Justice DY Chandrachud took oath as the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier tweeted that justice Chandrachud will be India's CJI with effect from November 8 and will take oath on November 9.
From verdicts on privacy to gender rights, Justice DY Chandrachur is known for his progressive views and impetus on personal liberty, rights, and privacy in his judgments.
Justice DY Chandrachud took oath as the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier tweeted that justice Chandrachud will be India's CJI with effect from November 8 and will take oath on November 9.
Justice Chandrachud succeeded Justice UU Lalit who had a brief tenure of 74 days. Chandrachud will serve as the CJI for two years, leaving office on November 10, 2024.
On October 7, the Union government wrote to Justice Lalit to recommend the name of his successor. On October 11, Lalit recommended the name of Chandrachud, paving way for his appointment as the 50th Chief Justice of India.
Elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, Justice Chandrachud is the son of the longest serving CJI YV Chandrachud who was the head of the judiciary from February 22, 1978 to July 11, 1985.
Chandrachud earlier served as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court from October 31, 2013 to May 12, 2016. He was a judge at the Bombay High Court from March 29, 2000 until his appointment as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
Chandrachud was designated as a senior advocate by the Bombay High Court in June 1998 and became Additional Solicitor General in the same year till his appointment as a judge.
After completing BA with Honours in Economics from St Stephen's College, New Delhi, Justice Chandrachud did his LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, and obtained LLM degree and a Doctorate in Juridical Sciences (SJD) from Harvard Law School, the United States.
He practised law at the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court and was a visiting professor of comparative Constitutional law at the University of Mumbai.
Justice Chandrachud is known in Lutyens as well as legal circles as a revolutionary legal crusader and has many landmark and progressive verdicts to his credit that helped in changing several deep-seated narratives in the nation, specially in the field of gender rights and privacy.
On Aadhaar Act
He was the sole dissenter in Justice Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India wherein he held that passing Aadhaar as a Money Bill was unconstitutional. He has also reviewed arguments on specific provisions of the Aadhaar Act with respect to individual’s privacy, dignity and autonomy.
On Decriminalising Section 377
In Navtej Johar v Union of India, Justice Chandrachud held that Section 377 was an ‘anachronistic colonial law,’ which violated the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of expression, life and privacy. In a separate concurring opinion that he wrote on the decriminalisation, Chandrachud held that the move was a first step in guaranteeing constitutional rights for the LGBT community.
On 'Love Jihad': Hadiya case
The Hadiya case was a 2017–2018 Indian Supreme Court case that affirmed the validity of the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jehan, which was challenged by Hadiya's family. Media outlets have described the underlying dispute as an allegation of "love jihad". Justice Chandrachud's concurring opinion in the case (Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M.) upheld Hadiya’s choice of religion and marriage partner and reiterated that an adult’s right to make decisions in marriage or religion falls within her zone of privacy.
On Sabarimala case
In the Sabarimala lawsuit ( Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala) Justice Chandrachud supported the right of women in the 10-50 age group to visit the Sabarimala Temple and held that not allowing them to enter was a violation of constitutional morality. Such a rule, he held, subverted the autonomy, liberty, and dignity of women. In a significant aspect, he noted that such a move to disallow women of menstruating age to enter a religious place was in violation of Article 17 which prohibits "untouchability", noting that such a ban signifies a notion of impurity in women.
On Bhima Koregaon arrests
In the Romila Thapar vs Union of India case pertaining to the arrest of five human rights activists for their alleged involvement in the violence at Bhima Koregaon and for being complicit in a conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice Chandarchud dissented and raised the question of the rights of the accused. He had stated that the issue was whether the arrests were in violation of the accused's fundamental rights to free expression and personal liberty guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and suggested a Special Investigation Team to probe the arrests.
On LG vs CM in Delhi
In another significant judgment that has political implications for several parties, Justice Chandrachud in his concurring opinion held that the Lieutenant Governor is not the executive head of Delhi. In the Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India case, he held that the executive must be led by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers since representative democracy is an essential feature of the executive. The judge also stated that the LG was bound by the CM's advice and did not have any Constituinally guaranteed powers to act independently.
On decriminalising adultery
Justice Chandrachud was also part of the bench in Joseph Shinde vs Union of India that decriminalised adultery as a punishable offence. Concurring with the majority opinion, Chandrachud held that section 497 IPC violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. While reading down section 198(2) CrPC, he further opined that criminalising adultery was rooted in patriarchal notions and had resulted in centuries of female subjugation.
On right to privacy: toppling his own father's judgment
In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to privacy. Justice Chandrachud authored the majority decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India speaking for himself and Khehar J, RK Agarwal J and Abdul Nazeer J. He recognised the right to privacy and dignity as an intrinsic part of the right to life.
In his historic judgment declaring privacy as a fundamental right, he had termed the 1976 verdict in the famous ADM Jabalpur case in which his father was part of the majority judgment by a five-judge constitution bench “seriously flawed.”
In the ADM Jabalpur case, the five-judge bench by a majority verdict of 4:1, had said Article 21 is the sole repository of all rights to life and personal liberty and when suspended takes away those rights altogether.
According to the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which governs the process of appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, the outgoing CJI initiates the process of naming the successor after getting a communication from the Law ministry.
The MoP says the senior-most judge of the apex court is considered fit to hold the office of the CJI and the views of the outgoing head of the judiciary have to be sought "at an appropriate time".
The MoP, however, does not specify the time limit for the initiation of the process of recommending the name of the successor CJI.
(With inputs from PTI)