How CJI is appointed ?
The outgoing CJI starts the
process of choosing the replacement after receiving a communication from the
Law ministry, in accordance with the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which
controls the procedure of appointment of judges in the higher courts.
According to the MoP, the
senior-most judge on the supreme court is deemed qualified to serve as CJI, and
the opinions of the departing head of the judiciary must be obtained "at
an opportune moment."
The MoP, however, is silent
regarding the deadline for starting the process of proposing the name of the
new CJI.
Judge DY Chandrachur is
renowned for his progressive views and focus on personal liberty, rights, and
privacy in his rulings, from decisions on privacy to gender rights.
Justice DY Chandrachud took
oath as the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI). Union Law Minister Kiren
Rijiju had earlier tweeted that justice Chandrachud
will be India's CJI with effect from November 8 and will take oath on November
9.
Justice Chandrachud succeeded
Justice UU Lalit. Chandrachud will serve as the CJI for two years, leaving
office on November 10, 2024.
Who is Justice
Chandrachud?
Justice Chandrachud,
who was appointed to the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, is the son of YV
Chandrachud, who served as Chief Justice of India for the longest period of
time, from February 22, 1978, to July 11, 1985.
From October 31, 2013,
to May 12, 2016, Chandrachud was the Chief Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
From March 29, 2000, till his appointment as Chief Judge of the Allahabad High
Court, he served as a judge of the Bombay High Court.
The Bombay High Court
recognised Chandrachud as a senior counsel in June 1998, and he later held the
position of Additional Solicitor General up till his nomination as a judge.
Justice Chandrachud graduated with a BSc in Economics with
Honors from St. Stephen's College in New Delhi. He then went on to earn his LLB
from Campus Law Centre in Delhi University and his SJD and LLM from Harvard Law
School in the United States.
He was a visiting professor of comparative constitutional law at
the University of Mumbai and also practised law at the Supreme Court and Bombay
High Court.
Top judgments
made by Justice Chandrachud
Among legal and Lutyens circles, Judge
Chandrachud is regarded as a revolutionary legal fighter who has delivered
numerous landmark decisions that have advanced the cause of social change,
particularly in the areas of gender rights and privacy.
Overturning his own father's verdict on privacy rights
The
Supreme Court's nine-judge panel unanimously declared in August 2017 that the
Indian Constitution upholds the basic right to privacy. Justice Chandrachud,
along with Justices Khehar, RK Agarwal, and Abdul Nazeer, wrote the majority
judgement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. He acknowledged that
the right to life is inextricably linked to the right to privacy and dignity.
He had
called the 1976 ruling in the well-known ADM Jabalpur case, in which his father
was part of the majority finding by a five-judge constitution bench,
"seriously defective" in his historic opinion proclaiming privacy as
a basic right.
By a vote of 4:1, the five-judge panel ruled
in the ADM Jabalpur case that Article 21 is the exclusive source of all rights
to life and personal liberty and that when it is suspended, those rights are
completely lost.
Entry of women in Sabarimala temple
In the Sabarimala dispute (Indian Young
Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala), Judge Chandrachud sided with the right
of women between the ages of 10 and 50 to visit the Sabarimala Temple and ruled
that denying them entry would be a breach of constitutional morals. He believed
that such a rule violated women's individuality, liberty, and dignity. In a
crucial regard, he pointed out that the decision to forbid menstruation women
from entering a religious setting violated Article 17, which forbids
"untouchability," since it implies that women are impure.
Decriminalisation of Section 377 under
the Indian Penal Code
Judge Chandrachud ruled that Section 377 was a
"anachronistic colonial law" that infringed the fundamental rights to
equality, freedom of expression, life, and privacy in Navtej Johar v. Union of
India. Chandrachud stated in a separate concurring opinion that the
decriminalisation was a first step in securing constitutional rights for the
LGBT population.
On the Aadhaar Act
In
Honorable Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, he was the lone
contrarian, holding that introducing Aadhaar as a Money Bill was illegal.
Aadhaar Act issues regarding an individual's privacy, dignity, and autonomy
have also been reviewed by him.
The arrests at Bhima Koregaon
Justice
Chandarchud dissented and brought up the issue of the rights of the accused in
the Romila Thapar v. Union of India case, which involved the arrest of five
human rights activists for their alleged participation in the violence at Bhima
Koregaon and for being complicit in a plot against Prime Minister Narendra
Modi. He had urged a Special Investigation Team to look into the arrests and
said that the question was whether the arrests violated the accused's
fundamental rights to free expression and personal liberty, which are protected
by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
on the decriminalisation of adultery
In Joseph Shinde vs. Union of India, Judge Chandrachud
served on the court panel that decided to decriminalise adultery as a criminal
offence. Chandrachud agreed with the majority view and stated that Articles 14,
15, and 21 of the Constitution were breached by section 497 of the IPC. He
added that criminalising adultery was founded in patriarchal ideas and had led
to centuries of female subordination as he read down section 198(2) CrPC.
On LG vs. CM in Delhi
Judge
Chandrachud stated that the Lieutenant Governor is not the executive head of
Delhi in his concurring opinion, which is another key ruling with political
ramifications for various parties. He ruled that the Chief Minister and the
Council of Ministers must lead the executive because representative democracy
is a fundamental component of the executive in the case of Government of NCT of
Delhi vs. Union of India. The judge added that the LG had no constitutionally
guaranteed authority to act independently and was therefore bound by the CM's
recommendations.
Twin Towers of Supertech razed
On August 31, 2021, a
bench presided over by Justice Chandrachud affirmed the Allahabad High Court's
decision and approved Supertech's decision to demolish the twin skyscrapers in
Noida on the grounds that they were built unlawfully and in violation of
building codes.
On 'Love
Jihad': Hadiya case
In the Hadiya case, which
was brought by Hadiya's family in 2017, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the
legality of Hadiya and Shafin Jehan's union. The underlying argument has been
referred to as a "love
jihad" allegation in the media. Hadiya's choice of religion and marriage
partner was maintained by Judge Chandrachud in his concurring opinion in the
case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. He also reaffirmed that an adult's right
to choose her marriage partner or religion belongs in her personal space