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.
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.
