Ram Mandir, Article 370 and Sabarimala Mandir… CJI Chandrachud will be remembered for these 10 judgments. Trending Global News

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.Image credit source: PTI

Friday was CJI DY Chandrachud’s last legal work day in the Supreme Court. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2016. He was made Chief Justice in November 2022. During his long reign he gave 10 important decisions. Its decisions have touched on issues of privacy, bodily autonomy, federalism, affirmative action, and even arbitration. He has been a part of 1275 benches. He wrote 613 judgments during his tenure. Let’s know about DY Chandrachud’s ten biggest decisions.

1. Fundamental right to privacy. Nine-Judge Bench (Justice KS Patswamy v Central Govt.)
   On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized privacy as a fundamental right, an integral part of an individual’s dignity and autonomy. The matter reached the Supreme Court in 2012 on a petition filed by retired judge KS Pottaswamy, who challenged the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act. It legitimized the country’s unique identification number program. Writing the majority opinion for the bench, Justice Chandrachud said that privacy is a fundamental part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Part of the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. In it, the court relied on the case to reach its landmark decision to criminalize homosexuality.
2. Criminalizing homosexuality. Five-Judge Bench (Notij Singh Johar v. Central Govt.)
   On 6 September 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 in part. A provision that criminalizes same-sex relationships between consenting adults. The court said that under Section 377, the words related to inhumanity will remain in force. Justice Chandrachud said that Article 377 has marginalized a section of citizens. Based on its previous decision in the Pottaswamy case, which recognized the fundamental right to privacy, he held that not recognizing the right to sexual orientation is a denial of privacy. He argued that human sexuality cannot be reduced to a binary formulation, nor can it be narrowed down to its function as a means of reproduction.
3. Criminalize adultery. Five Judge Bench (Joseph Shine v. Union of India)
   On 27 September 2018, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Mishra unanimously criminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under this provision, a person who had sexual relations with the wife of another person was punished. The bench argued that this provision violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. He declared that this section 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 adultery law is a code of conduct of patriarchy. This promoted the reactionary idea of ​​the subordinate nature of women in marriage.
4. Sabarimala Temple Entry Case Five Judge Bench (Indian Young Lawyers Association v Government of Kerala)
   On 28 September 2018, a 4:1 majority held that denying entry to women of menstruating age to the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The bench said that such practice violates the fundamental rights of women to religious freedom, equality and freedom. Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion held that barring women from entering temples is not an essential religious practice and devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious sect under Article 26. According to Justice Chandrachud, it was difficult for the court to position itself as an arbiter of these practices. He seems to prefer to judge any religious practice only against fundamental rights.
5. Ayodhya ownership dispute. Five Judge Bench (M. Siddique vs. Mahant Suresh Das)
   On November 9, 2019, Justice Chandrachud was included in the five-judge bench, which unanimously awarded the ownership rights of the disputed Ayodhya to Shri Ram Lalla Virajaman. It also ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to give an alternative site in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of the mosque.
6. Administration of the National Capital Territory. Five-Judge Bench (Govt. of Delhi vs. Central Govt.)
   On 4 July 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously ruled that the chief minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi is the executive head of the Delhi government. The bench was interpreting Article 239-AA of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for Delhi.
7. Petition for Marriage Equality. Five Judge Bench (Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and others vs. Central Govt.)
   On October 17, 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marriage for sexual minorities. However, the bench unanimously held that transgender or intersex persons can marry in heterosexual relationships. The bench headed by CJI Chandrachud also held that the Special Marriage Act (SMA) 1954 was not discriminatory in excluding heterosexual couples.
8. Five-judge bench challenging abrogation of Article 370 (Article 370 case of the Constitution)
   On 11 December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the central government’s abrogation of Article 370, which had granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). CJI Chandrachud wrote the majority opinion. Justices Kaul and Khanna agreed. All the judges agreed that Article 370 was a temporary provision, designed to meet the immediate needs of the state at that time.
9. Constitutionality of Electoral Bond Scheme (Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India)
   In a major political funding case ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, a five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud unanimously struck down the 2018 electoral bond scheme. The bench said that the scheme violated the right to information of voters enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He believed that information about the financial support a political party received was essential for voters to exercise their freedom to vote.
10. Sub-categorization within SC/ST categories. Seven Judge Bench (Government of Punjab vs Devendra Singh)
    On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delivered a landmark judgment for the debate on affirmative action in the country. By a majority of 8:1, the bench held that the State Governments have the power to sub-categorize the reserved Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.