LANDMARK JUDGMENTS of Justice DY Chandrachud & How CJI is appointed ?

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