“Literature Humanises Law” Says Ex-CJI D Y Chandrachud

Former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud on Friday underscored the intrinsic relationship between literature and law, emphasizing that literature serves as a crucial medium for infusing legal discourse with context, compassion, and moral depth.

Speaking at the inaugural ceremony of “Vidhi Utsav 2025—The Festival of Law, Legal Literature, and Luminaries,” organized by Oakbridge, he argued that the law, in its rigid textual form, often falls short of adequately addressing the dynamic and evolving nature of societal realities.

“Literature humanizes the law. Where legal texts may lack depth in context, empathy, and contemporary relevance, literature can supplement and enrich legal understanding. As legal practitioners and adjudicators navigate moral dilemmas, the law alone may prove insufficient, necessitating a more profound engagement with literary narratives to refine legal thought and practice,” Chandrachud remarked.

Expounding upon this perspective, he cited the Supreme Court’s adjudication on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a matter necessitating an intricate analysis of sociological, historical, and statistical data to grasp the complexities of social stratification.

“A jurisprudence that remains insular and detached from empirical social realities risks obsolescence. Law must remain attuned to granular, grassroots-level data to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. As judges and legal custodians, we cannot afford to be indifferent to the evolving contours of justice,” he asserted.

Chandrachud further contended that literature functions as both a mediator and corrective force in law, bridging the divide between abstract legal principles and the lived experiences of individuals subject to the legal order.

“Literature interrogates the rigid formalism of the law by juxtaposing legal doctrine with human experience. It not only traces the origins of legal norms but also challenges legal orthodoxy when it veers toward majoritarian excesses. By amplifying marginalized voices and fostering critical discourse, literature ensures that law remains a tool for justice rather than an instrument of exclusion,” he elaborated.

To illustrate how legal frameworks can perpetuate structural injustices, Chandrachud scrutinized the original framework of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, which adopted a medicalized conception of disability.

“Under the 1995 statute, disability was conceived primarily in medical terms, defining persons with disabilities as those possessing at least 40% impairment as certified by medical authorities. However, through sustained litigation and advocacy, lawmakers came to recognize that disability is not merely an individual medical condition but a socially constructed phenomenon that reflects societal barriers and exclusionary structures,” he observed.

The enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 marked a paradigm shift, as it moved beyond a reductive medical model and embraced a social model that conceptualized disability as the result of systemic and environmental impediments.

“This definitional shift was, in essence, a product of legal literature—scholarship, narratives, and judicial engagement that redefined disability not as a bodily deficiency but as an interaction between individuals and structural barriers. Such conceptual evolution within legal statutes owes much to literary critique and discourse,” he stated.

Chandrachud concluded by advocating for an interdisciplinary approach to law, urging legal scholars and practitioners to engage rigorously with literature across linguistic, cultural, and thematic spectrums to cultivate a more just and responsive legal system.

Read More: Supreme Court Recalls Order In Abbas Ansari Case, Asks Police If Any Probe Pending Against Him