Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud.Image Credit Source: PTI
Friday was CJI DY Chandrachud’s last legal working day in the Supreme Court. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2016. He was appointed Chief Justice in November 2022. During his long tenure, he made 10 important decisions. Their decisions have touched on issues of privacy, bodily autonomy, federalism, affirmative action and even arbitration. He has been part of 1,275 benches. He wrote 613 decisions during his tenure. Let us know about DY Chandrachud’s ten greatest decisions.
- Fundamental right to privacy. Nine Judge Bench (Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Central Government)
On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized privacy as a fundamental right, which is an integral part of the dignity and autonomy of an individual. The case reached the Supreme Court following a petition filed in 2012 by retired judge KS Puttaswamy, who questioned the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. Legalized the country’s Unique Identification Number program. Writing the majority opinion on behalf of the court, Justice Chandrachud said that privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Part of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This is what the court relied on in this case to reach its landmark decision to decriminalize homosexuality. - Decriminalize homosexuality. Five Judge Bench (Navtej Singh Johar v. Central Government)
On September 6, 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A provision that criminalized homosexual relations between consenting adults. The court said that words related to bestiality under Section 377 will remain in force. Justice Chandrachud said Section 377 has marginalized a section of citizens. Based on its earlier judgment in the Puttaswamy case, which had recognized the fundamental right to privacy, it said that not recognizing the right to sexual orientation is a denial of privacy. He said that human sexuality cannot be reduced to a binary formulation or defined strictly in terms of its function as a means of reproduction. - Decriminalize adultery. Five Judge Bench (Joseph Shine v. Union of India)
On September 27, 2018, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Deepak Mishra unanimously decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under this provision, a person who has sexual relations with another person’s wife is sentenced. The court argued that this provision violates articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. They declared that this article is archaic and patriarchal and violates the autonomy and dignity of women. While the majority opinion was written by Justice Mishra. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice DY Chandrachud wrote that the law of adultery is a codified rule of patriarchy. This promoted the regressive idea of the subordinate character of women in marriage. - Sabarimala temple entry case. Five Judge Bench (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Government of Kerala)
On September 28, 2018, a 4:1 majority held that denying entry to women of menstrual age into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The court held that such practice violates women’s fundamental rights to religious freedom, equality and liberty. Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion held that prohibiting women from entering temples is not an essential religious practice and that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious sect under Article 26. According to Justice Chandrachud, it was problematic for the Court position yourself as an arbiter of those practices. You seem to like to contrast any religious practice only with fundamental rights. - Ayodhya property dispute. Five Judge Bench (M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das)
On November 9, 2019, Justice Chandrachud was included in the five-judge bench, which unanimously awarded the property rights of the disputed Ayodhya to Shri Ram Lalla Virajman. He also ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to give an alternative site in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of the mosque. - Administration of the National Capital Region. Five Judge Bench (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vs. Central Government)
On July 4, 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously ruled that the chief executive of the Delhi government was the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. The court was interpreting Article 239-AA of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for Delhi. - Petition for equal marriage. Five Judge Bench (Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and others v. Central Government)
On October 17, 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously said that there is no fundamental right for sexual minorities to marry. However, the court unanimously declared that transgender or intersex people can marry in heterosexual relationships. The bench headed by CJI Chandrachud also held that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 is not discriminatory in excluding non-heterosexual couples. - Challenge to the repeal of article 370. Chamber of five judges (article 370 of the Constitution case)
On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 by the Central Government, which had granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). CJI Chandrachud drafted the majority opinion. Justice Kaul and Khanna agreed on this. All the judges agreed that Article 370 was a temporary provision, made to meet the immediate needs of the then state. - Constitutionality of the electoral bond system (Association for Democratic Reforms against the Union of India)
In a major case on political finance ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, a five-judge constitutional bench headed by CJI Chandrachud unanimously struck down the electoral bond scheme of 2018. The court held that the scheme violated the right of voters to information enshrined in article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He considered that information about the financing that a political party receives is essential for voters to exercise their freedom to vote. - Subcategorization within the SC/ST categories. Seven Judge Bench (Government of Punjab v. Davinder Singh)
On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI DY Chandrachud adopted an important decision for the debate on affirmative action in the country. By a majority of 8 to 1, the court held that state governments have the power to make sub-categorizations within the reserved categories of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
