Top 10 landmark judgement given by justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Top 10 Landmark Judgements of the D.Y. Chandrachud as Supreme Court Judge 

Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is known for his transformative role in Indian jurisprudence, blending a deep understanding of constitutional values with a progressive outlook on human rights and technology. Appointed as the 50th Chief Justice of India, he has a distinguished career marked by landmark judgments on privacy, equality, and individual freedoms.

Justice Chandrachud’s tenure has focused on making the judiciary more accessible and transparent through digital reforms, promoting live streaming of court hearings, and enabling e-filing to bring justice closer to citizens. His judicial philosophy emphasizes upholding democratic values, protecting civil liberties, and enhancing social justice.

Here are some of the landmark judgments he has delivered that showcase his commitment to a fair, inclusive, and rights- centered judiciary.

1. Ayodhya Dispute Case (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das) - 2019

In one of the most historic cases, the Supreme Court, under CJI Chandrachud's leadership, resolved the decades-long Ayodhya dispute. The court ruled in favor of constructing a Ram Mandir on the disputed land in Ayodhya. The court's decision was based on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which suggested that a temple existed at the site before the Babri Masjid was built. The Court also directed the allocation of a 5-acre plot of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The judgment was widely appreciated for its balanced and comprehensive approach to resolving the contentious issue.

Key Points:

1. The judgment was unanimous, with a 5-judge bench.
2. The judgment emphasized the importance of harmony, peace, and mutual respect among religious communities.
3. The Court did not base its judgment solely on the faith of the people but on historical and archaeological evidence.

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution of India case (2020) 

It was a significant constitutional case that dealt with the revocation of Article 370, which granted special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The case came up for consideration after the Indian government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, which effectively removed the special privileges granted to the state and bifurcated it into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

This case is crucial as it directly examined the constitutional validity of the Presidential orders issued by the government to revoke Article 370 and reorganize the state.

 Electoral Bonds Case (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India) - 2023

1. The Court unanimously held that the Electoral Bonds Scheme violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The right to information was found to be crucial for ensuring the integrity and transparency of the electoral process. The Court observed that voters must be aware of the sources of funding to political parties in order to exercise their voting rights in an effective manner. The anonymity of the donors under the Electoral Bonds Scheme was deemed to create a system where voters could not critically assess the potential influence of money in politics, thereby undermining the democratic process.
2. The Court emphasized that information about political funding is essential for maintaining transparency, accountability, and public trust in the political system. The judgment concluded that the lack of disclosure of the source of funds in the Electoral Bonds Scheme significantly impinged upon the voters' right to make informed choices. This ruling has major implications for political funding and electoral transparency in India, especially in the context of the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections. It mandates that political parties disclose the sources of their donations, ensuring a more transparent and accountable election process.

Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) - 2017

The landmark judgment, delivered by a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case arose from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, which required citizens to link their biometric data with a unique identification number. The bench, with CJI Chandrachud playing a key role, held that privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Key Points:

1. The Court held that privacy is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions.
2. The judgment laid down guidelines on data protection and surveillance.
3. It had a profound impact on various legislations, including the Aadhaar Act.

5. Decriminalization of Section 377 (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) - 2018

CJI Chandrachud was part of the bench that struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations. This decision was a significant step toward LGBTQ+ rights in India, declaring that the provision was unconstitutional and violated the right to equality and the right to life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Key Points:

1. The Court ruled that consensual same-sex acts between adults should not be criminalized.
2. The judgment emphasized individual autonomy and dignity as protected under the Constitution.
3. It was hailed as a landmark victory for LGBTQ+ rights.

6. Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala) - 2018

In this case, the Supreme Court, under CJI Chandrachud, lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into the Sabarimala temple. The Court ruled that the restriction violated the right to equality and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.

Key Points:

1. The Court recognized that the practice of excluding women from the temple was discriminatory and lacked constitutional validity.
2. The judgment emphasized that religious practices must not conflict with constitutional rights.

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Anr. v. Union of India (2021)

1. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, refused to recognize the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages under Indian law. The bench stated that the matter of recognizing same-sex marriages falls within the domain of legislative policy rather than judicial interpretation. The Court expressed that while same-sex couples have the right to live together, express their love, and live without fear of persecution, the institution of marriage is traditionally understood as being between a man and a woman, and any change to this definition requires a law enacted by the legislature.
2. The Court noted that marriage laws in India, particularly under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954, and other personal laws, were silent on the issue of same-sex marriages and explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The Bench also highlighted the societal context and cultural norms in India, suggesting that changes in the recognition of marriage could not be judicially imposed but must come through a democratic legislative process.

8. Fundamental Right to Access the Internet (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India) - 2020

This judgment, delivered by CJI Chandrachud, addressed the issue of internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. The Court ruled that the right to access the internet is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Key Points:

1. The Court emphasized that any suspension of internet access must be reasonable, proportionate, and based on a legitimate aim.
2. It laid down guidelines for the imposition of internet shutdowns and emphasized transparency in government orders.

X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government and Anr. (2022)

1. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her the right to terminate her pregnancy. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the right to make decisions regarding one’s reproductive health is a fundamental aspect of a woman’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment reaffirmed that bodily autonomy and dignity are central to women's rights, and denying unmarried women the right to an abortion would constitute a violation of these rights.
2. The Court also took a gender-neutral approach, asserting that the MTP Act should not differentiate between married and unmarried women, as the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy affect all women equally.

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (I) and (II) (2018) 

1. The Supreme Court, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled that Delhi's Chief Minister is the executive head of the Delhi government, and the Lieutenant Governor should act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the CM. The Court concluded that the Lieutenant Governor's powers are not absolute, and the role of the Lieutenant Governor is limited to situations where there is a difference of opinion between the Delhi government and the Union Government.
2. The Bench interpreted Article 239AA, which provides for a Legislative Assembly in Delhi, and emphasized that the elected government in Delhi, headed by the CM, is entitled to exercise the executive powers of the Delhi government, barring matters relating to public order, police, and land—which remain under the jurisdiction of the Union Government. The Court noted that Delhi's status as a Union Territory gives it a special structure, but this does not mean the CM is subordinate to the Lieutenant Governor.
3. The Court held that the LG cannot act independently, and decisions should be made based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The LG should not withhold decisions, but if there is a disagreement with the Delhi government, the matter may be referred to the President of India. The judgment highlighted the constitutional principle of representative democracy, affirming that an elected government, under the leadership of the CM, should be in charge of the administration in Delhi, subject to the exceptions mentioned.