Introduction

Dr. Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud is the 50^th Chief Justice of India (CJI). He was born on 11.11.1959. His father, Y. V. Chandrachud, was the 16^th and longest-serving CJI. He was educated at Delhi University and Harvard University and has practiced as a lawyer for Sullivan & Cromwell and in the Bombay High Court.

Career

• He practiced law at the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay HC.
• He was designated as Senior Advocate by the Bombay HC in June 1998.
• He served as Judge of the Bombay HC from 29.03.2000 until his appointment as Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC and Director of Maharashtra Judicial Academy.
  • He was appointed as Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC from 31.10.2013 until his appointment to the Supreme Court.
• He was appointed as Judge of the SC on 13.05.2016.
  • His tenure as CJI begun from November 2022 which will last till November 2024.

Notable Cases

Justice Chandrachud gave concurring and dissenting opinions in several landmark judgments which transformed the existing practices. Some of the major cases are mentioned below:

Concurring Opinion

• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2016):
  • Justice Chandrachud was part of the historic nine-judge bench that unanimously declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • He authored the majority opinion in this judgment which laid the foundation for several subsequent judgments concerning privacy, data protection, and surveillance.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):
  • This judgment decriminalized homosexuality in India and partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • Justice Chandrachud wrote a separate concurring opinion stating that Section 377 is an antiquated and anachronistic colonial-era law.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):
  • Justice Chandrachud concurred with the majority opinion in this case which decriminalized adultery by holding Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), unconstitutional.
  • He said that the provision favored the patriarchal monarchy.
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018):
  • Justice Chandrachud wrote the concurring opinion in this case by stating that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018):
  • Justice Chandrachud was a part of bench which allowed the live streaming of constitutional cases along with cases of national importance.
  • He termed live-streaming as open justice and stated that, “Open justice rests on a high pedestal in a liberal democracy as a sound and very sacred part of the Constitution of the country and the administration of justice”.
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020):
  • Justice Chandrachud authored the decision of a division bench which granted a permanent commission to women in army irrespective of their years of service.
  • He stated that, “Inherent physiological differences between men and women rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and constitutionally flawed notion that women are the weaker sex”.
  • He said that such stereotypes do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officers.
• Col. Nitisha v. Union of India (2021):
  • Justice Chandrachud held the requirement of granting permanent commission to women, arbitrary and irrational as it required women officers to perform better from their male counterparts.
  • He said, "A superficial sense of equality is not in the true spirit of the Constitution and attempts to make equality only symbolic”.
• X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2022):
  • Justice Chandrachud authored the judgement that established an equality between married and unmarried women and allowed them abortion till 24^th of pregnancy under Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
  • He said that “This artificial distinction between married and single women is not constitutionally sustainable”.
  • The bench stated that marital rape will be considered rape for the purpose of MTP Act.
• State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai (2022):
  • Justice Chandrachud authored the judgment of a division bench which held that the ‘two-finger test’ or pre vaginum test must not be conducted.
  • He said that “This so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape”.
  • He added it instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted and is an affront to their dignity.

Dissenting Opinion

• Abhiram Singh v. C D Commachen (2018):
  • A 7 judge's bench held that candidates in elections cannot appeal for votes on the grounds of religion.
  • Justice Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion in this case where he differentiated between communal vote appeal to aid the marginalized group and vote appeals based of communal grievances.
  • He stated that “Social mobilization is a powerful instrument of bringing marginalised groups into the mainstream”.
  • He added “To hold that a person who seeks to contest an election is prohibited from speaking of the legitimate concerns of citizens that the injustices faced by them on the basis of traits having an origin in religion, race, caste, community or language would be remedied is to reduce democracy to an abstraction.”.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018):
  • Justice Chandrachud dissented in the Sabarimala case, where the majority allowed the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
  • He held that the exclusionary practice of women from entering into temple was discriminatory and violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Important Quotes

• While rejecting documents in sealed cover in One Rank One Pension matter, Justice Chandrachud said, “Sealed covers are completely against settled judicial principles and it can be resorted to only when it is about a source or endangering someone’s life”.
• While allowing the live streaming of cases he said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
  • He added that “One of the greatest dangers to the institutions in a constitutional democracy is the danger of being opaque. When you open up your process, you generate a degree of accountability, transparency, and a sense of responsiveness to the needs of citizens."
• While decriminalizing homosexuality, he said that “It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the future”.
• While dealing with batch of petitions to legalize same-sex marriage, he quoted that “We have already reached the intermediate stage that by decriminalizing homosexuality, one can contemplate that people who belong to same-sex would be in a stable marriage”.
• While urging to imbibe feminism in law and judiciary, he quoted that, “The first thing that the judge needs to understand is that the law does not simply operate on pre-existing gender realities, but the law contributes to the construction of those realities”.