Chief Justice of India is the highest rank of a judicial
officer in the Supreme Court. The rank ought to bring huge responsibility on
the shoulders of the appointed Chief Justice to ensure complete social justice
in society. Recently, the CJI UU Lalit, with a short tenure of 74 days, was
succeeded by Justice DY Chandrachud.
CJI DY Chandrachud will serve the nation for the next two
years. So, what can the legal fraternity expect of him? The said can be
understood by his notable judgments and dissents. Hence, the author in the
present piece shall try to elucidate the opinions of CJI DY Chandrachud in
detail.
Journey to the 50th Chief Justice of
India
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is the son of former
Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, born on November 11, 1959. He
obtained BA with Honours in Economics from St Stephen’s College and LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.
Further, he did his Masters in Law (LLM) and Doctorate in Juridical Sciences
(SJD) from Harvard Law School, USA. His journey as an advocate started at the
Bombay High Court, and during his advocacy, he has designated the post of
Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General of India in 1998. As an
advocate and Additional Solicitor, he appeared in several important cases
involving the Rights of HIV Positive Workers, Contract Labour, Rights of
Religious and Linguistic Minorities, etc. Further, he served as the Additional
Solicitor General of India till his appointment as the Judge of the Bombay High
Court in 2000. In the year 2013, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of
Allahabad High Court. After three years, he was appointed as the Judge of the
Supreme Court in the year 2016.
Important Judgements
Justice DY Chandrachud is known for his progressive judgments that shaped society as a whole. Recently he also opined that the legal fraternity must take a feminist point of view in law. The author shall proceed to discuss the notable judgments and opinions made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
In the case, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court
comprising CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Rohinton Nariman,
Justice A.M Khanwilkar, and Justice Indu Malhotra held that Section 377 of the
IPC was unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalized consensual same-sex
relationship. CJI D.Y Chandrachud pinned a concurring opinion acknowledging the
transformative nature of the Constitution and observed that members of the LGBT
community, like all other citizens, are entitled to constitutional rights. He
also opined that fulfilment in sexual intimacies could not be subjected to
discriminatory behaviour.
“A hundred and fifty-eight years is too long a period for the LGBT community to suffer the indignities of denial. That it has taken sixty-eight years even after the advent of the Constitution is a sobering reminder of the unfinished task which lies ahead. It is also a time to invoke the transformative power of the Constitution.”
The judgement, famously known as the Hadiya Marriage Case,
concerned a major female who converted herself to Islam and married her
lover(petitioner), and her parents believed that she was forced and
brainwashed. The said decision was delivered by CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM
Khanwilkar and a concurring opinion by Justice DY Chandrachud. In his
concurring opinion, he upheld the adult’s right to make his or her own
decisions in marriage or religion, since personal autonomy falls within the
right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also acknowledged the
strength of the Constitution, i.e. to guarantee each person a choice of partner
within marriage or outside.
“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law that is substantively and procedurally fair, just, and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness.”
A five-judge bench composed of Justice D.Y Chandrachud,
Justice A.M Khanwilkar, and Justice Rohinton Nariman struck down Section 497 of
the IPC that decriminalized adultery, while Justice Indu Malhotra gave a
dissenting opinion. CJI D.Y Chandrachud agreed with the majority and pinned a
separate opinion where he observed that Section 497 is a denial of substantive
equality as it perpetuated the subordinate status ascribed to women in marriage
and society, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. (Para 67 of the
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, opinion of CJI D.Y Chandrachud)
“The law on adultery, conceived in Victorian morality, considers a married woman the possession of her husband: a passive entity, bereft of agency to determine her course of life. The provision seeks to only redress perceived harm caused by the husband. This notion is grounded in stereotypes about permissible actions in a marriage and the passivity of women.”
A nine-bench judgement’s majority opinion was authored by Justice
DY Chandrachud on behalf of Chief Justice Khehar and Justices Agrawal, Nazeer,
and himself, and held right to privacy is a fundamental right recognized under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
“Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level, privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty, and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests which lie at the foundation of ordered liberty”
The Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice
A.M Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Nariman, and Justice D.Y Chandrachud held that
prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering Sabarimala temple is
unconstitutional, while Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion. In the
concurring opinion of Justice DY Chandrachud observed that prohibition violates
constitutional morality and Article 17 of the Indian Constitution
(untouchability)
“The prohibition against untouchability marks a powerful guarantee to remedy the stigmatization and exclusion of individuals and groups based on hierarchies of the social structure. Notions of purity and pollution have been employed to perpetuate discrimination and prejudice against women. They have no place in a constitutional order.”
The two-bench judgement authored by Justice DY Chandrachud (author)
on behalf of Justice Ajay Rastogi and himself granted equal opportunity to
females in army posts criticizing the stereotype mentality of the society.
“Reliance on the “inherent physiological differences between men and women” rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and constitutionally flawed notion that women are the weaker sex and may not undertake tasks that are too arduous for them. Arguments founded on the physical strengths and weaknesses of men and women and assumptions about women in the social context of marriage and family do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officers.”
Recently, a three-judge bench judgement was authored by
Justice DY Chandrachud on behalf of Justice A.S Bopanna, Justice J.B Pardiwala,
and himself. He opined that all women are entitled to safe and legal abortions.
And, there is no rationale in excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule
3B of MTP Rules, which mentions the categories of women who can seek an
abortion during pregnancy in the term 20-24 weeks.
“The MTP Act recognizes the reproductive autonomy of every pregnant woman to choose medical intervention to terminate her pregnancy. Implicitly, this right also extends to the right of the pregnant woman to access healthcare facilities to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It is meaningless to speak of the latter in the absence of the former.”
In the present case, the hon’ble Justice DY Candrachud
authored the judgement on behalf of Justice Hima Kohli and himself and banned
the two-finger test on the premise that it re-victimizes and re-traumatizes
women who may have been sexually assaulted.
“This so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity.”
Para 60 of the Judgment
From the above discussion, it becomes amply clear that CJI D.Y Chandrachud has taken an active role in adopting progressive thinking for the betterment of society. Apart from concurring opinion, CJI D.Y Chandrachud has dissented in numerous cases that need discussion too.
Famously known as Aadhar Case, the Constitution of the Aadhaar
Act was upheld. But the present CJI was the sole dissenter who observed that
the Aadhaar was unconstitutionally passed as a Money Bill. Also, he gave
importance to an individual’s privacy, dignity, and autonomy.
“Creating strong privacy protection laws and instilling safeguards may address or at the very least assuage some of the concerns associated with the Aadhaar scheme, which severely impairs informational self-determination, individual privacy, dignity, and autonomy.”
In this case, the petitioner contended that the police
violated Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and
their arrest was arbitrary. The Court allowed the investigation, but CJI D.Y
Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion stating that the issue in the present
matter was the veracity of the arrest. Hence, he suggested that a Special
Investigation Team probe the arrest of the activists.
“There can be no manner of doubt that the deprivation of human rights seriously impinges upon the dignity of the individual for which even compensation may not constitute an adequate recompense.”
In this case, the majority bench held that the electoral
candidates could not seek votes on the grounds of religion. Justice D.Y
Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion and differentiated between blanket
communal appeals and grievance-based communal appeals. And held that only the
former is prohibited under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
In a 4:1 ratio, the majority judgement dismissed the review
petition of the decision delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in the Aadhaar Case, while CJI D.Y Chandrachud was the sole dissenter. He
opined that the decision must be reviewed and upheld the constitutional
principles of consistency and the rule of law.
“It is important to draw a distinction with a situation where a judgement attains finality and the view propounded by it is disapproved by a larger bench subsequently”
Para 12 of the dissenting opinion.
Conclusion
The tenure of CJI D.Y Chandrachud is expected to be a ray of hope for the Indian Judiciary. Not only does he think progressively, but he also supports social transformation with changing times. His viewpoint on the transformative Constitution shall help to change the archaic and draconian laws prevalent in society. Also, the adoption of a feminist viewpoint in the law shall help to fight injustice meted upon helpless women in society.
CJI U.U Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India, having a short tenure of 74 days. Despite a short tenure, CJI U.U Lalit has done a. read more…
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during. read more…
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
Chief Justice of India is the highest rank of a judicial officer in the Supreme Court. The rank ought to bring huge responsibility on the shoulders of the appointed Chief Justice to ensure complete social justice in society. Recently, the CJI UU Lalit, with a short tenure of 74 days, was succeeded by Justice DY Chandrachud.
CJI DY Chandrachud will serve the nation for the next two years. So, what can the legal fraternity expect of him? The said can be understood by his notable judgments and dissents. Hence, the author in the present piece shall try to elucidate the opinions of CJI DY Chandrachud in detail.
Journey to the 50th Chief Justice of India
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is the son of former Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, born on November 11, 1959. He obtained BA with Honours in Economics from St Stephen’s College and LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University. Further, he did his Masters in Law (LLM) and Doctorate in Juridical Sciences (SJD) from Harvard Law School, USA. His journey as an advocate started at the Bombay High Court, and during his advocacy, he has designated the post of Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General of India in 1998. As an advocate and Additional Solicitor, he appeared in several important cases involving the Rights of HIV Positive Workers, Contract Labour, Rights of Religious and Linguistic Minorities, etc. Further, he served as the Additional Solicitor General of India till his appointment as the Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2000. In the year 2013, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. After three years, he was appointed as the Judge of the Supreme Court in the year 2016.
Important Judgements
Justice DY Chandrachud is known for his progressive judgments that shaped society as a whole. Recently he also opined that the legal fraternity must take a feminist point of view in law. The author shall proceed to discuss the notable judgments and opinions made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
In the case, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice A.M Khanwilkar, and Justice Indu Malhotra held that Section 377 of the IPC was unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalized consensual same-sex relationship. CJI D.Y Chandrachud pinned a concurring opinion acknowledging the transformative nature of the Constitution and observed that members of the LGBT community, like all other citizens, are entitled to constitutional rights. He also opined that fulfilment in sexual intimacies could not be subjected to discriminatory behaviour.
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan M
The judgement, famously known as the Hadiya Marriage Case, concerned a major female who converted herself to Islam and married her lover(petitioner), and her parents believed that she was forced and brainwashed. The said decision was delivered by CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar and a concurring opinion by Justice DY Chandrachud. In his concurring opinion, he upheld the adult’s right to make his or her own decisions in marriage or religion, since personal autonomy falls within the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also acknowledged the strength of the Constitution, i.e. to guarantee each person a choice of partner within marriage or outside.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
A five-judge bench composed of Justice D.Y Chandrachud, Justice A.M Khanwilkar, and Justice Rohinton Nariman struck down Section 497 of the IPC that decriminalized adultery, while Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion. CJI D.Y Chandrachud agreed with the majority and pinned a separate opinion where he observed that Section 497 is a denial of substantive equality as it perpetuated the subordinate status ascribed to women in marriage and society, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. (Para 67 of the Joseph Shine v. Union of India, opinion of CJI D.Y Chandrachud)
Justice K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India
A nine-bench judgement’s majority opinion was authored by Justice DY Chandrachud on behalf of Chief Justice Khehar and Justices Agrawal, Nazeer, and himself, and held right to privacy is a fundamental right recognized under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice A.M Khanwilkar, Justice Rohinton Nariman, and Justice D.Y Chandrachud held that prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering Sabarimala temple is unconstitutional, while Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion. In the concurring opinion of Justice DY Chandrachud observed that prohibition violates constitutional morality and Article 17 of the Indian Constitution (untouchability)
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors
The two-bench judgement authored by Justice DY Chandrachud (author) on behalf of Justice Ajay Rastogi and himself granted equal opportunity to females in army posts criticizing the stereotype mentality of the society.
X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Recently, a three-judge bench judgement was authored by Justice DY Chandrachud on behalf of Justice A.S Bopanna, Justice J.B Pardiwala, and himself. He opined that all women are entitled to safe and legal abortions. And, there is no rationale in excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B of MTP Rules, which mentions the categories of women who can seek an abortion during pregnancy in the term 20-24 weeks.
State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
In the present case, the hon’ble Justice DY Candrachud authored the judgement on behalf of Justice Hima Kohli and himself and banned the two-finger test on the premise that it re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted.
From the above discussion, it becomes amply clear that CJI D.Y Chandrachud has taken an active role in adopting progressive thinking for the betterment of society. Apart from concurring opinion, CJI D.Y Chandrachud has dissented in numerous cases that need discussion too.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India
Famously known as Aadhar Case, the Constitution of the Aadhaar Act was upheld. But the present CJI was the sole dissenter who observed that the Aadhaar was unconstitutionally passed as a Money Bill. Also, he gave importance to an individual’s privacy, dignity, and autonomy.
Romila Thapar v Union of India
In this case, the petitioner contended that the police violated Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and their arrest was arbitrary. The Court allowed the investigation, but CJI D.Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion stating that the issue in the present matter was the veracity of the arrest. Hence, he suggested that a Special Investigation Team probe the arrest of the activists.
Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.
In this case, the majority bench held that the electoral candidates could not seek votes on the grounds of religion. Justice D.Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion and differentiated between blanket communal appeals and grievance-based communal appeals. And held that only the former is prohibited under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.)
In a 4:1 ratio, the majority judgement dismissed the review petition of the decision delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar Case, while CJI D.Y Chandrachud was the sole dissenter. He opined that the decision must be reviewed and upheld the constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law.
Conclusion
The tenure of CJI D.Y Chandrachud is expected to be a ray of hope for the Indian Judiciary. Not only does he think progressively, but he also supports social transformation with changing times. His viewpoint on the transformative Constitution shall help to change the archaic and draconian laws prevalent in society. Also, the adoption of a feminist viewpoint in the law shall help to fight injustice meted upon helpless women in society.
Also Read Looking at the tenure of CJI NV Ramana
Arshnit Sandhu has completed her LLM in Corporate and Commercial Law from the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, you may follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Share this:
Related
Tenure of 49th CJI Uday Umesh Lalit
CJI U.U Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India, having a short tenure of 74 days. Despite a short tenure, CJI U.U Lalit has done a. read more…
Share this:
Looking at the tenure of CJI NV Ramana
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during. read more…
Share this: