Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit wrote to the Central Authorities together with his advice as Justice DY Chandrachud to take over as the following CJI. Along with his retirement on 8 November, and pending authorities approval, Justice Chandrachud will take over and function CJI until November 2024.
A choose on the Supreme Court docket since 2016, Justice Chandrachud has been part of a number of landmark verdicts. He’s recognized for his progressive judgments, together with the current one upholding the rights of any girl to hunt abortion as much as 24 weeks. He has additionally been the only real dissenting voice in just a few judgements.
Son of the longest-serving CJI YV Chandrachud, if appointed, this father-son duo would be the first to have served as Chief Justices on the Supreme Court docket.
Listed here are among the landmark judgments delivered by Justice Chandrachud:
Abortion rights for girls
In a petition filed by a 25-year-old single girl searching for an abortion, the bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna, and Justice JB Pardiwala handed a landmark judgment upholding the rights of reproductive autonomy of an single girl.
“The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privateness offers an single girl the appropriate of selection as as to if or to not bear a baby on the identical footing as that of a married girl,” mentioned Justice Chandrachud.
The judgment additionally recognised marital rape, within the case of such abortions.
Proper to Privateness
In August 2017, a nine-judge bench gave a unanimous verdict guaranteeing the basic proper to privateness. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Chandrachud recognised the appropriate to privateness and dignity as an intrinsic a part of life.
“Life and private liberty are usually not creations of the Structure. These rights are recognised by the Structure as inhering in every particular person as an intrinsic and inseparable a part of the human factor which dwells inside,” Justice DY Chandrachud mentioned.
Apparently, this judgement overruled a earlier judgement which held that elementary rights might be suspended throughout a time of Emergency. One of many judges who handed that verdict was his father, Justice YV Chandrachud.
In his judgement, Justice DY Chandrachud wrote, “The judgments rendered by all of the 4 judges constituting the bulk in ADM Jabalpur are critically flawed.”
A five-judge bench upheld the appropriate of menstruating ladies to go to the temple. Justice D Y Chandrachud held that the debarring of girls belonging to the age group of 10-50 years by the Sabarimala Temple was opposite to constitutional morality and that it undermined the beliefs of autonomy, liberty, and dignity. He added that such stigmas are usually not constitutionally supported.
Hadiya Marriage Case
The decision was delivered by a three-judge bench composed of then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, and Justice DY Chandrachud.
Hadiya, who was a Hindu, had transformed to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim. Kerala Excessive Court docket had annulled the wedding and ordered Hadiya to be positioned within the custody of her mother and father.
In a unanimous judgement, the bench dominated towards the Kerala Excessive courtroom. Justice Chandrachud wrote in his judgement that the Kerala Excessive Court docket had touched upon an space which is out of bounds for a constitutional courtroom.
“The Excessive Court docket was of the view that at twenty-four, Hadiya is weak and susceptible, able to being exploited in some ways. The Excessive Court docket has overpassed the truth that she is a significant, able to taking her personal selections and is entitled to the appropriate recognised by the Structure to steer her life precisely as she pleases. Intimacies of marriage, together with the alternatives that people make on whether or not or to not marry and on whom to marry, lie exterior the management of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms should safeguard these freedoms. Interference by the State in such issues has a critically chilling impact on the train of freedoms,” the judgement mentioned.
Decriminalising Part 377
In a historic judgement, a five-judge bench – then CJI Dipak Misra, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra – decriminalised ‘unnatural intercourse’ between two consenting adults.
“The selection of a accomplice, the need for private intimacy and the craving to seek out love and fulfilment in human relationships have a common enchantment, straddling age and time. In defending consensual intimacies, the Structure adopts a easy precept: the state has no enterprise to intrude into these private issues. Nor can societal notions of heteronormativity regulate constitutional liberties primarily based on sexual orientation,” mentioned Justice Chandrachud in his judgement.
Bhima Koregaon Case
Justice Chandrachud had dissented from the decision delivered by the vast majority of the three-judge bench of then CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar. The bench had rejected the plea by Romila Thapar and different activists searching for a Particular Investigation Workforce to probe the arrests made within the Bhima Koregaon violence case.
He referred to as the police conduct ‘disconcerting and unfair’ and mentioned that technicalities can’t be allowed to override justice.
“Dissent is a logo of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition can’t be muzzled by persecuting those that take up unpopular causes,” wrote Justice Chandrachud in his minority opinion.
Edited by Yoshita Rao
‘5 instances on private liberty determined by Justice DY Chandrachud’ by Murali Krishnan for Bar and Bench, Revealed on 15 November 2020
‘Justice DY Chandrachud: Quickly-to-be fiftieth Chief Justice of India, he overturned his father’s judgments twice’ Revealed on 11 October 2022 Courtesy Moneycontrol.com
‘Profile | Justice Chandrachud whose dissents are as highly effective as his judgments’ by Krishnadas Rajagopal for The Hindu, Revealed on 11 October 2022
‘State has no enterprise in private issues: Justice DY Chandrachud’s conclusion in 377 case’ Revealed on 06 September 2018, Courtesy Scroll