From privacy to Sabarimala: 10 landmark verdicts Justice DY Chandrachud was part of

Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit has recommended Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud as his successor. Justice Chandrachud, son of the longest-serving Chief Justice of India Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, has served as a justice at the top court since 2016. Since then, Justice Chandrachud has been one of the most prolific judges in the Supreme Court, being part of over 220 judgements.

Writing the lead opinion, Justice Chandrachud along with eight other justices of the Supreme Court bench unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected right. The new judgement overruled the judgement made in the ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Case, popularly known as the Habeus Corpus Case. The ADM Jabalpur judgement held that fundamental rights could be suspended during the time of an Emergency, and these rights can be regulated. Justice YV Chandrachud was one of the signatories of the judgement.

Writing the sole dissenting opinion, which has been analysed to be one of the most important dissents of modern Indian jurisprudence, Justice Chandrachud held that the Aadhaar Act was passed unconstitutionally as a Money Bill. His specific rebuttals to the provisions of the act that affected an individual’s privacy, dignity and autonomy were also noted.

Justice Chandrachud wrote a separate concurring opinion in the case that decriminalised Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which made same-sex sexual intercourse illegal. Calling the section an ‘anachronistic colonial law’, the bench struck it down for being unconstitutional.

In the famous Hadiya Marriage Case, Justice Chandrachud once again reaffirmed an individual’s right to privacy by upholding that an adult’s right to decide on marriage or change religion falls within their right to privacy and liberty.

Justice Chandrachud held in the Sabarimala Temple case that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the temple was violative of multiple articles of the Constitution and declared the practice unconstitutional.

In another famous dissent, Justice Chandrachud held that the arrest of the five human rights activists for allegedly instigating violence at Bhima Koregaon under the UAPA could have violated their fundamental rights to free expression and personal liberty. Chandrachud wrote for the formation of a Special Investigation Team to probe the arrests.

Justice Chandrachud delivered the judgement which provided bail to Arnab Goswami, the Editor-In-Chief of Republic TV, wherein the latter was arrested in connection with a double suicide. Writing a scathing opinion, Justice Chandrachud reminded the lower levels of the Indian judiciary of its role to provide bail within the frameworks of the law and to dispose of these petitions swiftly.

As part of the majority opinion, Justice Chandrachud wrote that Section 497 of the IPC was unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21. Striking down the law, Justice Chandrachud’s opinion was noted to have heavy importance on the sexual autonomy of women, even in the bounds of marriage.

In a widely consequential decision, Justice Chandrachud held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is the region’s executive head and has no power conferred to him by law or Constitution. The Lieutenant Governor instead needs to act on the advice of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, outside of very specific exceptions.

Authoring a judgement in the case of the ban on the political satire Bengali movie ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’, Justice Chandrachud wrote that “free speech cannot be gagged for fear of the mob”. He added that it was the positive duty of the state to protect the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud has been part of many other important judgements like Abhiram Singh Vs CD Commachen, The Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs Babita Puniya and more. He has delivered judgements on Indian constitutional law, comparative constitutional law, human rights, gender justice, public interest litigation, commercial law and criminal law.