Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who leaves office next month, leaves behind a mixed legacy: some critics on one side of the ideological spectrum argue that the CJI’s approach had veered into judicial activism. His admirers praise him for upholding fundamental rights of the individuals.
Born into a family deeply entrenched in the legal profession, CJI Chandrachud has a rich heritage that informs his judicial philosophy. His father, Y.V. Chandrachud, was the longest serving Chief Justice of India from 1974 to 1985. He instilled in him a profound respect for the law and the judiciary’s role in a democratic society. Chandrachud’s academic credentials are equally impressive; he graduated from Delhi University before pursuing further studies at Harvard Law School, where he earned a Master’s degree.
Since his appointment as the 50th Chief Justice of India in November 2022, Chandrachud, for some, was a transformative figure, navigating some of the nation’s most pressing legal challenges with a thoughtful and progressive approach. Known for his passion in championing civil liberties and human rights, his judgements in the realm of LGBTQ+ rights and his supportive stance following the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships under Section 377 were noteworthy.
Chandrachud, who has spoken of dissent as the “safety valve of democracy,” delivered some incisive judgments at the conclusion of his first year on the Supreme Court, namely by authoring the majority opinion in the landmark Puttaswamy case, where a nine-judge bench recognized the Right to Privacy and Dignity as essential components of the Right to Life. Since that pivotal ruling, the CJI has consistently invoked the right to privacy to broaden the landscape of citizens’ fundamental rights.
He then expanded the interpretation of privacy to encompass “sexual privacy,” affirming the rights of sexual minorities in a society that has long marginalised them. Likewise, in the landmark Hadiya case, he underscored the importance of an individual’s right to make personal choices about their future as integral to their right to privacy. This decision effectively reinstated a marriage that had been annulled under the controversial ‘Love Jihad’ law.
His concern for advancing women’s rights was evinced when he decriminalised adultery by affirming their sexual autonomy within marriage. In his Sabarimala ruling, he upheld the right of women of menstrual age to enter the temple, arguing that constitutional principles must override regressive customs and practices. Chandrachud has taken a strong stance against gender stereotypes, rejecting the notion that women are inherently weaker. Recently, he ruled that single women seeking abortions should have the same rights as married women.
He has been known for his reservations on the Aadhaar policy, which he argued reduced individuals to mere numbers. His was the sole dissenting voice in the Koregaon Bhima case when he defended the rights of five arrested activists while cautioning that dissent should not be suppressed based on mere conjecture.
By the dour and aloof standards of the CJI’s post, Chandrachud has been media friendly - he commented on the successful landing of the Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft. This has courted both praise and criticism. In stark contrast to his predecessors, Chandrachud has emerged as something of a media celebrity, consistently being in the spotlight, both statements made within the court and those delivered in public settings.
His rhetoric, both in and out of court, aligns with progressive constitutional values, which endeared him to progressives.
Yet, some of these very progressives were swift to heap censure on him when he made headlines for a highly publicised visit to temples in Gujarat in January this year.
Chandrachud faced even more ‘progressive’ flak when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his on occasion of Ganesh Puja this September sparked a furore, with disgruntled lawyers and Opposition leaders casting aspersions over the impartiality of the judiciary.
As he prepares to leave office, the CJI’s legacy will be defined by his attempts to uphold constitutional values in a polarised climate.
Comments