A CJI For The People: A Look At Battles DY Chandrachud Chose As Chief Justice Of India

The curtains are drawn on DY Chandrachud’s stint as the Chief Justice Of Inida (CJI) for two significant years. Not many Chief Justices get to serve a term as long as his. Last time a Chief Justice served for two years was nearly a decade ago (Sarosh Homi Kapadia 2010-2012). The next Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna who is set to take his oath tomorrow, (November 11) will only have six months before he retires from office.
His last month in office has sparked a debate over his legacy. Many are criticising him for photo-ops with the Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the Ganesh Puja at his residence and his statement over praying to god for a solution to the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi vs Babri Mosque dispute. On the other hand, there are those who are unhappy with the battles he didn’t choose. There are still some who resent him for what they term as “judicial activism.”  
CJI Chandrachud, who retires today from the highest judicial position in the people’s court has often said that his judgments will speak for him. In his farewell speech, he took a dig at his trolls, saying that they will be unemployed from Monday.
A peak at the social media would show that trolls questioning CJI Chandrachud’s legacy are evenly spread across Right, Left and Centre. The left accuses him of going soft on power, while the right has many a times found itself at the receiving end of his verdicts. Latest being his harsh observations and penalty on the BJP-led Uttar Pradesh’s government’s “<a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/bulldozer-justice-simply-unacceptable-cji-chandrachud-parting-blow-to-yogi-govt-bulldozer-action-1730287″>Bulldozer Justice.</a>” On the other hand, the librals seem cynical and concerned about things not done in his two-year tenure.
Probably, a mark of a neutrality and fairness or probably not. But, undeniably DY Chandrachud has left behind a legacy of landmark judgments that concern the common public. 
From rights of disabled persons and LGTBTQ+ community to discrimination against women in Armed Forces, CJI Chandrachud has hardly minced his words either in court or in his orders when it comes to upholding individual liberty and right to equality.
Again, when it came to people’s right to know who is funding political parties, CJI Chandrachud led bench dealt a heavy blow to government by not only striking down the Electoral Bonds scheme, but also by pushing the Elections Commission Of India (ECI) and State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all transactions, which unearthed the nexus of donations between corporate giants and political parties. 
Under his Chief Justiceship, public got access not only to transactions between Corporates and Politicians but also to court hearings. The biggest proponent of live streaming court hearings, CJI Chandrachud not only saw through its implementation in Supreme Court, but also pushed the high courts to live stream proceedings.
<a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/chief-justice-dy-chandrachud-retirement-powerful-dissents-and-opinions-abpp-1723967″>ALSO READ | Sabarimala To Aadhaar: A Look At CJI DY Chandrachud’s Powerful Dissents And Opinions</a>
More than anything, Justice Chandrachud’s legacy will be defined by the battles he chose over these two years as the Chief Justice of India, as well as his total tenure of 8 years in the Supreme Court. These battles were not for or against the government, but were mostly for the people in the people’s court.
<h2>Here’s a look at battles CJI DY Chandrachud picked:</h2>
<h3>1) Electoral Bonds Verdict — Ensuring Transparency And Accountability</h3>
One of the most celebrated judgments of 2024 is the Supreme Court <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/electoral-bonds-scheme-supreme-court-verdict-electoral-bonds-scheme-to-be-struck-down-as-unconstitutional-1664633″>striking down</a> Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional for violating Right to Information of public. On February 15, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court not only struck down the electoral bonds scheme by the Modi government as unconstitutional but also directed the political parties and State Bank Of India (SBI) to return uncashed electoral bonds that were under the 15-day validity to purchasers. 
Acknowledging the possibility of quid pro quo arrangements between the government and corporate firms, the five-judge Constitutional Bench unanimously held that the Electoral Bond Scheme was unconstitutional and violated Article 19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution. 
The top court did not rest at the pronouncement of the verdict, it held subsequent hearings to ensure and even coerce the SBI to <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/explainers/electoral-bonds-data-election-commission-donor-names-bjp-tmc-silent-aap-dmk-aiadmk-jd-s-reveal-details-abpp-1672704″>disclose</a> all details about donors and donations to political parties within a stipulated time. 
<h3>2) From Abortion Rights To Women In Armed Forces — A Feminist Chief Justice</h3>
Justice Chandrachud’s verdicts will continue to serve as precedents for shaping trajectory of feminism in India. Days before taking oath as the Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud delivered a landmark verdict which made medical care and abortion facilities accessible to women irrespective of their marital status. In September 2022, a three-judge bench including Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala declared that unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship.
The top court held that all women are entitled to safe and legal abortion and distinction between married and unmarried women unsustainable. The verdict further recogniosed reproductive right as part of individual autonomy. It was further held that the foetus relies on the woman’s body to sustain. Therefore, the decision to terminate is firmly rooted in their right of bodily autonomy. The court even recognised marital rape in term of MTP Act, for allowing abortions to women who are victim of sexual assault or incest. 
Justice Chandrachud even mandated permanent commissions for women in the armed forces. Very recently, while hearing one such case, he went on to question the “patriarchal mindset” of Armed forces for denying promotion to women officers despite previous verdicts by top court.
On December 4, 2023, a Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Chandrachud told the Indian Army to frame a policy regarding the promotion of women officers, who have been granted permanent commission following the judgments of the court.
In 2018, In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), Justice Chandrachud struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalised adultery, denouncing it as a patriarchal and discriminatory law that violated women’s rights to equality and autonomy. 
In his last days in office, CJI Chandrachud commenced hearing for criminalisation of <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-hearing-marital-rape-will-destabalise-institution-of-marriage-centre-1724931″>marital rape</a>, but could not conclude due to lack of time.
From time and again, on several instances he has reminded the state of its duty towards women.
For example in April 2024, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Chandrachud said that it is the Constitutional duty of the state government to ensure that a mother who is taking care of a child with disabilities gets child care leaves. The top court <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/child-care-leaves-to-mothers-of-children-with-disabilities-sc-reminds-himachal-of-duty-towards-women-in-workforce-1681966″>directed</a> the Himachal Pradesh government to set up a committee headed by the chief secretary of the state to take a policy decision on the issue of granting child-care leaves (CCLs) to the working women having children with disabilities. 
<h3 class=”gmail-p1″>3) Bringing Court Proceedings To Drawing Rooms Of Public</h3>
Under his Chief Justiceship, the Supreme Court saw strengthening of virtual hearings which the top court resorted to during the Covid-19 induced pandemic. As the Chief Justice, he was often seen reminding the senior most advocates to carry an iPad to his court. During his tenure as CJI, he has pushed not only lawyers but also Supreme Court and High Court Judges to open courts to live streaming. Very recently, when videos of Karnataka High Court judge making objectionable <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-closes-suo-motu-proceedings-against-karnataka-hc-judge-after-his-apology-for-objectionable-remarks-1719794″>comments</a> against a woman lawyer and a particular community went viral on social media, the bench headed by CJI Chandrachud took suo motu cognisance.
A special five judge bench was called, but the proceedings against the objectionable remarks made by the Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda was closed after he apologised.
Refusing to curb social media comments on the judge’s conduct and call for stopping live streaming of high court, <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-closes-suo-motu-proceedings-against-karnataka-hc-judge-after-his-apology-for-objectionable-remarks-1719794″>CJI DY Chandrachud said,</a> ”the answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down.”
His legacy will be particularly remembered for the technological reforms in not only institutionalising virtual hearings and expanding live streaming beyond constitutional bench, but also pushing forward the e-courts project to modernise the judiciary.
The eSCR project (digitizing Supreme Court reports) and digiSCR (a free online search database for Supreme Court judgments); the use of AI to transcribe Constitution Bench hearings and translation of judgments into regional languages; implementation of a neutral citation system, and the integration of Supreme Court statistics into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) are just few of the remarkable initiative taken by him. 
<h3>4) Constitutional Bench And Judicial Efficiency</h3>
CJI Chandrachud took up the task of constitutional bench matters that had been pending for decades. His tenure saw the disposal of several constitutional questions that were referred to larger benches, including 9-judge and 7-judge bench matters, which had been pending for several years. He took up the task of disposing of constitutional cases which his predecessors were criticised for avoiding.
The matters disposed by constitutional benches under his tenure included wide range of politically charged topics like sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, the validity of Assam Accord and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, and Abrogation of Section 370.
Though the Supreme Court in 2023 upheld the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370, it also directed the government to hold elections before September 2024. Advocating a balanced approach to regional stability and national unity, the top court had also directed the Centre to restore statehood of Jammu and Kashmir  without setting a timeline for the same.
Constitutional questions pertaining to federalism like states’ powers to tax mineral rights which was a 35-year-old dispute pending at the top court was decided by a nine judge bench headed by him. The question of State’s power to regulate industrial alcohol was also resolved during his Chief Justiceship. In upholding Federalism, the top court did not hesitate under his Chief Justiceship in <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-tamil-nadu-governor-rn-ravi-thiru-k-ponmudi-1673748″>calling out</a> <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-tamil-nadu-governor-rn-ravi-thiru-k-ponmudi-1673748″>Governors</a> of state who were seen over-stepping or hindering functions of State legislatures. One such instance was when he rapped the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi while hearing the state government’s plea against his refusal to swear in Thiru K. Ponmudi as a Minister in the state cabinet even after the Supreme Court stayed his conviction in connection with a disproportionate assets case.
Several important issues that concerned the public at large were also disposed by these benches like immunity for bribery for law makers, unstamped arbitration agreements, LMV driving license, Right to Property and restricting government’s right to take up any individual material resource to subserve a common good under Article 39(b).
Though CJI Chandrachud constituted a bench to hear the much awaited money bill matter which will decide the validity of Aadhaar Act and PMLA amendments that increased ED’s power, the hearing could not begin.
<h3>5) Right Against Adverse Effects Of Climate Change A Fundamental Right</h3>
A three-judges bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud ruled that right against adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right covered under Right to Life and Right to Equality under Indian Constitution. In a landmark verdict the top court observed that Article 21 and Article 14 under the Indian Constitution are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.
CJI Chandrachud in the landmark verdict said that “Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world. The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.” 
<h3>6) Child Rights</h3>
The Supreme Court in a recent landmark <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-says-use-child-sexually-abusive-and-exploitative-material-1719267″>judgment</a> held that the term that the term “Child Pornography” should not be used and instead “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” should be used for defining such cases. CJI DY Chandrachud who headed the bench, said that it is a landmark judgment and the first instance in world where law on child sexual exploitative and abuse material is dealt in such detail by judiciary.
The bench headed by CJI Chandrachud held that storing and watching pornographic content involving children is an offence under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) and the Information Technology (IT) acts.
The top court also suggested to the Parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO Act so that definition of ‘child pornography’ can be referred to as “child sexually abusive and exploitative material.” 
In the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action case the top court bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued guidelines to prevent child marriages across India.
<h3>7) Rights Of Person With Disability</h3>
The Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-issues-10-directions-to-filmmakers-for-portrayal-of-persons-with-disability-1701392″>case</a> is one of the latest example on how the rights of person with disability were priortised under CJI Chandrachud. The Supreme Court in this case on July 8, issued guidelines for film-makers, directors, actors and creators to ensure correct portrayal of persons with disabilities. The court noted that the issue involves the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, and provided a detailed framework of the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media that aligns with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Constitution as well as the RPwD Act. 
Earlier, in Rajive Raturi v.Union of India, the top court had issued directions to make public spaces more accessible for persons with disability. 
Along with judgments, the top court under the Chief Justiceship of DY Chandrachud, in September launched its official ‘<a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/correct-language-to-address-persons-with-disabilities-supreme-court-handbook-concerning-persons-with-disabilities-explains-1720787″>Handbook Concerning Persons With Disabilities’</a> that has detailed guidance on how to avoid language that perpetuates stereotypes about disabilities against Persons with disabilities. It elaborates on terms that must be avoided and provides alternative, respectful language for use in legal documents, orders, and judgments.
The handbook provides better and suitable alternatives to “offensive terms such as crippled, idiot, loony, mad, junkie and retard in any derogatory contexts.” For instance it advises against the use of descriptions like infirm, stunted, unfit, helpless, crippled, defected, deformed, invalid, lame, maimed, mutilated, or subnormal while referring to PwDs.
<h3>8) Queer Rights</h3>
While, the outgoing Chief Justice has a long list of landmark verdicts in his kitty, his name will remain etched in history in bold letters for his contribution to the evolution of rights of LGBTQIA+ community in India. CJI Chandrachud was part of four landmark judgments that have shaped the rights of persons belonging to the queer community.  
He first recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017 in the <a href=”https://news.abplive.com/news/india/landmark-ks-puttaswamy-judgmnet-as-right-to-privacy-crusader-passes-away-abpp-1727494″>Puttaswamy verdict.</a> This judgment by the apex court laid down the foundation for decriminalising homosexuality in India. This verdict is cited as a precedent in the Navtej Singh Johar (2018) verdict that struck down Section 377 as unconstitutional. It was because of this verdict that the top court ruled that an individual’s sexual orientation was an inherent aspect of his personal liberty and was protected by fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
CJI Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Deepak Misra that decriminalised homosexuality, wrote his own concurring verdict with observations that are defining moments in the trajectory of evolution of queer rights.
CJI Chandrachud called the decriminalisation of Section 377 only a necessary first step in the path to guaranteeing LGBT individuals their constitutional rights and that the Constitution envisages much more. Linking it to his verdict in Puttaswamy, CJI Chandrachud said that non-recognition of the right to sexual orientation also leads to a denial of privacy, which is a fundamental right under Article 21.
While dealing with gender identity, the CJI noted that human sexuality cannot categorise individuals using a binary male-female construct.
While delivering another landmark verdict in Deepika Singh Vs CAT on women’s right to avail childcare leaves, CJI Chandrachud in a groundbreaking judgment observed that the black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from traditional ones. This verdict expanded the definition of familial relationships to include queer relationships.
CJI Chandrachud observed that the predominant understanding of the concept of a “family” both in the law and in society is that it consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father (who remain constant over time) and their children. He said that such an assumption ignores both, the many circumstances which may lead to a change in one’s familial structure, and the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation to begin with. Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships.
He said that such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. 
On Marriage Equality, the five-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI DY Chandrachud unanimously rejected the plea seeking marriage equality for queer community. The five-judge bench unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry, and marriages between queer persons cannot be read into the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The top court, in a 3:2 majority, held that same-sex couples did not have the right to form civil unions, and that they could not adopt.
In a rare instance, the Chief Justice of India found himself in a minority view upholding the right to form civil union and right to adopt for persons belonging to LGBTQIA+ community.
Even though the top court did not recognise the right to marry as a Fundamental Right, leaving it up to the legislature to form appropriate law, CJI Chandrachud in his minority opinion, held that queer couples have a right to enter into a civil union.
Notably, the judgment by CJI Chandrachud recognised the insufficiency of the existing laws. While CJI Chandrachud and Justice S Kaul struck down the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) regulations, Justice Bhat upheld the CARA regulations but noted that there was a need to reconsider the existing adoption law.
”The CARA Circular disproportionately impacts the queer community and is violative of Article 15,” CJI Chandrachud said in his minority view.
The minority views or dissenting opinions are not enforceable in law, but they have often served as guiding light for future generations as law and society evolves. Often landmark judgments are passed citing previous minority opinions.
Speaking of his minority judgment in the same sex marriage verdict, the CJI once said that it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and that he stands by what he said.