Justice D.Y. Chandrachud demitted office as the Chief Justice of India on November 8, 2024. Elevated to the Supreme Court in 2016, he has been an integral part of the judiciary, delivering 600 judgments and participating in 1,726 benches during his tenure. Known for his empathetic approach to justice, unwavering commitment to individual rights, and progressive vision that embraced social change, Justice Chandrachud’s tenure has been transformative. Serving as the 50th Chief Justice of India, he has redefined what it means to protect fundamental rights, pushing the judiciary to consider the evolving needs of Indian society and adapting the law to contemporary challenges.
Redefining Fundamental Rights and Addressing Societal Challenges
Known for his progressive vision, Justice Chandrachud consistently upheld individual rights and promoted social change. His tenure redefined the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring that the law adapted to the evolving needs of Indian society. Among his many notable contributions was his opinion in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, where he affirmed the inviolability of the right to life and personal liberty, even during a national emergency. This judgment overturned the controversial ADM Jabalpur decision, delivered by his father, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, marking a significant reaffirmation of personal liberties and constitutional supremacy. He was also part of the constitution benches in the historic Ayodhya Title Dispute Case, Sabarimala Temple Case, Constitutionality of Sec 377 IPC.
Addressing Pendency and Backlog of Cases
Justice Chandrachud assumed office as CJI in November 2022, inheriting a substantial backlog of cases. At the time, the Supreme Court had approximately 70,598 pending cases, a figure exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite reforms introduced by his predecessors, CJI N.V. Ramana and CJI U.U. Lalit, systemic challenges persisted.
By the end of his tenure in November 2024, the number of pending cases stood at around 82,000. However, this increase was partly due to Justice Chandrachud’s decision to include previously unregistered and defective cases in the public docket for the first time. Despite the rise in total cases, over 11,000 cases were cleared during his tenure, demonstrating a net reduction in backlog and an emphasis on judicial efficiency.
Forming Constitutional Benches: Resolving Landmark Cases
Justice Chandrachud prioritized the swift formation of constitutional benches to address long-pending and critical legal matters. In 2023 and 2024 alone, 37 such benches were constituted, delivering judgments on some of the most significant issues in recent history. The Supreme Court set a historic precedent by delivering three judgments from nine-judge benches. This surpasses the previous record of two nine-judge bench judgments, which were rendered in 1963, 1966, 1993, and 1994.
5 Judge Bench Cases
- Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration proceedings- Cox and Kings Ltd vs SAP India Ltd. This was the first constitution bench constituted by CJI DY Chandrachud. Court unanimously held that the doctrine is applicable in arbitration agreements. They observed that a non-signatory party’s conduct can indicate consent to be bound by the agreement, and that the requirement for a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act does not preclude including non-signatories.
- Plea for Marriage In Equality- Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr vs UOI- The bench unanimously agreed that there is no fundamental right to marry, and that marriages between sexual minorities cannot be read into the SMA. All five judges confirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing law. In a 3:2 majority, the bench held that the Constitution does not recognise “civil unions” for sexual minorities to access marital benefits. (Majority opinion Authored by Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and a concurring opinion by Justice Pamidighantam Narasimha and dissent by CJI Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul)
- Altering rules for appointment of public posts- Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court. The bench unanimously held that the rules cannot be altered after the recruitment process has already begun. The employer has discretion to make rules to find the most suitable candidate for a post. The recruiting authority can set benchmarks for different stages of evaluation in the appointment process but such benchmarks have to be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process.
- Validity of LMV Vehicles Licence to drive Transport Vehicles- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance vs Rambha Devi. The Court upheld Mukund Dewangan, stating that holders of a LMV licence can drive transport vehicles weighing under 7500 kilograms. It clarified that e-rickshaws, e-cars and vehicles carrying other hazardous goods would require a separate licence. The decision would bring a much needed relief to gig workers who use LMVs to transport small goods and persons. It is also expected to prevent the rejection of claims by insurance companies when Transport Vehicles are involved in accidents—claims were being rejected on the ground the driver of the Transport Vehicle did not have a proper licence.
- Challenge to Abrogation of Art 370- The five-judge bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and did not address the reorganisation’s validity, accepting the Union government’s assurance of eventual statehood restoration. They observed that Article 370 was not permanent but rather a temporary measure to address Jammu and Kashmir’s unique needs and circumstances in the late 1940s and 1950s.
- Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme- Association for Democratic Reforms vs UOI- The Constitution Bench struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme. It held that the right to information applies to political parties and that the release of donor identities is essential for voters’ to make informed choices. The bench noted that the objective of curbing black money should not come at the cost of the right to information, emphasising alternative methods to address black money issues. Lastly, it recognised that corporate funding through electoral bonds could influence the electoral process.
- Constitutionality of 6A of the Citizenship Act- In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the provision, noting that Section 6A only applied to migrants who entered before the March 1971 cut-off, deeming those who entered afterward illegal. Recognising implementation issues, the Court ordered Supreme Court-supervised hearings to identify and deport migrants who have entered after the cut-off. In dissent, Justice J.B. Pardiwala noted that Section 6A was flawed and should be struck down due to the passage of time (“temporal unreasonableness”) as the delay in identifying and deporting migrants had led to sustained migration into Assam.
- Automatic Vacation stay of orders- High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs State of Uttar Pradesh- The bench unanimously ruled that stay orders in pending cases should not automatically lapse after six months, overruling Asian Resurfacing. It held that the decision to vacate a stay should be based on judicial discretion to ensure fairness.
- Appointment of Arbitrators by In-eligible persons- Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML(JV)- The bench unanimously held that no party, even if it is a government party, is entitled to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator. It also clarified that the government cannot insist on the opposing party choosing an arbitrator from a panel that it has unilaterally prepared. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and P.S. Narasimha, in separate opinions, observed that parties are free to choose their process for appointment with limited intervention from the court. The court will only be required to step in when there is no consensus among parties about the appointment.
7 Judge Bench Cases
- Legislative Immunity for accepting bribes for speech or vote in house- Sita Soren vs UOI. This was the first 7 judge bench constituted by CJI Chandrachud. The seven-judge bench ultimately overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao, asserting that bribery corrupts democracy. It criticised the decision’s “paradoxical outcome,” where immunity was granted to those who took a bribe and acted on it, while those who refrained were prosecuted.
- Validity of unstamped arbitration agreements- The bench unanimously concluded that an unstamped arbitration agreement is not void ab initio but a curable defect. It determined that the validity of the arbitration agreement is for the arbitral tribunals to assess and not the courts.
- Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status- AMU through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs Naresh Agarwal- The bench did not directly address the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University. However, in a 4:3 majority decision, it overruled the earlier decision in Azeez Basha and outlined the criteria for determining minority status. The majority held that an institution may achieve minority status if it is “established” by a person from a minority community. They reasoned that “administration” is a consequence of establishment and does not need to be a separate criterion. (CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra authored the majority). (Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in minority)
- Validity of Sub Classification within reserved categories- State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh- In a 6:1 majority, the bench upheld states’ power to create sub-groups within the Scheduled Caste community, finding that the group is not homogenous and that sub-classification does not alter the Presidential List, as no communities are added or removed. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, countering that sub-classification deprives other castes in the Presidential List, violating Article 14.
9 Judge Bench Cases
- States power to tax mines and minerals- MADA vs SAIL. The Supreme Court’s first nine-judge bench decision in Justice Chandrachud’s term. In an 8:1 decision, the bench ruled that states can levy taxes on mines and minerals, while clarifying that “royalty” is not a tax. Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, stating that royalty was in the nature of a tax as it was a compulsory payment.
- States power to regulate Industrial Alcohol- State of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalta Prasad Vaish. In an 8:1 majority, the bench ruled that state governments have regulatory authority over industrial alcohol, overturning Synthetics & Chemicals by holding that Entry 8 includes all types of liquor, including industrial alcohol. Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, asserting that “intoxicating liquor” should not encompass industrial alcohol, given its critical role in India’s chemical industry, which, she held, should remain under Union control.
- Nature of Private Property- Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra- In 8:1 majority, the bench held that not all individual property was a “material resource of the community”. In a unanimous decision, the bench also held that the pre-amended, narrower version of Article 31C still exists in the Constitution. In a partial dissent, Justice B.V. Nagarathna disagreed with the part of CJI Chandrachud’s opinion critiquing former judges who had held that all private property was a material resource of the community.
The formation of constitutional benches during Justice Chandrachud’s tenure represents a defining chapter in the Supreme Court’s history. By resolving long-standing and complex constitutional issues, these benches reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional principles and a pillar of democratic governance. His leadership in constituting and guiding these benches reflects a forward-looking vision, ensuring that the judiciary remains responsive to the evolving needs of a dynamic society. The precedents set during this period will undoubtedly serve as a cornerstone for future constitutional interpretation, solidifying his legacy as a transformative leader in India’s judicial history.
Reforming the Collegium System and Enhancing Judicial Independence
Previously, the Collegium’s operations were shrouded in secrecy, with certain aspects of judicial appointments considered “sensitive” and kept confidential. However, under Chief Justice Chandrachud, the Collegium adopted a policy of transparency, openly disclosing the reasons behind judicial appointments. At a time when tensions between the Executive and the Judiciary were high due to pending appointments, the Collegium, under CJI Chandrachud, made the unprecedented move of publicly revealing the concerns the Government had regarding certain recommended judges.
He also brought in significant reforms to the Collegium system, aiming to enhance transparency in judicial appointments. For the first time, the Collegium began publicly disclosing details of its deliberations, including instances of dissent, such as Justice K.M. Joseph’s objections to certain appointments. These disclosures marked a step toward greater openness but also drew criticism for not fully revealing the criteria for selecting judges. He consistently advocated for judicial independence by addressing delays in governmental approval of judicial appointments. He frequently pressed the Union government to act on pending Collegium recommendations, ensuring that the judiciary maintained its autonomy and effectiveness. During his brief tenure as Chief Justice, Justice Chandrachud sent 121 recommendations to the government for the appointment of judges to various High Courts. He also recommended 15 individuals for appointment to the Supreme Court, all of whom have since taken the oath and are serving as Supreme Court judges.
Speaking at an event organised by the Indian Express Group, He said traditionally, judicial independence was defined as independence from the executive. Independence of the judiciary even now means independence from the government. But that is not the only thing in terms of judicial independence. Our society has changed. Particularly with the advent of social media, you see interest groups, pressure groups and groups which are trying to use electronic media to put pressure on the courts to get favourable decisions
Embracing Technology for a Modern Judiciary, Expanding Judicial Infrastructure
Under Chief Justice SA Bobde, the court was compelled to adapt to video conferencing for hearings, a necessity during the nationwide lockdown. Justice Chandrachud, who chaired the e-committee, played a crucial role in implementing virtual courtrooms, introducing a technological shift that continues to benefit lawyers, litigants and journalists alike. It took close to two years, but this push toward digital solutions transformed the court from a paper-reliant institution to a near-seamless digital system. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said memorably in 2018 while batting for web-casting of court proceedings and ordering the live-streaming of important matters.
Justice Chandrachud spearheaded numerous technological advancements to improve judicial processes. His tenure saw the introduction of e-filing systems, virtual hearings, and real-time case status tracking, all of which enhanced transparency and efficiency. These innovations were particularly crucial in ensuring access to justice during and after the pandemic. He also unveiled plans to expand the Supreme Court’s physical capacity. He initiated the construction of a new building that would house 27 additional courts, 51 judges chambers, and improved facilities for lawyers and litigants. This expansion was aimed at modernizing the judiciary and accommodating future demands, further demonstrating his foresight and commitment to accessibility. He has also introduced the “Suswagatam”, the system of e-pass which allowed citizens to receive digital passes to access courts.
A Vision of Accessible, Transparent, and Inclusive Justice
Justice Chandrachud’s leadership was guided by a firm belief in the principles of accessibility, transparency, and inclusivity. As he once remarked, “The essence of justice lies in its accessibility, transparency, and inclusivity.” His tenure ensured that the voices of marginalized communities were amplified, fostering a more equitable legal system.
Like all public figures, Justice Chandrachud faced criticism during his tenure. His decisions and reforms were subject to intense scrutiny, reflecting the high stakes of his office. However, his unwavering commitment to modernizing the judiciary, upholding constitutional values, and promoting transparency has left an indelible legacy. As Justice Chandrachud bids farewell, his transformative contributions to the judiciary will continue to influence India’s legal system for years to come.
Reflecting on his eight and a half years as a Supreme Court judge, and the last two years as Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud stated, “I believe I have left the system in a better place than I found it.” Indeed, Justice Chandrachud, your contributions have been invaluable. Thank you for being an inspiring mentor, showing students like us the way to make the courts more accessible.
A fond farewell, Chief Justice Chandrachud!
This column is by S. Mrinal, a Law Student from SASTRA University, Thanjavur. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.