On Saturday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud of india stressed that in cases involving "ambiguity and uncertainty," the supreme court and the election commission must step up to the plate. The CJI claimed that this increased public trust in the Constitution.
The Chief Justice declared, "The Constitution is not like the Income Tax Act," during a speech at the South Asian Constitutional Courts conference held in Bangladesh's capital. The effectiveness of the government's institutions is what gives it legitimacy, and this can only be seen when agencies like the election commission and supreme court intervene when things are unclear or ambiguous."

"The confidence of the people in the Constitution, in fact, solidifies only when institutions of governance, whether it be Parliament, the central investigative agency, the election commission, or the supreme court, rise to the occasion," observed CJI Chandrachud.

Comparative constitutional processes are important because they rigorously compare our laws to those of our surrounding nations. In the context of our culture, acknowledging public spaces as places of prejudice is important. Certain aspects of pre-democracy institutions are preserved in our Constitution. As a result, our courts must demonstrate our dedication to diversity and inclusion," the CJI stated, adding that discussions between the courts of these countries demonstrate their shared judicial fraternity.

The CJI emphasised once more how crucial democracy and the Rule of Law have been to the development of both countries. During his speech, Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that the legal systems in bangladesh and india need to leverage technology more to "reach out to citizens" and "break the internet divide."
"There were questions regarding the indian Constitution's viability throughout its drafting. Inequality persists even after the Constitution is ratified. Our people are recognised as citizens with rights under our Constitution. According to CJI Chandrachud, "it established courts with the power to issue writs to address legitimate grievances."

We cannot expect our citizens to reach out to us; instead, it is our responsibility as judges and courts to make sure we understand how to interact with and reach out to them. This illustrates how our culture is changing," he remarked.
The CJI stated that, among other reasons, bangladesh and india both have a history of having legal and constitutional frameworks that are primarily intended to maintain stability, and both countries regard their constitutions as "living documents."

మరింత సమాచారం తెలుసుకోండి: