Justice DY Chandrachud Prepares To Retire, Here's His 10 Historic Rulings As CJI (Image: X/ advsanjoy)

As Justice DY Chandrachud prepares to retire on November 10, 2024, and pass the baton to Justice Sanjiv Khanna, let’s look back at his remarkable tenure as the Chief Justice of India.

Today marked the last working day of Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, in a farewell ceremony attended by members from all sections of the legal fraternity. The event was led by Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Khanna, the Chief Justice of India-designate. pic.twitter.com/jv0XZ3O9ui

— Pradeep Rai (@pradeepraiindia) November 8, 2024

Justice Chandrachud, son of India’s longest-serving Chief Justice, Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, has left a monumental mark on India’s judicial history. Here are 10 landmark judgements that showcase his commitment and legacy in the niche.

Also read | Sexual Harassment Cases Can’t Be Quashed Based On Compromise: Supreme Court

1. Right to Privacy (August 2017): In 2017, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision, declaring that every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy. This means that individuals have control over their personal information, and the government or companies can’t invade their privacy without a valid reason.

This was based on a privacy issue: in 2014, Facebook acquired WhatsApp and introduced a new data-sharing policy. This raised privacy concerns, which led to a challenge in the Supreme Court. The court had to decide if individuals had the right to privacy, especially when dealing with private companies.

Justice Chandrachud was part of a 9-judge bench that declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution that has recognised its essential role in protecting personal autonomy and dignity.

A 9-judge bench, including Justice DY Chandrachud, unanimously ruled that:

• The right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution (Articles 14, 19, and 21).
• This right is essential to life and personal liberty.
• The government or companies can only invade privacy if there’s a compelling reason to do so.

2. Aadhaar Judgement (September 2018): The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on Aadhaar on September 26, 2018. The court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, but with some modifications. The verdict was delivered by a five-judge bench, with Justice Sikri writing the majority judgement.

According to the verdict, Aadhaar does not create a surveillance state. The court ruled that Aadhaar collects minimal data and has safeguards like encryption and time limits on data storage.

Justice Sikri emphasised that Aadhaar is a unique and empowering identification document that is more secure than others like PANs and ration cards.

The court also addressed concerns about the right to privacy. It held that Aadhaar does not violate this right, as it passes the three-fold test established in the Puttaswamy judgment. This test checks if a law is legitimate, necessary, and proportionate.

Aadhaar was also seen as a tool to empower marginalised sections. The court ruled that it helps ensure better targeting of subsidies and state benefits, leading to a dignified life. However, the court struck down certain provisions, including Section 2(d), which allowed metadata collection.

Some notable provisions were struck down or read down. For instance, Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for services like CBSE, NEET, UGC, or elementary education under the Sarva Siksha Scheme. This means that individuals cannot be forced to link their Aadhaar to these services.

Overall, the verdict clarified the constitutional validity of Aadhaar while protecting individual rights. Justice Bhushan wrote a concurring opinion, while Justice Chandrachud dissented from it.

Also read| AMU Minority Status Can’t Be Lost Merely Because…: Supreme Court Overrules 1967 Verdict

3. Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (September 2018): The historic Sabarimala Temple Entry case verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court on September 28, 2018. In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that excluding women from the temple is unconstitutional, violating their right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1).

This landmark judgement struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed the exclusion based on custom. The court’s decision was backed by four separate opinions from Chief Justice Misra, Justice Nariman, Justice Chandrachud, and Justice Malhotra.

Justices Nariman and Chandrachud concurred with Chief Justice Misra’s opinion, while Justice Indu Malhotra delivered the dissenting opinion.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that the exclusion of women between ages 10 and 50 contradicts constitutional morality, undermining autonomy, liberty, and dignity. He argued that physiological characteristics like menstruation shouldn’t deny women dignity and that such stigma has no place in the constitutional order.

Chandrachud also addressed the argument that exclusion constitutes untouchability prohibited under Article 17, advocating for an expansive interpretation to prevent social exclusion.

4. Decriminalisation of Adultery (September 2018): Justice Chandrachud held that Section 497 of the IPC was unconstitutional, striking down adultery as a crime. The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2018, deeming it unconstitutional because it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

This archaic law infringed upon a woman’s autonomy and dignity, and the court ruled that it’s rooted in patriarchal notions and beliefs that have led to centuries of female subjugation and oppression.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Section 497 denies women equal protection under the law, violating Article 14. He stated that the ability to make choices within marriage is a fundamental aspect of liberty.

The law was also seen as discriminatory, preserving the institution of marriage in a way that harms women. Chandrachud noted that sexual privacy is a natural right, essential to liberty and dignity, and Section 497 blatantly violates this right.

It’s based on the incorrect idea that women give up their sexual autonomy when they get married. Chandrachud stressed that any discrimination grounded in gender stereotypes is unconstitutional. He labelled Section 497 as “codified patriarchy,” stating that these stereotypes have no place in our constitutional order.

The court also criticised Section 497 for denying women agency, autonomy, and dignity, treating them as their husband’s subjects rather than equals. This marital subordination is inconsistent with the Constitution’s ethos.

The assumption that a husband owns his wife’s sexuality perpetuates a deeply entrenched patriarchal order. Chandrachud stressed that Section 497 is manifestly arbitrary and intended to control women’s sexuality.

Also read | Supreme Court Criticises Uttar Pradesh Over Illegal Demolition Of Houses

5. Hadiya Case (April 2018): Hadiya Jahan’s story was popular and has sparked debates in 2018. She converted to Islam during medical school; she met a guy named Shafin Jahan and married him at 25. But her dad wasn’t having it—he claimed she was brainwashed and her husband had extremist ties.

Hadiya insisted she made her own choices, but the Kerala High Court surprisingly annulled the marriage, calling it a “sham” and giving her dad custody.

The Supreme Court stepped in, overturning the annulment on March 8, 2018, and later ruling on April 9, 2018, that the High Court overstepped its bounds—an adult’s marriage can’t be cancelled without their consent.

Chandrachud ruled that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.

6. Striking Down Section 377 (August 2018): Justice Chandrachud was part of a 5-judge Constitution Bench that decriminalised homosexuality. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a law that made consensual same-sex relations a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

This law, which dates back to the Victorian era, was challenged in court by the Naz Foundation, which argued it was outdated and infringed on human rights.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court agreed, ruling that Section 377 violated the right to privacy and personal liberty. However, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013, stating that only Parliament could decriminalise homosexuality.

In 2018, the Supreme Court revisited the issue and formed a special bench to hear the case, including Justice Chandrachud. On September 6, 2018, they partially struck down Section 377, decriminalising consensual same-sex relations between adults.

The court ruled that Section 377 was discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom, and protection from discrimination, bestowing a major victory for the LGBTQ+ community in India.

7. Ram Mandir Verdict (November 2019): The Ayodhya dispute reached its conclusion on November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict. The court decided that the disputed 2.77 acres of land would be handed over to a trust established by the government to build a temple dedicated to Lord Rama, which is considered the birthplace of the Hindu deity.

As part of the verdict, the court also directed the government to allocate an alternative 5 acres of land in another location to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board. This land would be used to build a new mosque, replacing the demolished Babri Masjid. A 5-judge Constitution Bench, including Justice Chandrachud, ruled that the disputed land be handed over to a trust for constructing a Ram Mandir.

Also read | In Relief For UP Madrasas, Supreme Court Quashes Allahabad High Court Verdict: Top 10 Points

8. Arnab Goswami Case (November 2020): Arnab Goswami’s release from prison after just eight days was made possible by the Supreme Court’s Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee, who heard his interim bail plea along with three others.

This move overturned the Bombay High Court’s decision denying interim bail to Goswami and two others. Goswami was arrested on November 4 and held at Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai in 2020. Justice Chandrachud granted bail to Arnab Goswami in an abetment to suicide case.

9. Electoral Bonds Case (February 2024):  A 5-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Chandrachud struck down the Union government’s electoral bond scheme, declaring it unconstitutional.

10. Minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) (2024): In the ruling regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on Friday, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud determined that the university cannot lose its minority status simply because it was established by statute. The top court emphasised that the claim to minority status should be based on the identity of the entity that established the institution.

The verdict follows decades of legal battles concerning the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In the 1967 Azeez Basha case, the court ruled that AMU does not qualify for minority status, stating that the institution cannot claim such status because it was established by a statute.

(With inputs from Supreme Court Observer)