India
Statements that made headlines: As CJI DY Chandrachud bids farewell to the Supreme Court, a look at his top 10 statements | India News – Times of India
CJI DY Chandrachud. (Photo/agencies)
A ceremonial bench of four judges met for Justice Chandrachud’s farewell ceremony on Friday, including CJI designate Sanjiv Khanna, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. “You asked me what keeps me going. It is this court that 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 said. noted.
His stint as a Supreme Court judge saw several landmark judgments, with the outgoing CJI writing 613 judgments, of which 500 were written as a puisne judge.
Also read: CJI DY Chandrachud’s emotional farewell speech: ‘There is no greater feeling than being able to serve people in need’
Here are the top 10 judgments that the 50th head of the Indian judiciary was part of during his tenure as a Supreme Court judge:
1 Right to privacy
In Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)a bench of nine judges declared that privacy is a fundamental right. Justice Chandrachud, who wrote the majority opinion, held that privacy was essential to personal liberty under Article 21 and other freedoms in Part III of the Constitution.
The nine judges of the Supreme Court have rejected previous rulings on the issue – a ruling by eight judges in the MP Sharma case and a six-judge judgment in the Kharak Singh case, both of which had ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right. The bench consisted of Justices Khehar, J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, RF Nariman, AM Sapre, D Y ChandrachudSanjay K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.
This ruling formed the basis for later decisions that decriminalized adultery and homosexuality.
3 Decriminalization of homosexuality
In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018)A five-judge bench has unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), decriminalizing same-sex relationships between consenting adults.
Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, based on 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 decriminalizing Section 377 is only a first step,” CJI noted.
3 Decriminalization of adultery
The Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) In the case, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra unanimously decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the IPC. The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the 158-year-old section that punished a married man for the crime of adultery if he had sexual relations with a married woman “without the consent or knowledge of her husband.” be grounds for divorce.
Justice Chandrachud, in a unanimous opinion, criticized the provision as patriarchal and said it treated women as subordinate. “This court has recognized sexual privacy as a natural right, protected by the Constitution. Restricting a woman’s sexual freedom and criminalizing consensual relationships is a denial of this right. Section 497 deprives a married woman of her agency and identity, using the force of law to perpetuate a patriarchal conception of marriage, which is contrary to constitutional morality,” Justice Chandrachud said. He added that marriage cannot force an individual to relinquish her sexual autonomy to others.
4 Entrance to Sabarimala Temple
In Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (2018)A five-judge bench ruled that banning women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala temple violates their right to equality and freedom.
Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion said the ban was not an essential religious practice. He advocated examining religious practices in the 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. Land dispute in Ayodhya
In M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das (2019)a five-judge bench, headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, awarded the disputed Ayodhya site to the deity Shri Ram Virajmanwith an alternative site in Ayodhya made available to the Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque.
The court considered the demolition of the Babri Mosque a violation of the law, but found evidence that Hindu claims to the site were stronger. The Court observed: “The evidence as to the claim of possession of the Hindus over the aggregate of the disputed properties is on a better basis than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”
6. Governance of Delhi
In Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of IndiaA five-judge bench ruled that the Chief Minister of Delhi, and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG), was the executive head. Justice Chandrachud ruled that the LG was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers on areas in which the Delhi government could legislate.
In 2023, a separate bench headed by CJI Chandrachud ruled that the Delhi Legislative Assembly had control over government departments, except law and order, police and land.
7 Same-sex marriage
In Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India (2023)A five-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud rejected the plea to legalize same-sex marriage and extend adoption rights to queer couples, in a setback to the push for equal treatment of people with alternative sexual orientation.
SC ruled that there is no fundamental right to marriage for sexual minorities, but allowed transgender people in heterosexual relationships to marry. The court also ruled that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, is not discriminatory in excluding non-heterosexual couples.
8 Repeal of Article 370
In Subject: 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. The majority view of CJI Chandrachud held that Article 370 was a temporary provision, intended for immediate needs, and did not confer separate sovereignty on J&K.
9 Electoral Bonds scheme
In Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2024)a five-judge bench unanimously dismissed the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme as 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 an immediate halt 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 headed by CJI Chandrachud held that state governments could create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories based on different levels of discrimination.
The Court ruled that laws creating subclassifications must be supported by empirical evidence and can be challenged in court.
