Was Given Hotline With PM, But I Threw It: Former CJI Gogoi Says Executive Interference Is 'Nil' In Judiciary

He said that several judges who took selfies with the Prime Minister were now “activist judges.”

Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi | PTI

New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi said that he did not meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi even once during the former's tenure. As reported by Bar and Bench, Gogoi said that he had been given a hotline with the Prime Minister and Law Minister but he “threw it.”

"I was given a special hotline to PM and Law Minister, but I threw it. Executive interference is possible to be made in hundred different ways and it depends upon the incumbent. I didn't meet the PM even once," Gogoi said during an interview with a news channel.  

He said that there was nothing wrong in the Prime Minister visiting the Supreme Court on November 26 on the occasion of Constitution Day. He said that several judges who took selfies with the Prime Minister were now “activist judges.”

"He (PM Modi) came on November 26, Constitution Day. I don't think (there is) anything wrong with it. They were judges who took selfies with the PM. They are the activist judges now," he said. 

On being asked about the Prime Minister’s private dinner at the Supreme Court before the Rafale judgment, Gogoi said that the executive interference in judiciary was nil and that it was all a matter of public perception. 

He said that former Chief Minister of Assam, Tarun Gogoi had approached his mother for a “judicial favour” but his mother told about the incident to him, after the judgement was delivered. 

Gogoi also said that he did not believe that judges should only meet judges and not politicians. "Now is it a sin to meet the law minister ? I don't believe that judges should only meet judges. I met Ravi Shankar Prasad (former Law Minister) my friend. Not the law minister," he said.

Gogoi was in controversies during his tenure as the Chief Justice of India for several reasons which included allegations of improper listing of cases and sexual harrasment of a female court staff.