20 important judgments passed by Justice DY Chandrachud as Supreme Court judge

Justice DY Chandrachud, the 50th Chief Justice of India, will demit office on November 10, leaving behind a legacy of landmark verdicts.

Born on November 11, 1959, he comes from a family with a rich legal heritage. He is the son of India's longest-serving, Chief Justice YV Chandrachud.

During his eight-year stint at the Supreme Court, Justice Chandrachud has authored over 600 judgments and been part of more than 1,200 benches. In this time, he passed verdicts on issues such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech and gender justice, among others.

With Justice Chandrachud's tenure drawing to a close on November 10, we take a look at his most significant judgments and notable dissents in matters of public importance.

1. Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21

Case Title: Justice (Retd) KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Others

In this case, a nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Chandrachud (as he was then), writing for the majority, highlighted that privacy is an essential part of the dignity of human existence.

He further held that happiness derives from the right to decide for oneself and dignity, which are both essential attributes of privacy. Justice Chandrachud was of the view that privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of personal life, marriage, home and sexual orientation.

2. Decriminalising Homosexuality

Case Title: Navtej Johar v. Union of India and Others

A five-judge Constitution Bench decriminalised gay sex between consenting adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court unanimously found that Section 377 discriminates against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

In his opinion, Justice Chandrachud stated that Section 377 had pushed a group of individuals to the sidelines. Placing reliance on his prior decision in Puttaswamy, which had established the basic right to privacy, he stated that not recognising the right to sexual orientation constituted a violation of privacy.

3. Refusal to allow same-sex marriage

Case Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of India

In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously refused to recognise the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages.

The Court said that the law as it stands today does not recognise the right to marry or the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, and that it is up to the parliament to make laws enabling the same.

The majority held that civil unions between same-sex couples are not recognised under law and they cannot claim the right to adopt children either. Justice Chandrachud disagreed with the majority decision on the limited aspect of terming same-sex relations as civil unions. 

He ruled that it would be within the domain of parliament to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages. He said that the decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and the nine-judge Constitution Bench decision in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr v. Union of India & Ors recognises the right of couples to exercise the choice to enter into a union.

4. Decriminalising Adultery by striking down Section 497 IPC

Case Title: Joseph Shine v. Union of India

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalised adultery.

The Court, however, clarified that adultery will be a ground for divorce. It also stated that if an act of adultery leads the aggrieved spouse to suicide, the adulterous partner could be prosecuted for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud held that Section 497 is based on viewing women as chattel, seeks to control sexuality of women, and impedes the autonomy and dignity of women.

5. Permanent Commission for Woman officers

Case Title: Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others

The Court allowed the grant of permanent commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers on par with their male counterparts.

Justice Chandrachud took critical note of the need to change mindsets about gender stereotypes that view women as the weaker sex.

The Court added that that the Centre’s line of reasoning in its submissions were not only disturbing but also insulting to the dignity of the Indian Army - both men and women personnel.

It pointed out that the decision to extend permanent commission opportunities to women officers in all ten streams of the Armed Forces would mark a step forward in recognising the right of equal opportunity in the Army.

6. Right of unmarried woman to abortion

Case Title: X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government and anr

In this case, a three-judge Bench headed by CJI Chandrachud held that provisions in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) allowing termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks cannot be denied to a woman merely because she is unmarried.

Thus, even unmarried women who become pregnant from consensual sexual relationships are entitled to terminate pregnancy up to 24 weeks, the Bench held.

7. Allowing entry of women into Sabarimala temple

Case Title: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala and Others

A five-judge Constitution Bench by a 4:1 majority held that women, irrespective of their age, have the right to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The Court struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which was the basis for barring entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 years to the Sabarimala temple.

The Bench delivered four judgments including a dissent from Justice Indu Malhotra.

Justice Chandrachud noted that prohibiting the entry of women into the temple was not an 'essential religious practice' and that Lord Ayyappa’s devotees didn’t constitute a 'religious denomination' under Article 26 of Constitution.

8. Settling the Ayodhya title dispute

Case Title: M Siddiq Through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over to the Hindu parties for the construction of the Ram Mandir.

At the same time, the Court held that a plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque. It had observed that the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was a violation of law.

It also noted based on the findings of a report by the Archaeological Survey of India, that there was no evidence to suggest that the underlying structure was a temple dedicated to Lord Ram. 

An interesting fact was that the author of the judgment was not disclosed.

9. Upholding abrogation of Article 370

Case Title: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution

A Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the Central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which had conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court unanimously upheld the decision of the government to take away Article 370 on the ground that the same was a transitory provision. It also refused to decide on the validity of the 2019 law to bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories (UT).

In the main opinion, Justice Chandrachud held that J&K has always been an integral part of India and that the special status it enjoyed was simply a type of asymmetric federalism and not an indication that it enjoyed separate sovereignty.

10. Striking down Electoral Bonds scheme

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr v. Union of India Cabinet Secretary and ors

In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme that allowed anonymous donations to political parties.

The Court unanimously quashed the scheme as well as amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act which had made the donations anonymous. Justice Chandrachud held that the scheme, due to its anonymous nature, was violative of the right to information and thus hits free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Court also pressed State Bank of India (SBI) for details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties since April 12, 2019, even as the Bank dallied over disclosing the same ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

11. Determining administration of National Capital of Delhi

Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (I) and (II)

First in 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, while interpreting Article 239AA of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for Delhi, held that the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi was the executive head of the Delhi government.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud explained 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, another five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Delhi government would have control over all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except those pertaining to land, police and law and order.

Justice Chandrachud held that if services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the ministers and the executive who are charged with formulating policies in the national capital territory would be excluded from controlling civil service officers who implement such decisions.

12. Shivsena versus Shivsena: Decision in Maharashtra political crisis

Case Title: Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and ors

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to call for a floor test based on the request of 34 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena was incorrect. The Court found that Koshyari did not have enough objective material before him to conclude that then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the house.

Justice Chandrachud, however, held that the status quo cannot be restored since Thackeray did not face the floor test, but chose to resign.

The Court held that Governors have no power to enter the political arena or take part in any intra-party or inter-party disputes.

13. No immunity for MPs/MLAs taking bribes for votes or speeches

Case Title: Sita Soren v Union of India

In a landmark ruling this March, the Supreme Court held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) cannot claim immunity under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution if accused of taking bribes.

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud delivered a unanimous verdict.

The Court overturned its 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State, which had previously granted such immunity for votes cast in legislative houses.

14. Minority status of Aligarh Muslim University

Case Title: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal and ors

A seven-judge Constitution Bench by 4:3 majority held that the minority status of an educational institute will not cease merely because parliament enacts a law to regulate such institute or that the institute is being administered by non-minority members.

Justice Chandrachud, writing for the majority, overruled the 1968 judgment in S Azeez Basha v. Union of India in which it was held that the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had ceased because of a parliamentary law regulating the University.

The Court said that in order to determine whether an institution is a minority institution, what needs to be looked at is who established the institution. The administration by non-minority members will not take away the minority character of an institution.

It held that Article 30 of the Constitution, which confers a fundamental right on minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, applies even to institutions established by minorities before the Constitution came into force.

15. Holding sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes permissible

Case Title: State of Punjab and ors vs Davinder Singh and ors

A seven-judge Constitution Bench, by a 6:1 majority, upheld the power of States to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) into different groups based on their inter se backwardness for extending the benefits of reservation.

In his main opinion, Justice Chandrachud overruled the 2005 judgment of EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had held that sub-classification of SC/STs is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution which confers the right on the President of India to prepare the list of SC/STs.

The Court said that historical evidence and social parameters clearly showed that all SC/STs do not constitute a homogenous class. Thus, sub-classification of SC/STs by states will not fall foul of Article 341.

15. Recognising passive euthanasia and right to die with dignity

Case Title: Common Cause vs Union of India

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Court said that an individual’s right to execute advance medical directives is an assertion of the right to bodily integrity and self-determination, and does not depend on any recognition or legislation by a State.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Chandrachud ruled that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and the same includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

The Court also laid down guidelines governing execution and enforcement of advance directives as well as the procedure to be followed for passive euthanasia in case there is no living will/advance directive.

17. Independent probe into Judge Loya death

Case Title: Tehseen Poonawalla & Ors v Union of India & Another

In April 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of BH Loya, the judge hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case in which current Union Minister Amit Shah was as accused.

A three-judge bench comprising then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud ruled that there was no reason to question the consistent testimonies of four judicial officers on the chain of events leading to Loya's death.

Justice Chandrachud stated that documentary evidence confirmed that Judge Loya's death was due to natural causes.

The judgement also recorded that the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors in this case was “lacking in bona fides and reveals a misuse of judicial process” while dismissing this petition and declaring any other transferred cases and pending applications disposed.

The Court also criticised the petitioners for casting aspersions on the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court and on the judges of the Supreme Court.

It had noted that even Supreme Court judges were not spared, referencing Prashant Bhushan's request for the recusal of Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud from the case.

18. Quashing MediaOne ban and rejecting Centre's sealed cover

Caste Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited Versus Union of India & Ors

The Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne citing national security concerns was set aside by the Supreme Court in April last year.

The top court turned down the argument of the Central government that certain broadcasts by the channel affected national security, saying such claims cannot be made in thin air.

Pertinently, the Court observed that it is the duty of the press to speak truth to power and critical views aired by the media cannot be termed 'anti-establishment'.

Sealed cover proceedings violate the principles of natural justice and curb the right to fair and reasonable proceedings leaving appellants in the dark, the top court opined.

The Central government had disclosed its reasons behind the ban to the Kerala High Court in a sealed cover. MediaOne was not made privy to those reasons.

19. Win for DMRC as arbitral award to Anil Ambani's firm nullified

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

In a rather unusual judgment in April 2024, a Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud allowed the curative petition filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) challenging the Supreme Court's September 2021 judgment that had upheld a ₹2,800 crore arbitral award in favor of the Anil Ambani firm, Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL).

The Court clarified that its curative jurisdiction should not be used to open a floodgate of cases. However, in this particular case, it was stated that the Supreme Court 2021 verdict had erred in interfering with the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order which had set aside the arbitral award.

20. Unstamped arbitration agreements inadmissible but not void

Case Title: In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act

A seven-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that while unstamped arbitration agreements are inadmissible, they are not rendered void ab initio (void from the beginning) on account of the fact that they are unstamped.

While overruling its five-judge bench decision in NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & Ors case, the Court said that the effect of not paying duty renders an instrument inadmissible and not void and non-payment of stamp duty is curable.

Justice Chandrachud ruled that the aspect of whether the arbitration agreement has been stamped or not, is for the arbitral tribunal to decide and not the courts.

1. Seeking votes in the name of religion is a corrupt practice

Case Title: Abhiram Singh v. CD Commachen (Dead) by LRs and Others

A seven-judge Constitution Bench by a 4:3 majority held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to a 'corrupt practice', and that the election of a candidate who indulged in the same can be set aside.

The majority ruled that an appeal in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language is impermissible under the Representative of People Act, 1951 and would constitute a corrupt practice.

Justice Chandrachud, who formed part of the minority, said that such interference by the Court almost amounted to judicial redrafting of law. The minority said that prohibiting candidates from articulating issues affecting voters would reduce democracy to an abstraction.

2. Constitutionality of Aadhaar

Case Title: Justice (Retd) KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Others

In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench by 4:1 majority upheld the validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

The Court held that Aadhaar did not infringe rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of Constitution. The majority also held that the Aadhaar Act was legitimately passed by Parliament as a Money Bill.

In his dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud said that the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was a “fraud on the Constitution” and a subterfuge.

He also came down on the Central government for issuing various notifications in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim orders.

He stated that propriety demanded that the Centre should have approached the Supreme Court for variation of its orders before resorting to such steps.

Justice Chandrachud would dissent once again, even as a five-judge Constitution Bench by a 4:1 majority dismissed the review petitions against the 2018 judgment, which had upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Scheme.

Justice Chandrachud said that if these review petitions are to be dismissed, it would have serious consequences not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice.

He opined that the review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Roger Mathew. In Roger Mathew, the Court had doubted the correctness of the interpretation of the majority judgment which held that Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

3. Bhima Koregaon arrests

Case Title: Romila Thapar and Others v. Union of India

In this case, a three-judge Bench by 2:1 majority held that the Bhima Koregaon accused, who were demanding a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, were not entitled to demand a specific mode of investigation.

Justice Chandrachud raised concerns on the investigation conducted by the Pune Police. He questioned the conduct of the Pune Police in approaching the media while the investigation was still underway.

According to him, the selective disclosure of details by the police to the media created public bias against the accused and cast doubts on the impartiality of the investigation, therefore, necessitating the need for an SIT probe as prayed by accused.