Ram Mandir, Article 370 and Sabarimala Temple…CJI Chandrachud will be remembered for these 10 decisions

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.Image source: PTI

Friday is the last statutory working day for Supreme Court CJI DY Chandrachud. In 2016, he was elevated to the Supreme Court. He will be appointed chief justice in November 2022. During his long tenure, he made 10 important decisions. His decisions touched on issues such as privacy, bodily autonomy, federalism, affirmative action, and even arbitration. He has been part of 1275 benches. He made 613 decisions during his tenure. Let’s know about DY Chandrachud’s top 10 decisions.

1. Basic right to privacy. Nine Judges (Judge KS Puttaswamy v. Central Government)
   On August 24, 2017, nine judges of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized that privacy is a fundamental right and an integral part of personal dignity and autonomy. The case came to the Supreme Court on a petition filed in 2012 by retired judge KS Puttaswamy, who challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. It legalizes the country’s unique identification number scheme. Justice Chandrachud, writing the majority opinion, said privacy is an inherent part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Some of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. In this regard, the court made a landmark decision based on this case to decriminalize homosexuality.
2. Decriminalize homosexuality. Five Judge Bench (Navtej Singh Johar v. Central Government)
   On September 6, 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Provisions criminalizing homosexual relationships between consenting adults. The court said that the bestiality provisions of Section 377 will continue to be valid. Justice Chandrachud said that Section 377 marginalized a section of citizens. Drawing on his previous judgment in the Puttaswamy case which recognized the fundamental right to privacy, he said failure to recognize the right to sexual orientation was a denial of privacy. Human sexuality, he said, cannot be reduced to binary representations, nor can it be narrowly defined as a function of the means of reproduction.
3. Decriminalize adultery. Five Judge Bench (Joseph Shine vs Union of India)
   On September 27, 2018, a five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Deepak Mishra unanimously decriminalized adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under this provision, a person would be guilty of sexual intercourse with the wife of another person. The judge held that this provision violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. They claim the section is outdated, patriarchal and violates women’s autonomy and dignity. The majority opinion was written by Justice Mishra. In another unanimous opinion, Justice DY Chandrachud wrote that adultery laws are codified rules of patriarchy. This promotes regressive notions of female subordination in marriage.
4. Sabarimala temple entrance case. Five Judges (Young Lawyers Association of India vs Government of Kerala)
   On September 28, 2018, a majority of 4:1 held that denying entry to the Sabarimala temple to menstruating women was unconstitutional. The judge held that this practice violated women’s fundamental rights to religious freedom, equality and liberty. Justice Chandrachud’s unanimous opinion held that banning women from entering temples was not a necessary religious practice and the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a religious sect under Article 26. Justice Chandrachud said it was problematic for the court to position itself as the arbiter of these practices. He seems to enjoy nothing more than testing any religious practice against basic rights.
5. Ayodhya ownership dispute. Five Judges (M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das)
   On November 9, 2019, Justice Chandrachud was included in the five-judge bench which unanimously handed over the ownership of the disputed Ayodia to Shri Ram Lalla Virajman. The Uttar Pradesh government was also ordered to give an alternative site to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya for the construction of the mosque.
6. National Capital Region Authority. Five Judges (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Central Government)
   On July 4, 2018, a five-judge bench unanimously ruled that the executive head of the Delhi government is the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. The bench was interpreting Article 239-AA of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for Delhi.
7. Petition for marriage equality. Five Judges (Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Others v. Central Government)
   On October 17, 2023, five judges of the Supreme Court unanimously stated that sexual minorities have no basic right to marry. However, the judges unanimously declared that transgender or intersex people can marry in heterosexual relationships. The bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, also held that the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, was not discriminatory in excluding non-heterosexual couples.
8. Challenges to the abrogation of Article 370. Bench of Five Judges (Article 370 Cases)
   On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the central government’s abrogation of Article 370 that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). CJI Chandrachud wrote the majority opinion. Justices Kaur and Khanna agreed. All judges unanimously held that Article 370 was a temporary provision enacted to meet the urgent needs of the country at that time.
9. Constitutionality of Electoral Bond Scheme (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India)
   In a major case involving political funding ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud unanimously rejected the 2018 electoral bonds scheme. The judge held that the scheme violated the electorate’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He believes that information about the funds received by political parties is crucial for voters to exercise their freedom to vote.
10. Subcategories within the SC/ST category. Seven Judge Bench (Punjab Government vs Davinder Singh)
    On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI DY Chandrachud took an important decision on the discussion on affirmative action in the country. The bench held by a majority of 8:1 that the state government has the power to make subdivisions within the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.