Rehan Khan
Today marks the final day of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure in the Supreme Court of India. Appointed to the apex court in 2016 and elevated to the position of Chief Justice in November 2022, Justice Chandrachud has presided over numerous landmark cases in his career, leaving an indelible impact on India’s judicial landscape. His decisions have spanned critical areas, including privacy rights, bodily autonomy, federalism, and affirmative action, reflecting his progressive approach to justice and commitment to constitutional values.
During his time on the bench, Justice Chandrachud participated in 1,275 benches and authored 613 judgments, with a substantial number delivered as a puisne judge. This article highlights his ten most influential judgments, which have left a lasting impact on India’s legal and social framework.
1) Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
Case: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
In a historic decision, a nine-judge bench unanimously ruled that privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This judgment, authored by Justice Chandrachud, affirmed that privacy is an essential part of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. The case arose from a petition challenging the Aadhaar Act, which mandated a unique identity number for citizens. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right subsequently influenced other landmark decisions, such as those decriminalizing homosexuality and adultery.
2) Decriminalizing Homosexuality
Case: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
In a unanimous decision, a five-judge bench decriminalized same-sex relationships between consenting adults by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion highlighted that the previous criminalization had marginalized LGBTQ+ individuals. He emphasized that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of an individual’s privacy, dignity, and identity. This judgment, rooted in the right to privacy, opened doors to broader recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in India.
3) Decriminalizing Adultery
Case: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
The Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which previously punished men for engaging in relationships with married women. Justice Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, criticized the law as patriarchal and discriminatory, upholding that it treated women as the property of their husbands. This judgment reinforced gender equality and a woman’s autonomy within marriage.
4) Sabarimala Temple Entry for Women
Case: Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court struck down the Sabarimala temple’s ban on women of menstruating age, declaring it unconstitutional. Justice Chandrachud argued that the restriction was not an “essential religious practice” and highlighted that religious practices should be subject to constitutional scrutiny. This judgment ignited debates on religious freedom and women’s rights, with Justice Chandrachud emphasizing that exclusion based on gender violates equality and dignity.
5) Ayodhya Title Dispute
Case: M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019)
In one of the most anticipated judgments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the deity Shri Ram Virajman in the Ayodhya land dispute, while also granting the Sunni Waqf Board an alternative site to build a mosque. The decision, penned collectively by the bench, underscored the historical complexities of the dispute and recognized the legal rights of Hindus to the disputed property. Justice Chandrachud, in public statements, later expressed hope for an amicable resolution to such divisive issues.
6) Administration of the National Capital Territory
Cases: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018, 2023)
Justice Chandrachud was part of significant rulings determining the administrative powers of the Delhi government. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the Chief Minister of Delhi, not the Lieutenant Governor, held executive powers. In a later judgment authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud, the Court reiterated that the Delhi government has complete control over civil services, except in areas such as law and order and land. This interpretation of Article 239AA reinforced the principle of representative government for Delhi’s residents.
7) Plea for Marriage Equality
Case: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023)
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples do not have a fundamental right to marriage. However, Justice Chandrachud’s opinion included a partial dissent where he supported civil unions for LGBTQ+ individuals, acknowledging them as a form of intimate association protected under Article 19. While the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, Justice Chandrachud’s dissent advanced the dialogue around civil rights for LGBTQ+ couples.
8) Abrogation of Article 370
Case: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)
The Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Writing for the majority, Justice Chandrachud argued that the provision was temporary and did not imply separate sovereignty for the state. This decision, affirming Jammu and Kashmir’s integration with India, emphasized the Court’s support for legislative sovereignty in matters of national interest.
9) Electoral Bonds and Political Funding Transparency
Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)
Ahead of the 2024 general elections, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, declaring it unconstitutional. The judgment noted that transparency in political funding is essential for a healthy democracy, as voters have a right to know the sources of political financing. The decision highlighted the scheme’s vulnerabilities, prompting an order to end the sale of electoral bonds and require transparency in political donations.
10) Sub-classification within SC/ST Categories
Case: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)
In a landmark ruling on affirmative action, the Supreme Court held that states have the authority to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation purposes. Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that different SC/ST communities experience varying degrees of discrimination, thus justifying sub-classifications. This judgment, however, stipulated that any such classifications must be backed by empirical evidence, ensuring a just application of affirmative action policies.
Other Noteworthy Contributions
In addition to these ten landmark cases, Justice Chandrachud has contributed significantly to arbitration jurisprudence, private property rights, and the legal definition of minority educational institutions.
- Arbitration Jurisprudence: Justice Chandrachud’s recent rulings clarified that unstamped arbitration agreements are valid and upheld the “Group of Companies” doctrine, allowing non-signatories to be parties to arbitration agreements. These decisions strengthen the arbitration framework in India, encouraging efficient dispute resolution.
- Private Property and Community Resources: In a ruling on Article 39(b) in 2024, the Court held that not all private property constitutes community resources. Justice Chandrachud’s judgment emphasized that economic democracy requires a balanced approach to property rights.
- Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim University: Revisiting the criteria for minority institutions under Article 30, Justice Chandrachud held that “establishment” alone is enough to grant minority status, overturning previous rulings. This interpretation will impact future cases on minority educational institutions.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s legacy reflects a commitment to upholding constitutional values, especially regarding individual autonomy, equality, and justice. His judgments have modernized Indian jurisprudence, reflecting a balance between traditional principles and progressive thought. From affirming privacy rights to pushing the boundaries of affirmative action and LGBTQ+ rights, his tenure has brought greater clarity and inclusiveness to Indian law.
As he retires, Justice Chandrachud leaves behind a body of work that will continue to influence India’s legal landscape for years to come. His judgments embody a judicial philosophy that values the dignity and autonomy of individuals, ensuring that the Indian judiciary remains a bastion of constitutional protection. His leadership as Chief Justice will be remembered for his intellectual rigor, empathy, and dedication to upholding the ideals enshrined in the Indian Constitution.