CJI Chandrachud’s top 10 judgements

Hello everyone! Welcome to SCO Explains. Earlier this week, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired from the Supreme Court after an 8-and-a-half-year-long tenure. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud’s long tenure as a Supreme Court judge cannot be contained in snap assessments and pithy one-liners. 

His career is an elaborate, tangled legacy, best suited to analysis that is willing to navigate the greys that exist between the black and white of the legal profession. And so, we’ve identified a list of top 10 judgements that stand out in his career. 

Admittedly, picking the top ten decisions is no easy task. In this list, we’ve tried to capture judgements that have moved the needle of jurisprudence and left a dent in public life and its interaction with polity and personal rights. 

So join us as my colleagues Spandana, Gauri and I (Advay) make our way through the list. Let’s begin! 

1) Fundamental right to privacy 

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India

On 24 August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right, integral to an individual’s dignity and autonomy. 

Authoring the majority opinion, Justice Chandrachud held that privacy was an “intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.” The Court relied on this case to arrive at its landmark decisions to decriminalise adultery and homosexuality.

2) Decriminalising homosexuality 

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India 

On 6 September 2018, a unanimous five-judge bench partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a provision which used to criminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults. 

In his concurring opinion, which was longer than all other opinions in the decision, Justice Chandrachud observed that Section 377 had reduced a class of citizens to the margins. Drawing on his previous right to privacy judgement, he noted that non-recognition of the right to sexual orientation was a denial of privacy. He stated that human sexuality could not be “reduced to a binary formulation” nor could it be “defined narrowly in terms of its function as a means to procreation.”

3) Decriminalisation of adultery

Joseph Shine v Union of India

On 27 September 2018, a five-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra unanimously decriminalised adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The provision imposed liability on a man who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man’s wife. They declared that Section 497 was archaic and infringed on a woman’s autonomy and dignity.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud wrote that “the law in adultery is a codified rule of patriarchy” and it perpetrated the regressive idea of the “subordinate nature of women in a marriage.” 

4) Sabarimala temple entry

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala

On 28 September 2018, a 4:1 majority held that denying women of menstruating age entry into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional as it violated their fundamental rights to freedom of religion, equality and liberty. 

Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion noted that prohibiting the entry of women into the temple was not an “essential religious practice” and that Lord Ayyappa’s devotees did not constitute a “religious denomination” under Article 26. 

5) Ayodhya title dispute 

M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das

On 9 November 2019, a five-judge bench consisting of Justice Chandrachud unanimously awarded the disputed Ayodhya title to the deity, Shri Ram Virajman and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to grant the Sunni Waqf Board an alternate site in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. 

The judgement, written in 1,045 pages, was per curiam, meaning that it was written on behalf of the Court as a whole, and the author of the judgement remained anonymous. The Court overturned the 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court which had divided the title equally among Nirmohi Akhara, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Shri Ram Virajman. in the Days leading up to the retirement, in a lecture, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said that he sat before the deity looking for a solution for the Ayodhya dispute.

6) Administration of the National Capital Region 

Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India (I), Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India (II) 

On 4 July 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously held that the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi was the executive head of the Delhi government. The bench was interpreting Article 239AA of the Constitution which deals with special provisions for Delhi. 

In yet another concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud observed that the executive power of the Delhi government is co-extensive with the legislative power, and that the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers on matters where the Delhi Government has the power to make laws.

Five years later in another decision CJI Chandrachud held that the Delhi legislative assembly had complete control over civil services and could legislate on all matters in the State List except public order, police and land.

7) Plea for marriage equality 

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India

On 17 October 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry for sexual minorities in the country. The bench, however, unanimously declared that transgender or intersex persons in heterosexual relationships can marry. It also held that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 is not discriminatory for excluding non-heterosexual couples. 

CJI Chandrachud was in the minority in this case. He held that non-heterosexual couples have the right to form “civil unions” under Article 19 describing these as “intimate associations” rooted in the expression of gender identity and sexual orientation. 

8) Challenge to abrogation of Article 370 

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution

On 11 December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. CJI Chandrachud wrote the majority opinion. All judges agreed that Article 370 was a temporary provision, designed to accommodate the immediate needs of the erstwhile state. 

The Chief also held that J&K was always an integral part of India and that the special status it enjoyed was simply a type of asymmetric federalism—not an indication that it enjoyed a separate sovereignty. The Bench also gave a wide reading of the President’s Rule under Article 356, stating that the President has unilateral power under Article 370(3) to abrogate Article 370, since the J&K Constituent Assembly stood dissolved in 1957. 

9) Constitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme 

Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme. The Bench held that the Scheme violated voters’ right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They held that “information about funding to a political party is essential for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote in an effective manner.”

The judgement, authored by CJI Chandrachud, stated that “the Scheme is not fool-proof. There are sufficient gaps in the Scheme which enable political parties to know the particulars of the contributions made to them.” 

10) Sub-classification within SC/ST categories

State of Punjab v Davinder Singh

On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge bench in an 6:1 majority, held that state governments had the power to create sub-classifications within the reserved Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe categories. 

The majority opinion, authored by the CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, held that the different entries in the SC/ST list in the Constitution faced varying degrees of discrimination and inequality. Therefore, sub-classifications were permissible under Article 14 and 15 to combat the battle of “backwardness within backwardness”.

So that’s our list of the biggest cases in former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s career. Do check out our article on this, where we’ve even added a bonus 5 cases in the list. We’ve also got a compilation of CJI Chandrachud’s most notable dissents. Visit SCObserver.in for more! 

Thank you for watching!