As the tenure of the 50th Chief Justice of India comes to an end, here’s a glimpse into the life of Justice DY Chandrachud, his academic pursuits, and an illustrious career spanning over two decades.
Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud was born in Mumbai on November 11, 1959. His father, Yashwant Vishnu Chandrachud, served as the 16th and longest serving Chief Justice of India. His mother, Prabha Chandrachud, was a singer for All India Radio.
DY Chandrachud did his Bachelor’s from St. Stephens College in Delhi, obtaining a degree in economics and mathematics in 1979. He went on pursue legal studies from Delhi University, obtaining a Bachelor’s degree in Law in 1982.
He compounded his legal education with an LL.M from Harvard University in 1983 after obtaining the prestigious Inlaks scholarship. At Harvard, he secured the Joseph H. Beale prize for outstanding performance in the Conflict of Laws course. He stayed at Harvard until 1986 to complete his Doctorate in Juridical Sciences.
After returning to India, he enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
CJI Chandrachud’s focus on social causes stems from his days as an advocate. In 1997, then-advocate Dr. Chandrachud, represented a labourer who was denied further employment by the public corporation he worked for after he contracted HIV-AIDS. The Bombay High Court ruled that merely contracting HIV-AIDS was not a ground for violating the labourer’s Right to Livelihood as he was still medically fit to perform his job. Dr. Chandrachud also appeared in cases involving the rights of bonded women laborers, and religious & linguistic minorities
While practicing as an Advocate, CJI Chandrachud remained involved in legal academics by taking a position as a Visiting Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Bombay between 1988 and 1997.
In 1998, he was designated as a Senior Advocate in June, despite being only 38 years old. This designation is rarely given to advocates below the age of 40. He was also appointed as an Additional Solicitor General of India, a position he held until his elevation as a Judge of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000.
The CJI has often spoken about his days as a Judge at the Bombay High Court in glowing terms. He has credited Justice Ranjana Desai, who he served with on a criminal Bench, for the shift in his approach towards crimes agianst women. Chandrachud has admitted that he adopted a ‘straight-jacketed approach’ during his initial days as a Judge, but serving alongside Justice Desai gave him the ‘necessary feminist perspective’ to apply the law to social realities. This perspective became apparent in his Supreme Court judgments like Lt. Colonel Nitisha (2021), where he recognised the concept of indirect discrimination and held that women should also be considered for receiving Permanent Commissions in the Army.
After over a decade at the Bombay High Court, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court on October 31, 2013. He was elevated as a Supreme Court Judge on May 13, 2016, and became the 50th Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2022, following CJI UU Lalit’s retirement.
During his eight-year tenure at the Supreme Court, CJI Chandrachud wrote 597 Judgments and was a part of 1211 Benches. Among the sitting Apex Court Judges, he has written the most number of Judgments.
The highest number of CJI Chandrachud’s verdicts are in Service (125) and Criminal (116) cases. However, his most impactful Judgments were written in cases dealing with Constitutional (68) issues.
Some of his notable judgements include:
Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (2017)
A seven-judge Constitution Bench examined the scope of seeking votes on religious grounds. The majority held that electoral candidates cannot seek votes on religious grounds. Justice Chandrachud gave a dissenting verdict, stating that there wa a crucial difference between blanket communal appeals and grievance-based communal appeals. He wrote that only blanket communal appeals would violate the Representation of People Act, 1951. Justice Chandrachud, with his opinion, aimed to protect the legitimate articulation of social grievances while preventing purely communal propaganda.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (Privacy Case, 2017)
A nine-judge Bench delivered this landmark judgement in 2017, affirming privacy as a fundamental right. Justice Chandrachud authored the majority opinion, speaking for himself and three other judges, establishing privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The verdict recognised various facets of privacy, including bodily privacy, informational privacy, and privacy of choice. The judgement became the foundation for several subsequent verdicts on personal liberty and dignity.
Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M. (2018)
Commonly known as the Hadiya case, this verdict strongly upheld individual autonomy in matters of personal choice. The Apex Court held that an adult’s right to choose their religion and marriage partner fell within their zone of privacy. Justice Chandrachud gave a concurring opinion, stressing that personal choices were protected under Article 21, and neither the state nor parents could interfere with an adult’s right to make fundamental life decisions. The judgment set a significant precedent for personal autonomy cases.
Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India (2018)
The judgment clarified the power dynamics in Delhi’s governance structure. The court held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the Chief Minister’s advice and cannot act independently. The verdict emphasized that representative democracy is an essential feature of governance, and the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers must lead the executive. This judgment significantly impacted the federal structure and governance of Delhi.
Romila Thapar v Union of India (2018)
This case concerned the arrest of five human rights activists for alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence. Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting opinion focused on protecting fundamental rights, particularly Articles 19 (free speech) and 21 (personal liberty). He emphasized the need for a Special Investigation Team to ensure an impartial probe, highlighting the importance of safeguarding civil liberties while investigating serious offences.
Navtej Johar v Union of India (2018)
In this historic judgment decriminalizing homosexuality, Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion declared Section 377 unconstitutional. He termed it as an anachronistic colonial law that violated fundamental rights to equality, expression, dignity, and privacy. The judgment emphasised that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality, and recognised that decriminalisation was just the first step toward full recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (Aadhaar Case, 2018)
Justice Chandrachud was the sole dissenter in the verdict. He ruled that passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was a fraud on the Constitution. He extensively analysed how the Act affected privacy rights, examined the proportionality of the Aadhaar framework, and highlighted concerns about surveillance and data protection. The judgment showcased detailed scrutiny of both procedural and substantive constitutional issues.
Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018)
The court decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497 of IPC. Justice Chandrachud gave concurring opinion that the provision violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. He particularly emphasised how the law was rooted in patriarchal notions of women as property, violated women’s dignity, and perpetuated gender stereotypes. The verdict recognised marriage as an equal partnership based on dignity and autonomy.
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2019)
In the Sabarimala Temple entry case, the Apex Court held that excluding women between ages 10-50 violated constitutional morality. Justice Chandrachud held that the practice also violated Article 17 (prohibition of untouchability) as it assigned a notion of impurity to women and that it was unconstitutional to exclude women based on biological reasons. The Apex Court further held that Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules, which allowed the custom of prohibition of women, as unconstitutional.
M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Title Dispute) (2019)
As part of the unanimous five-judge Bench decision, the Supreme Court granted the disputed land to Shri Ram Virajman while ensuring justice for all parties. The judgment, running into thousands of pages, carefully examined historical evidence, legal principles, and constitutional values. It directed allocation of alternative land to the Sunni Waqf Board, attempting to balance competing claims through constitutional means.
Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023)
The Constitution Bench upheld the Delhi Government’s power to control civil services in the National Capital Territory. Running into 105 pages, the judgment established that Delhi’s status was “sui generis,” setting it apart from other Union Territories. The Constitution Bench ruled that NCTD’s executive power was co-extensive with its legislative power, significantly impacting Delhi’s governance structure.
Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Maharashtra (2023)
In this 141-page judgment addressing the Maharashtra political crisis, the Apex Court held that Uddhav Thackeray’s government couldn’t be restored as he resigned without facing a floor test. The court found the Governor justified in administering oath to Mr. Shinde with BJP support. Significantly, the judgment also declared the Speaker’s decision to appoint Mr. Gogawale as party whip illegal and referred the Nabam Rebia judgment to a larger bench.
Supriyo Chakraborty vs Union of India (2023)
The 366-page historic judgment on same-sex marriage, delivered by a 3:2 majority, held that non-heterosexual couples cannot claim an unqualified right to marry. While leaving the decision to expand marriage laws to Parliament, the court issued comprehensive directions to protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination and violence. The judgment balanced constitutional rights with legislative prerogative.
Cox and Kings Ltd. vs. SAP India (2023)
The Supreme Court established the applicability of the ‘group of companies’ doctrine in Indian arbitration proceedings. The 152-page judgment clarified that the doctrine requires examining factors like direct relationships with signatory parties, commonality of subject matter, and composite nature of transactions. The Supreme Court held that companies outside of an arbitration agreement can be made parties to arbitration proceedings as per the Group of Companies doctrine. This verdict significantly impacted commercial arbitration in India.
AIn Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)
The Constitution Bench upheld the Central Government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370. In its historic 476-page judgment, the Apex Court held that Jammu and Kashmir lost sovereignty after signing the Instrument of Accession, and Article 370 represented asymmetric federalism rather than sovereignty. The judgment extensively analyzed constitutional history and federal principles.
Arbitration Agreements Case (2023)
A seven-judge Bench, with a 6:1 majority, held that unstamped arbitration agreements were enforceable, overruling the N.N. Global Mercantile case. This 155-page judgment significantly impacted commercial arbitration by removing technical barriers to arbitration proceedings, promoting alternative dispute resolution.
Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India (2024)
The Apex Court ruled that Bar Councils cannot charge enrollment fees beyond statutory limits under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. It held that this provision was a fiscal regulatory measure requiring strict construction, emphasizing that Bar Councils, as delegates of Parliament, cannot modify fiscal policy. The court held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories.
Just Rights for Children Alliance Case (2024)
The Apex Court overturned the Madras High Court’s ruling that mere possession or storage of child pornographic materials was not an offense. Justice Chandrachud described the High Court’s judgment as “atrocious.” This ruling clarified that possessing child pornographic material with specific intent constitutes an offense under the POCSO Act, even without actual transmission.
With this decision, India joins a select group of countries that have explicitly criminalised the viewing of child pornography. Additionally, the Bench directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to implement comprehensive sex education programs to raise awareness of the legal and ethical implications of child pornography. The judgment also urged Parliament to consider amending the POCSO Act to replace the term “child pornography” with “CSEAM” (Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material) and instructed all courts to avoid using “child pornography” in judicial orders and judgments.
M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India (2024)
Addressing environmental concerns, the top court of the country recognised the right to protection from climate change’s adverse effects as part of fundamental rights. The Bench in this case expanded the interpretation of the Right to Life (Article 21) and the Right to Equality (Article 14) to include protection against climate change and emphasised the duty of the state to protect the natural world and the fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures.
Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India (2024)
The five-judge Bench declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional for violating the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The Bench held that the Scheme violated the voters’ right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also directed that the sale of electoral bonds be stopped with immediate effect and SBI was directed to submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 to the ECI and it was directed to publish the information shared by SBI on its official website. This significant judgment impacted political funding transparency, requiring disclosure of all political donations made through electoral bonds.
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (sub-classification of SC/STs) (2024)
A seven-judge bench, with a 6:1 majority, permitted sub-classification within SC/ST categories, overruling the EV Chinnaiah case. The judgment emphasised creamy layer considerations and affirmed the states’ power to ensure equitable benefit distribution among different SC/ST sub-groups. CJI Chandrachud, along with Justice Misra, cited historical evidence indicating that Scheduled Castes were not a homogeneous class. The court ruled that sub-classification does not violate Article 14 or Article 341(2) of the Constitution and that Articles 15 and 16 do not prevent the State from sub-classifying a caste.
State of UP vs M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024)
A nine-judge Bench ruled by 8:1 majority that States have the power to regulate denatured spirit/industrial alcohol. The Apex Court broadly interpreted “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 of List II to include industrial alcohol, significantly impacting state regulatory powers.
Sita Soren v Union of India (2024)
A seven-judge Bench unanimously overruled the P.V Narasimha Rao case, holding that lawmakers did not enjoy parliamentary immunity for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). This judgment strengthened anti-corruption measures in legislative bodies.