73-year-old Justice K Chandru has donned many roles over the past five decades – political activist, labour lawyer, senior advocate, judge of the Madras High Court, writer, intellectual, and head of government-appointed committees. What has remained unchanged, however, is his tireless work and unwavering commitment to the welfare of those from the marginalised backgrounds.
Excerpts
You have headed many one-man committees appointed by the present government in Tamil Nadu. The last was to recommend measures to prevent caste-based differences in educational institutions. However, most recommendations are yet to be implemented.
The one-man committees are not commissions of inquiry. They are only recommendatory bodies. First, the government appointed me to look into the online rummy issue and later juvenile homes. Then, after the Nanguneri incident (in which a school student from a Dalit community was hacked by caste Hindu students), the government appointed me to look into caste differences in educational institutions. I told Chief Minister MK Stalin that I will not receive any remuneration. He asked me why. I said tomorrow everybody will say I am the Asthana Vidhvan (court poet) of the government.
I prepared that report after nine months of study. The BJP, even before reading it fully, started the first attack by saying it is anti-Hindu. I don't mind the BJP rejecting it.
What I'm worried about is that after nine months of slogging, what is the status of the report? Why is the press not asking the government what happened to the report? Today, there are many news reports about school children being sexually abused. The report contains many recommendations on these issues.
It looks like the 680-page report is going to serve only academic purposes. Hence, I have printed the report and I am circulating it to people.
I had given interim recommendations and final recommendations. One of the reasons for non-implementation is because teachers are so powerful and they didn't want to be inconvenienced in any way. The government doesn't want to lose their support. The teachers’ attitude to the committee was totally negative. I sent notices to all school teachers’ associations, college teachers’ associations and university teachers’ associations. No one responded. Even students’ organisations didn't respond because they didn’t want to take a stand. It is an emotive and sensitive subject.
Then there is the bureaucracy. The government is run by the bureaucracy and nothing happens without them. When you give a report, it goes to them and they start analysing. It (the report) remains as it is unless you have the political leadership.
The government has, in fact, not even responded to say whether they accept the recommendations in full or in part.
On the other hand, there are knee-jerk reactions. For instance, when one Mahavishnu gave a controversial lecture in a government school, the government issued guidelines saying schools should invite only those from a list approved by the government. Tomorrow, if I want to speak in a school, I may not be able to go since I should first find a place in the official list. Such knee-jerk reactions should be avoided.
Is the state government trying to use Justice K Chandru's one-man committees as tools to assuage public anger and delay effective response to the problems?
I, at least, got the opportunity to study the issue and document it in detail. If I was not part of the committee, no officer will ever reply to me. They reply to me because I approach them under a government banner.
When you look at the report, you will find what has happened in the last 50 years in the educational sphere. What is wrong with the teachers, what is wrong with teachers’ training, all that is there on record now. Whether the government implements it or not, a record is now available. To that extent, I am satisfied.
The government is torn between different forces. For instance, take the case of Kallar reclamation schools in Madurai, Theni and Dindigul. The purpose for which these schools were established is gone now.
Now, it's no longer a “Kallar” (community) school. It's a mixed population. To even have a department named ‘Kallar Reclamation’ is wrong. I gave an order when I was a judge that the department’s name should be changed.
However, there is political opposition. I would like to point out that the decision to rename was not mine. It was announced by the Tamil Nadu government in the budget when Palanivel Thiaga Rajan was the finance minister. However, the government is now backtracking.
The government may be thinking why touch this subject when the Assembly elections are due in a year. Why wake a sleeping dog?
Is the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly election the key factor preventing the government from implementing some of the recommendations?
It may be a pragmatic way of looking at things. There is one year left. There's a greater attack from the central government and the BJP. The political leadership will think if they start implementing the recommendations, how would it benefit (them).
If you say teachers will be shuffled, they will start a problem. For instance, when teachers from Chennai are posted in nearby districts like Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur, they stay in the city only. They travel and come back. They are not available on Saturdays and Sundays. The students feel that some professional is coming and going. They don’t have a sense that it is their village teacher.
In that sense, I have recommended that primary education should go back to the block level. The original intention in the 1958 Panchayat Act was that school education should remain with the panchayats. The constitutional amendments that came later regarding local governance also suggest that it (primary education) will be with the panchayats.
To implement this requires a political decision. As I said, teachers’ unions have become so powerful. There are 2.5 lakh teachers in Tamil Nadu and the budget is Rs 52,000 crore. Nobody wants to dismantle this structure. I said if there is local control, there will be better mobility and supervision. There is a rule which says one (a teacher) should not stay beyond 20 km (from the school) or one should stay in the headquarters. I said the rule must be enforced.
Which teachers’ organisation will agree? The left parties are also silent on this. The result is an all-party boycott of the report. The only party which said Chandru's report should be implemented was Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi.
You recommended that schools should have an external person looking into the grievances of the students, but the government claims there is already an internal redressal system through the "Manavar Manasu" grievance boxes.
Take the Nanguneri case. That (affected) boy was not going to school. Later, after his mother's persuasion to go to school, the family submitted a complaint. The moment they (caste Hindu students) came to know about the complaint, the boy was attacked.
How to maintain secrecy? Who can resolve the issue? Can the headmaster resolve it? Recently, Assembly Speaker (M Appavu) said the headmasters must be able to solve problems and police should not come in. But if you speak to any headmaster, they will say it is impossible for them.
When my committee was constituted, one of the terms of reference was that I must meet all the CCLs (children in conflict with law). I met all the three accused in the Nanguneri case. I asked them about the observation home, how the food was, how they were kept etc. They had a lot of dissatisfaction. They said they were beaten by the police.
However, my main questions to them were about how their family, neighbours and friends treated them after they were granted bail. Did they reprimand them or suggest changes in their lives? They said no. In fact, there was a meeting in the community after their release, where the people said if there is any action against the three, there will be a reprisal. So instead of condemning them, there's protectionism.
As long as this social backing is there, I don't think you can solve the problem only in schools.
Moreover, when a teacher is appointed, we only check for their educational qualification and not whether they have the right orientation and perspective.
Therefore, I said you should have a welfare officer from outside who can come and clear grievances, but nobody is interested. Manavar Manasu remains only on paper.
What is your take on the alleged influence of the present ruling dispensation at the centre over the judiciary, especially in judicial appointments?
They (the BJP) are attempting saffronisation of all the power centres. As far as the judiciary is concerned, the collegium system (of appointment) has a weak basis. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was brought in by the 99th amendment. However, it was struck down (by the Supreme Court) on the ground that it is against independence of judiciary because the composition of the NJAC was heavily (weighted) in favor of the executive.
Today, if a vacancy is going to come up, a recommendation for appointment can be made six months in advance. However, it is not done. Instead, the judiciary does “bunching” (clubbing of vacancies) so that recommendations of everyone in the collegium and even state and central governments can be accommodated.
The government could now amend the NJAC by changing the composition and giving more representation to judges. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi does not want to bring back NJAC because the government finds the collegium system more convenient. They have much to gain in the present system. There is an unwritten condition that one appointee will be a “saffron candidate”. They (BJP) will be able to push more names through the collegium than another transparent system. Lobbying works much better than any transparent appointment system.
If there is a BJP name, it will be cleared on a fast track. For example Victoria Gowri, who was vice president of the BJP mahila morcha. Lawyers in Chennai objected, saying she has made hate speeches against Muslims. However, her name was cleared. When it was challenged in court, the court said only “qualification” and not “suitability” is before them to decide. Qualification is nothing but experience as a lawyer, which she had. The suitability will be decided only by the collegium. So, she was appointed.
At the same time, John Sathyan’s name was recommended. IB (Intelligence Bureau), however, filed a report objecting to his name since he had posted on social media against Modi. Collegium, in fact, rejected this report. However, two years have passed and his name has not been cleared by the government.
In the case of Saurabh Kripal, RAW (Research & Analysis Wing) objected because he has a foreign partner and because his sexual orientation is different. His name has not been cleared for four and a half years.
You don't have a proper selection method. I am not saying we must conduct an exam and an interview. But there must be a genuine concern for the institution. What has happened so far has only led to inbreeding. Therefore, if you ask who failed the judiciary, it is the judiciary itself.
On the controversial communally-charged remarks being made by some judges of late
In a way, the judiciary is also a reflection of society. Judges are also drawn from society. We have different gradation of judges. Sub-standard, standard, a little higher standard. Within these, we also have politically-motivated judges. Irrespective of whether what they are saying is correct or not, they want to register their opinion.
For instance, on the issue of the ritual of devotees rolling over plantain leaves on which people had eaten, the ritual was stayed at least twice by courts. Now a third judge says it's a fundamental right to roll on leftover leaves and it is a part of a religious right.
Where do you get all this? There are judges who experiment like this. Therefore, you should have vigilant people to correct them. In another instance, a judge in Madurai, while hearing a case against the transfer of a policeman against whom there were a lot of complaints, said though she was of the opinion that the transfer order does not require any interference, her prarabdha karma required her to interfere. And therefore she set aside the transfer order. The police appealed. The division bench said the court is guided by the constitution and not karma. Why was the same enlightenment not there for the single judge?
Then there are also judges who write orders for social media or breaking news. They don't confine themselves to the case at hand. Besides, they deliver lectures outside.
It is not just about saffronisation, but also about putting wrong ideas into orders. Earlier, people were afraid to criticise judges, but today there is a strong criticism. Despite that, no one can remove the judges.
In the recent case of Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court, who made a controversial statement, the Chief Justice asked him to avoid such off-the-cuff remarks. Fifty five MPs gave a letter for impeachment. We do not know what the Supreme Court is going to do because technically the collegium is not a disciplinary authority. It can only deny work or transfer the judge to another place.
Chairman of Rajya Sabha and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar said removal of a judge is an exclusive right of the Parliament. That doesn't mean Parliament is asserting its right for removal. When he says the Supreme Court has not got the power (of removal), he is not talking about the constitution. He's talking about saving this man.
Impeachment as a method of removal of a judge did not work in this country. There is no removal at all. Where is the accountability?
On the never-ending tussle between Governor RN Ravi and the Tamil Nadu government
When the post of Governor was copied from the 1935 Government Act into the Constitution, they (framers of the Constitution) gave only a limited role for the post.
When Congress lost Assembly elections in eight states in 1967, they realised that opposition parties are in power in states. Then the governors started acting differently because they were asked to. Therefore, using governors to disturb state governments started in 1967.
Then the disturbances took different forms. For instance, governors are also chancellors of universities. Article 163 says governors are bound to act as per the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the chief minister. In the case of universities, they don't want to do that.
In 1976, when education was moved from the State to the Concurrent list of the Constitution, more concentration of power with the centre happened.
When the central government started (getting into) school education, they said CBSE schools will be only in cantonment areas and union territories. Today, you will find that 30% of schools are CBSE-affiliated. The Kothari Commission in 1965 said the central government should not enter into the area of school education.
In south India, which doesn't fall into the BJP's bandwagon, all four governors were sent with a message to create problems. The latest issue is about the governor’s insistence to include UGC chairperson’s nominees on the V-C search committees.
The appointment of Kalyani Mathivanan as the V-C of Madurai Kamaraj University was challenged, saying she didn't have the minimum qualification as per UGC norms. The Madras High Court ruled she was not fit to be a V-C. The Supreme Court curiously said, in the case of V-C appointments, the UGC regulations are recommendatory and the state government has not accepted (the regulations). Therefore Kalyani Mathivanan can be the V-C.
(However) the present governor (of Tamil Nadu) says unless you have a UGC representative on the committee there cannot be a selection (of V-C). How do we withdraw this power?
That's why Chief MInister MK Stalin now says bring education back to the State List.
The latest UGC (draft) regulations are an assault by the centre. With this, the BJP can capture the universities. They can appoint V-Cs of their choice. One way of saffronisation of education is through this method. Governors are used like Trojan horses. Governor RN Ravi is perfecting that art even though the Supreme Court has put inconvenient questions to him. However, I don't think he has any image among the people of Tamil Nadu.
On the DMK's demand for a code of conduct for Governors, especially to fix a time frame for them to respond to bills
When (Dr BR) Ambedkar defended the post of governor, he did not contemplate that governors would become agents of ruling parties. He thought that every constitutional functionary will work within the sphere meant for them.
When a political party uses governors as weapons to destabilise state governments, they are actually working against the constitution itself.
Today, the constitutional functionaries are not willing to work assigned to them as per the framework of the constitution. The demand for state autonomy became strong after 1967 when there were opposition parties (ruling) in the states. There was no fairness. That unfairness continues. Now the only difference is people with affiliation to RSS are appointed as governors for different reasons. It is not merely political. RSS people are appointed as governors especially in the northeastern states. They have other agendas.
On caste-based discrimination and atrocities in Tamil Nadu and the criticism that the Dravidian parties have failed to effectively address the caste problem
Politicians become ruling representatives through elections. They get votes from different sections. That doesn't mean they can reform society by themselves. Reformation of society doesn't come only by parliamentary law or judicial control. It is a wider issue.
Therefore, if you ask me, how do I assess the Dravidian parties, I think they have done phenomenally well on the social side. On the question of reservation, on the question of reforms in various laws like the Hindu Marriage Act... The attempt to de-link marriage from any religious connotation was done by Tamil Nadu for the first time. Even today no state in India has such an amendment. The amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act by late Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, enabling share for women in family properties... There was a lot of opposition at that time, but the law remains. In fact, I have listed 50 years of legislative history of the Kalaignar (Karunanidhi) period. I was able to highlight some legislative reforms which are not there in any other state.
Tamil Nadu, in some way, showed some reforms. But if you analyse this on a micro level and consider, say, rationalism (of Dravidian parties), the HR&CE (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments) minister )of the present DMK government) talks about 16 lakh people attending the Thai Poosam festival. It is with their votes that the party is in power now.
But to some extent, in Tamil Nadu, to the credit (of Dravidian parties), we don't have hate mongers. We are able to keep the (government) machinery intact. We don't have what we see in the north. Minorities in this state can still live with assurance and big credit goes to the Dravidian parties. On other issues like corruption, it is there everywhere.
On the state of the legal education system in Tamil Nadu
The problem in legal education is there across India. But what happened in Tamil Nadu is we had only one law college till 1980. Law was not that attractive as a course. Now it has got a lot of attraction.
As a result they started more government law colleges. Most of the deemed-to-be universities started their own law colleges. Now the present government has got a new law through which law colleges are allowed in each district. The government is also tuned to allow more private law colleges.
We have law colleges of different kinds. Most of the lawyers send their children to private law schools and those who can't afford them come to government law colleges. The quality of staff is another issue. There are more temporary teachers, guest lecturers. There are about 20% vacancies in government colleges.
There have been demands for rewriting the country's legislations in simpler language to enable even the common public to understand. What is your take on that?
Simplifying legal procedures and legal language should be the priority for democratising the legal field. Simple language not being used is a curse. Most of our legislations are drafted along the British model. For instance, double negatives are frequently used. There is a British saying “I am the country’s parliamentary draftsman. Undoubtedly, for half of the litigations, I am the cause.”
When you go to a lawyer or a document writer for selling a property, the person will write 40 pages. However, a sale deed must contain only a few ingredients, viz. seller, buyer, the description of the property etc. You can write a sale deed for a property worth a million rupees in one page. Instead, we write around 40 pages just to impress people and to make it a “holy document”.
On the role of mainstream media and the proliferation of social media and YouTube channels.
There is always a superiority complex in the newspapers which are reporting in English. But if you compare, the reporting by Tamil papers may be coarse, but they report the actual scenario better.
The mainstream papers reporting in English play to certain norms and kill the spirit of the news, which is not there in the language papers.
Those days there were only a few reporters, but still news was never killed. Newspapers were a little liberal and not very commercial. Today reporting has become very “sophisticated”.
Social media, on the other hand, is like a public platform. It is like a wall newspaper. The authenticity and credibility, we do not know for sure. But I could see that what is left out in the mainstream is there on social media.
I am not saying social media is responsible. At the same time, we know many YouTubers are being attacked. Today, with the IT wing and trolls, political parties are able to damage the credibility of anyone. In spite of all that, there is some recording of contemporary incidents (through social media).
What keeps Justice K Chandru active even at the age of 73 and how does he balance his work and personal life?
There is a saying that a politician should keep shaking his leg even when asleep. Otherwise, they may quickly place a wreath on him. So if you come from political training (recalling his association with the Communist party), the day is not just 24 hours, it is beyond that.
So when people like me became a lawyer, we were working for long hours. Though payments were not good, we had many cases since people (from disadvantaged backgrounds) have so many problems.
So when I became a judge, I continued working for long hours. As a lawyer, as a political activist, as a judge, I used to work 20 to 22 hours per day.
One should not get regimented. If you want to sleep, you can sleep. You want to work, you can work. When you are committed to a social cause, then you tend to spend more time.
One should love the work.
My wife knew me well even before we got married. My daughter used to feel bad sometimes. When my daughter was born, I was at my busiest with my practice. I could not spend time with my daughter. Therefore I applied and became a senior advocate to reduce my workload. I would come home to spend time with her. In the night, I would take care of her and my wife would work.
I did enough supporting roles. I used to cook, wash clothes. There was no cause for complaint.
When I became a judge, it was a big (monetary) sacrifice. My daughter used to feel it was wrong on my part to accept the Judgeship. I used to tell her it's not just money that matters, but also social commitment. After seeing Jai Bhim (movie), she was happy. She is a doctor and she said she should have become a lawyer. We can also inspire people with our work.