Source: Indian Express  

Introduction 

Over the past decade, many citizens have been worried about rising authoritarianism and hoped for a strong, independent judiciary to counter it. When D Y Chandrachud became Chief Justice of India, people had high hopes that he would help fix problems in the judicial system. However, these hopes weren't fully realized. Currently, thousands of people are in jail without bail or trial, and many important cases about personal freedom remain pending in the Supreme Court. 

Key Controversies and Decisions During CJI DY Chandrachud's Tenure 

• The Gyanvapi mosque case - CJI approved the Allahabad High Court verdict allowing the Archaeological Survey of India to survey the mosque complex, despite the Places of Worship Act 1991. 
• The Maharashtra Assembly case - While Chandrachud criticized Governor Koshyari for inviting Eknath Shinde to form government, he declined relief when Uddhav Thackeray was removed as CM, citing his resignation. 
• Umar Khalid's bail application case - The handling of this case became symbolic of the court's approach toward individual freedom, with many similar cases pending. 
• Arnab Goswami's bail case - CJI granted bail to Arnab but similar relief wasn't extended to many others in comparable situations. 
• The Chandigarh mayoral election case - Despite evidence of ballot paper tampering caught on camera, the CJI only ordered an enquiry under CrPC Section 340 rather than taking stronger action. 
• The Electoral Bond Scheme case - While the scheme was declared unconstitutional, no Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate quid pro quo allegations between corporates and politicians. 
• The controversial visit of Prime Minister to former CJI's house for Ganpati Puja - This raised questions about judicial propriety and the distance judges should maintain from the political class. 
• The sudden withdrawal of a part-heard matter from Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul's court on the eve of his retirement. 
• Chandrachud's revelation about seeking guidance from his deity before writing the Ayodhya judgment. 
• The overall handling of habeas corpus petitions and bail applications in the Supreme Court during his tenure, with thousands of people languishing in jail without trial. 

How Has CJI DY Chandrachud, as a Supreme Court Judge, Shaped Landmark Decisions on Gender Equality, Privacy, LGBTQ+ Rights, and Personal Liberty? 

• Women in Armed Forces (Gender Equality): Led the bench that granted permanent commission to women officers in the Army, breaking the glass ceiling in military leadership and command positions. 
• Right to Privacy (Constitutional Right): Delivered a historic judgment establishing privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, overturning his father's Emergency-era verdict in ADM Jabalpur case - marking a crucial development in constitutional law. 
• Section 377 Decriminalization (LGBTQ+ Rights): Played a key role in decriminalizing homosexuality by striking down Section 377, acknowledging historical injustice and establishing equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community. 
• Sabarimala Temple Entry (Religious Freedom): Supported women's right to enter Sabarimala temple, establishing that religious practices cannot discriminate based on gender and challenging patriarchal religious notions. 
• Abortion Rights (Reproductive Justice): Extended abortion rights to unmarried women and minors (20-24 weeks), recognizing reproductive rights under Article 14 and including non-cisgender persons in the framework. 
• Hadiya Case (Personal Liberty): Protected individual autonomy in the "Love Jihad" case, upholding an adult woman's right to choose her religion and marriage partner. 
• Aadhaar Dissent (Privacy Protection): Stood alone in dissenting against the Aadhaar scheme, highlighting privacy concerns and questioning its constitutional validity as a money bill. 
• Decriminalizing Adultery (Gender Justice): Struck down Section 497 on adultery, overturning another of his father's judgments, and rejected the law's patriarchal foundations that treated women as property. 

Conclusion  

The article ends on a critical note about Justice Chandrachud's legacy. His revelation about consulting his deity before writing the Ayodhya judgment raises questions about the separation of religion and law. The author suggests that this approach, along with other decisions during his tenure, has weakened the constitutional framework. The article ends with a pointed "Goodbye, Chief Justice Chandrachud," indicating disappointment with his overall performance as Chief Justice.