NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, who will retire on November 10, marked his final working day at the Supreme Court on Friday, ending a tenure that began with his elevation to the top court in 2016 and his appointment as CJI in November 2022.
A ceremonial bench of four justices assembled on Friday, for the farewell ceremony of Justice Chandrachud, including CJI-designate Sanjiv Khanna, Justices J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. “You asked me what keeps me going. It is this court which has kept me going because there is not a single day when you feel that you have not learned something, that you have not had an opportunity to serve the society,” the CJI remarked.
His time as a Supreme Court judge saw several landmark judgments, with the outgoing CJI authoring 613 judgments, 500 of which were written as a puisne judge.
Also read: CJI DY Chandrachud’s emotional farewell speech: ‘No greater feeling than being able to serve those in need’
Here are the top 10 judgements that the 50th head of the Indian judiciary has been part of during his tenure as Supreme Court judge:
1 Right to privacy
In Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench declared privacy a fundamental right. Justice Chandrachud, authoring the majority opinion, held that privacy was essential to personal liberty under Article 21 and other freedoms in Part III of the Constitution.
The apex court’s nine-judge bench overruled previous judgments on the issue- an eight-judge bench judgment in the MP Sharma case and a six-judge bench judgment in Kharak Singh case, both of which had ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right. The bench comprised Justices Khehar, J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.
This ruling provided the basis for later decisions that decriminalized adultery and homosexuality.
3 Decriminalizing homosexuality
In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018), a five-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), decriminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults.
Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, drawing from the Puttaswamy judgment, emphasized that denying the right to sexual orientation was a violation of privacy. “Human sexuality cannot be reduced to a binary formulation and decriminalising Section 377 is but a first step,” CJI observed.
3 Decriminalizing adultery
The Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) case saw a five-judge bench, led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, unanimously decriminalize adultery under Section 497 of the IPC. The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the 158-year-old Section that punished a married man for the offence of adultery if he had sexual relations with a married woman “without the consent or connivance of her husband”, but said adultery could continue to be a ground for divorce.
Justice Chandrachud, in a concurring opinion, criticized the provision as patriarchal, saying it viewed women as subordinate in marriage. “This court has recognised sexual privacy as a natural right, protected under the Constitution. To shackle the sexual freedom of a woman and allow the criminalisation of consensual relationships is denial of this right. Section 497 denudes a married woman of her agency and identity, employing force of law to preserve a patriarchal conception of marriage which is at odds with constitutional morality,” Justice Chandrachud said. He added that marriage could not force an individual to cede her sexual autonomy to others.
4 Sabarimala temple entry
In Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala (2018), a five-judge bench ruled that banning women of menstruating age from Sabarimala temple violated their rights to equality and liberty.
Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion said that the ban was not an essential religious practice. He advocated for examining religious practices in light of fundamental rights. “Any custom or religious practice that violates the dignity of women by denying them entry because of her physiology is unconstitutional,” Justice Chandrachud had observed.
5. Ayodhya land dispute
In M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das (2019), a five-judge bench, led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, awarded the disputed Ayodhya site to the deity Shri Ram Virajman, with an alternate site in Ayodhya provided to the Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque.
The bench noted the Babri masjid’s demolition as a violation of law but found evidence for Hindu claims to the site to be stronger. The Court observed, “The evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”
6. Administration of Delhi
In Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India, a five-judge bench held that the chief minister of Delhi, not the Lieutenant Governor (LG), was the executive head. Justice Chandrachud ruled that the LG was bound by the council of ministers’ advice on areas where the Delhi Government could make laws.
In 2023, a separate bench led by CJI Chandrachud held that the Delhi legislative assembly had control over civil services except for public order, police, and land.
7 Same-sex marriage
In Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India (2023), a five-judge bench, led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, rejected the plea to legalise same-sex marriages and extend the right of adoption to queer couples, in a setback to the push for equal treatment of those with alternative sexual orientation.
SC ruled that there is no fundamental right to marriage for sexual minorities but allowed transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry. The bench also held that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 is not discriminatory for excluding non-heterosexual couples.
8 Abrogation of Article 370
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023), the Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s abrogation of some clauses of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. CJI Chandrachud’s majority opinion held that Article 370 was a temporary provision, designed for immediate needs, and did not grant separate sovereignty to J&K.
9 Electoral Bonds scheme
In Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2024), a five-judge bench unanimously struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, saying it violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In three subsequent hearings, after the decision was pronounced, the Court ordered the immediate end to all sales of Electoral Bonds and ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to publish all data on Electoral Bond transactions.
10 Sub-classification within SC/ST categories
In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024), a seven-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud held that state governments could create sub-classifications within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories based on varying levels of discrimination.
The Court ruled that laws creating sub-classifications must be supported by empirical evidence and could be challenged in court.