain apolitical and impartial to safeguard justice.

Modi's action, deliberate or not, sends a troubling message about the relationship between the executive and judiciary. It risks creating a perception that the judiciary, particularly its top leader, can be influenced, scrutinized, or even targeted in subtle ways. This is not just a matter of invading the privacy of an individual; it is an infringement on the sanctity of an institution.

Modi's government has been known for breaking conventions and long-standing traditions, often under the guise of modernizing or streamlining governance. While this has, in some cases, led to positive changes—such as promoting digital infrastructure, boosting the morale of the defense forces, and improving India’s global image—it has also led to worrying trends in other areas.

Crony capitalism, for example, has flourished under Modi’s rule. While his government has effectively tackled corruption at various levels, there have been accusations of favoring large industrialists and business houses close to the government. This imbalance has raised concerns about the growing influence of a few corporate players in shaping policy decisions that should ideally serve the wider public interest.

Similarly, the Modi government’s centralized decision-making process has sidelined other democratic institutions, with Parliament being frequently bypassed for ordinances and an increasing concentration of power in the hands of the executive. The judiciary, in particular, has faced numerous challenges, including delayed appointments and political pressure, leading to a perception that its independence is being eroded.

While Modi’s tenure has witnessed significant advancements in various sectors, his repeated tendency to break conventions and put personal or political interests ahead of institutional integrity poses a serious threat to India’s democratic framework. The very institutions that have safeguarded the country for decades—the judiciary, Parliament, the Election Commission—are being strained under the weight of centralized, personality-driven governance.

The CJI incident is just the latest example of this. Instead of fostering respect for institutional boundaries, the prime minister's actions reflect a tendency to blur the lines between personal, political, and institutional roles, often to the detriment of the very systems he claims to uphold.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership has been marked by a combination of undeniable successes and worrying missteps. His government has contributed to national security, economic development, technological progress, historic digitalization, and major leaps in space science. But his repeated disregard for conventions threatens to weaken India’s institutional framework. The recent episode involving CJI Chandrachud’s private ceremony being made public is emblematic of this troubling trend. India’s democracy relies on the strength of its institutions, and any attempt to infringe upon their autonomy for political gain must be recognized and resisted.

The recent visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the residence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, which was followed by a video of a private prayer being circulated on social media, raises questions about the ethical boundaries that must be maintained between the judiciary and the executive. While the Modi government has made significant strides in areas such as digital infrastructure, national security, and anti-corruption measures, this particular incident reflects a disturbing trend of breaking conventions and undermining institutions that form the bedrock of democracy.

The circulation of a video from the CJI's private residence, especially one depicting a personal religious ceremony, is an unprecedented violation of an individual's right to privacy. In a country where the judiciary is seen as a cornerstone of democracy, any intrusion into the personal life of the Chief Justice is not just unwarranted but potentially harmful. Private religious or family gatherings should remain personal, not fodder for public consumption, especially when they are used to fuel political narratives.

For Prime Minister Modi to attend a private function at the residence of the Chief Justice is one thing. But to turn that private event into a public spectacle by allowing videos to be made and then amplifying them on social media sets a dangerous precedent. It brings the judiciary into the public eye in ways that could undermine its impartiality, demoralize its members, and create an environment where judicial independence is questioned.

One of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy is the separation of powers. The executive, judiciary, and legislature must operate independently, and their leaders should uphold a clear boundary between personal interactions and institutional relationships. By visiting the CJI’s house and making the event a matter of public discourse, the prime minister may have breached these boundaries, contributing to the politicization of an institution that must remain apolitical and impartial to safeguard justice.

Modi's action, deliberate or not, sends a troubling message about the relationship between the executive and judiciary. It risks creating a perception that the judiciary, particularly its top leader, can be influenced, scrutinized, or even targeted in subtle ways. This is not just a matter of invading the privacy of an individual; it is an infringement on the sanctity of an institution.

Modi's government has been known for breaking conventions and long-standing traditions, often under the guise of modernizing or streamlining governance. While this has, in some cases, led to positive changes—such as promoting digital infrastructure, boosting the morale of the defense forces, and improving India’s global image—it has also led to worrying trends in other areas.

Crony capitalism, for example, has flourished under Modi’s rule. While his government has effectively tackled corruption at various levels, there have been accusations of favoring large industrialists and business houses close to the government. This imbalance has raised concerns about the growing influence of a few corporate players in shaping policy decisions that should ideally serve the wider public interest.

Similarly, the Modi government’s centralized decision-making process has sidelined other democratic institutions, with Parliament being frequently bypassed for ordinances and an increasing concentration of power in the hands of the executive. The judiciary, in particular, has faced numerous challenges, including delayed appointments and political pressure, leading to a perception that its independence is being eroded.

While Modi’s tenure has witnessed significant advancements in various sectors, his repeated tendency to break conventions and put personal or political interests ahead of institutional integrity poses a serious threat to India’s democratic framework. The very institutions that have safeguarded the country for decades—the judiciary, Parliament, the Election Commission—are being strained under the weight of centralized, personality-driven governance.

The CJI incident is just the latest example of this. Instead of fostering respect for institutional boundaries, the prime minister's actions reflect a tendency to blur the lines between personal, political, and institutional roles, often to the detriment of the very systems he claims to uphold.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership has been marked by a combination of undeniable successes and worrying missteps. His government has contributed to national security, economic development, technological progress, historic digitalization, and major leaps in space science. But his repeated disregard for conventions threatens to weaken India’s institutional framework. The recent episode involving CJI Chandrachud’s private ceremony being made public is emblematic of this troubling trend. India’s democracy relies on the strength of its institutions, and any attempt to infringe upon their autonomy for political gain must be recognized and resisted.