New Delhi: After a two-year-long stint as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud is due to retire on November 10 on attaining the age of 65 years. During the period, he pronounced several notable judgements.
Here are the 10 key judgments authored by him when he was in the highest judicial office of the country after taking over as the CJI on November 9, 2022.
1. Revocation of Article 370
A 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had upheld the revocation of Article 370. It had ordered the Election Commission of India to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, had left open the question of whether Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more union territories, relying on the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir, but, it had said that “restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible”.
The Supreme Court had upheld the status of Ladakh as a union territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a union territory by separating a territory from any state.
In May this year, the apex court refused to review the Constitution Bench verdict and dismissed a batch of review pleas filed against the decision upholding the revocation of Article 370 as valid.
2. Same-sex marriage
A 5-judge bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had declined to strike down or read into gender-neutral “person” in place of “male” and “female” existing under the Special Marriage Act. All five judges of the Constitution Bench had unanimously agreed that there exists no unqualified right to marriage and accepted the Centre’s proposal that a committee to be headed by the Cabinet Secretary be set up to examine what administrative steps could be taken to address basic social benefit concerns relating to same-sex couples.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, B.V. Nagarathna and P.S. Narasimha, had left it to the legislature to take a call on enacting the marriage equality law. It had asked the Union and state governments to ensure that the LGBTQ+ community is not discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and queer individuals are not refused access to any goods or services.
3. Electoral bonds
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had struck down the electoral bonds scheme, saying that denying voters the right to know the details of funding of political parties would lead to a dichotomous situation and the funding of political parties cannot be treated differently from that of the candidates who contest elections.
In a unanimous verdict, the Bench, also comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sajiv Khanna, J.B. Padriwala and Manoj Misra, had directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to forthwith stop the issuance of electoral bonds and ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish on its official website the details of the political parties which have received contributions through electoral bonds since April 2019.
Subsequently, a bench headed by CJI Chandrachud declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigative Team (SIT) probe under the supervision of a retired apex court judge into an alleged scam in poll financing using electoral bonds.
The top court said that an SIT cannot be formed to probe “quid pro quo” unless there is an FIR already registered on the issue espoused in the PIL, adding that the ordinary course of law may remedy the allegations raised in the plea.
4. Caste-based division of labour in prisons
A bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud held it unconstitutional the practice of employing “lower caste” jail inmates in cleaning and manual scavenging work in prisons. The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed that the “caste” column and any references to caste in prisoners’ registers inside the prisons be deleted.
In its October 2024 verdict, the Supreme Court asked all states and union territories to revise their prison rules providing caste-based division of labour in jails within three months. It also asked the Union government to make changes in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within three months.
5. Effective implementation of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered the state governments and union territories to appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) at the district level.
It said that child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood. “Both sexes are adversely affected by forced and early marriage. Marrying in childhood has the effect of objectifying the child. The practice of child marriage imposes mature burdens on children who are not physically or mentally prepared to comprehend the significance of marriage,” ordered SC.
6. Section 6A of Citizenship Act
A Constitution Bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was inserted to give effect to the Assam Accord and formed the basis of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam in 2019.
The 5-judge Bench was dealing with a clutch of petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, on the ground that it violates Articles 6,7,14, 29 and 355 of the Constitution.
In his opinion, CJI Chandrachud held that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act does not have the effect of amending Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, which prescribe a cut-off date for conferring citizenship for migrants from East and West Pakistan at the “commencement of the Constitution” (i.e., on January 26, 1950).
7. NEET-UG 2024
Refusing to order a fresh exam, a bench headed by CJI Chandrachud observed there was no systematic leak of the question paper of the NEET-UG 2024 examination.
The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said there was no sufficient material available on the record to order a re-test but clarified that its judgment won’t prevent authorities from taking action against candidates who had secured admission using malpractices.
8. Adani-Hindenburg controversy
A bench presided over by CJI Chandrachud refused to form any SIT or group of experts to conduct the investigation in the Adani-Hindenburg controversy and said the facts of the case did not warrant a transfer of investigation from SEBI.
The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said that reports prepared by third-party organisations such as the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and Hindenburg Research cannot be regarded as “conclusive proof”.
9. Manipur violence
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud took suo moto cognizance of the disturbing viral videos where two tribal women were paraded naked and sexually assaulted in Manipur.
The Supreme Court had set up a committee comprising three woman judges tasked with collecting information related to violence against women in Manipur as well as monitoring the conditions at relief camps and deciding on compensation to victims.
The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had also appointed former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar to investigate the allegations that certain police officers colluded with perpetrators of violence, including sexual violence, during the conflict in Manipur.
10. Cases against MPs/MLAs
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud directed Chief Justices of all High Courts across the country to register suo moto cases to monitor the expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs.
The Supreme Court said that the special bench to be formed in every High Court will issue continuing directions to curb the criminalisation of politics and may seek assistance from the Advocate General and other officers of the state government.
Further, it said that the High Court may also call for status reports on the issue from all District and Session Courts under their jurisdiction.
Justice Chandrachud was first appointed as judge of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000, and served as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court since October 31, 2013, until his elevation as an apex court judge on May 13, 2016.
CJI Chandrachud passed BA with honours in economics from St Stephen’s College, New Delhi and completed LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University. He also served as Additional Solicitor General of India from 1998 till 2000. In June 1998, he was designated as a senior advocate by the Bombay High Court.
After CJI Chandrachud recommended the name of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor last month, the Centre has cleared the appointment of Justice Khanna as the 51st CJI with effect from November 11. (IANS)
Also Read: ‘Even gods astonished’: BJP’s Sanjay Seth on Hemant Soren’s ‘7-year age leap’ in 5 years
Also Watch: