Introduction 

• The Constitution of India (COI), adopted on 26th November, 1949 and enacted on January 26, 1950, stands as the supreme law of the Republic of India.  
• COI, being the longest written constitution of any sovereign nation, establishes the fundamental framework of governance. 
• The Constitution establishes India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic 
• This Constitution serves as the foundational document governing all laws, institutions, and governance mechanisms in India. 
• Dr. Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud was the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI). 
• His father, Y. V. Chandrachud, was the 16th 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. 
• Justice DY Chandrachud gave concurring and dissenting opinions in several landmark judgments which transformed the existing practices. 

Some Important Constitutional Bench Judgements Passed by Former CJI DY Chandrachud (2024) 

• Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2024) 
  • In this case the electoral Bond Scheme was challenged. 
  • The Supreme Court ruling declares the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 unconstitutional. The verdict states the Electoral Bond Scheme violative of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19 (1)(a) (right to information) of the Indian Constitution.
• High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024) 
  • In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Supreme Court had held that the stay order granted in pending civil and criminal cases would automatically be vacated (would cease to exist) after six months. 
  • On 1st December 2023, a Bench of three judges of Supreme Court expressed a view that a decision of this Court in this case requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. 
  • Thereafter a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud unanimously held that stay orders granted in pending cases do not automatically lapse. The Bench also held that the Court did not have the discretionary power under Article 142 to declare automatic vacation of stay orders. 
  • The important parameters given by the Supreme Court for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI can be summarized as follows: 
    • The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favor who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court. 
    • Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants. 
    • While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right. 
    • The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence. 
    • Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. 
    • The issue of prioritizing the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending. 
• Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) 
  • The case involves two major issues as: 
    • What is the extent of immunity enjoyed by Legislator under Article 105 (2) or Article 194 (2) of COI?  
    • Does a legislator enjoy immunity for accepting bribes to vote in the Parliament or Assembly? 
  • The Supreme Court in this case overturned a longstanding controversial ratio. This judgment will go a long way in protecting the sanctity of democracy in our country. Corruption is a disease that does not let any democracy function properly.  
  • The decision of PV Narsimha Rao v. UOI (1998) legitimized corruption. The overturning of this decision has finally resulted in an interpretation that is in consonance with the Constitutional and democratic principles. 
  • The words ‘in respect of’, ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation to’ cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may even have a remote relation with the speech or vote given. 
• Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors (2024) 
  • The case involves several critical questions, including the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to taxation powers, such as Entries 49 and 50 of the State List, and the scope of Parliament's authority under Entry 54 of the Union List. 
  • This case has been referred to a nine-judge bench after 9,044 days of its initial filing, marking it as one of the lengthiest pending cases in the court's history.  
  • The Supreme Court held by an 8:1 majority that States have the power to levy tax on mineral rights and that the Union law - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - does not limit such power of the States. 
• State of Punjab and Ors. v Davinder Singh and Ors (2024)   
  • The case is concerned with validity of sub-classification of the Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe. 
  • The Seven judges bench upheld the sub-classifications among the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes so that benefits of reservation can reach to the weaker of the weakest sections of the society.  
  • The bench former CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma. 
• In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955 (2024) 
  • The case concerns Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which was added in 1985 through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act following the Assam Accord - an agreement between the Indian government and Assam movement leaders. 
  • The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which recognizes the Assam Accord, by a 4:1 majority. 
  • The majority opinion, led by former CJI DY Chandrachud, emphasized the need to balance humanitarian concerns with local population protections, while dissenting Justice Pardiwala argued that the provision had become unconstitutional over time due to its arbitrary nature and ineffective enforcement mechanisms.   
• State of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024) 
  • The case revolves around a constitutional dispute between the States and Union regarding who has the power to regulate industrial alcohol/denatured spirit. 
  • A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled 8:1 that States have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol, classifying it under "intoxicating liquor" as per Entry 8 of the State List.  
    • The majority opinion observed that the term should not be narrowly defined, including substances that could be misused for human consumption.   
    • In dissent, Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is specifically not meant for human consumption, stated differing interpretations of the term "intoxicating liquor." 
• Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2024) 
  • In this case the appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII of the COI. 
  • The Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling about private property rights. In a 7:2 decision, the Court clarified that the government cannot simply take over all private properties by calling them "community resources." This was a major case that required nine judges to decide, showing how important the issue was.   
• Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors (2024) 
  • The case revolved around Recruitment rules must meet constitutional standards of equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination in public employment (Article 16). 
  • The Supreme Court in this case ruled that recruitment rules for government jobs cannot be changed mid-process unless explicitly allowed. 
  • It endorsed the principles laid down in K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh Case (2008) which held that changing recruitment criteria during the selection process is impermissible. 
  • The Court clarified that the K Manjusree case (2008) cannot be ignored for not considering the State of Haryana vs Subhash Chander Marwaha Case (1973) ruling. 
    • In the Marwaha case, the Court ruled that meeting minimum eligibility marks doesn't guarantee selection, as the government can set higher standards for public interest. 
• Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal (2024) 
  • The case revolved around the two main legal issues: 
    • Whether AMU qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution?  
    • The core dispute centers around the interpretation of the phrase "establish and administer" in Article 30(1) which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions. 
  • The Supreme Court in this case declares AMU as an "Institution of National Importance" and does not strip it of its minority character. The Court states that the Union's argument that such a designation should necessitate a more inclusive approach to reservations, emphasizing the need to balance national priorities and protect minority rights.  
  • The decision emphasizes the constitutional recognition of AMU’s distinct identity while ensuring it remains aligned with broader social justice principles. 
• Central Organisation for Railways Electrification v. M/S ECI Spic Smo MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (2024) 
  • In this case the Supreme Court checked the legality of an arbitration clause that stipulates that the arbitrator will be chosen from a panel of arbitrators assembled by one of the parties, which is typically a public sector organization (PSU). 
  • The Supreme Court rejected provisions that gave Public Sector Undertakings the authority to select arbitrators on their own to settle disagreements with private contractors. The Constitution Bench ruled that although PSUs are allowed to keep a list of possible arbitrators, they are not allowed to force the other side to choose an arbitrator from the list. 

Conclusion 

The system of precedents ensures that constitutional law remains both stable and adaptable, making it a crucial element in India's constitutional democracy. Important precedents set by the constitutional benches ensure a hierarchical system of judicial precedents that ensures legal consistency and predictability.