Constitution Bench Judgments Of Justice DY Chandrachud

The Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, and continued until November 7, 2022. He became the 50th CJI on November 8, 2022, and will leave the office on November 10, 2024. During his tenure as a judge and as CJI, Chandrachud has been involved in more than 700 judgments including constitution bench judgments, many of which he has authored, dissented and concurred with.

As a CJI, he was a part of 18 Constitution bench judgments. He was also a part of the bench set to hear a challenge to the 104th Amendment Act 2019, which extended reservations provided for Scheduled Castes(SCs) and Scheduled Tribes(STs) communities in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies by another 10 years [Ashok Kumar Jail v. UOI]. A bench headed by CJI, comprising Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha was to hear the case from November 1st, 2022 onwards. But the hearing never began.

The majority of the Constitution bench judgments were given in 2024. 

1. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Union Of India (May 11, 2023): The Supreme Court held that the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police, and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the Delhi government's decision over services, apart from public order, police, and land.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha

2. Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor Of Maharashtra (May 11, 2023): In the matter pertaining to the Shiv Sena rift, the Supreme Court Constitution bench held that it cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Court held that the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde from the government with the support of the BJP. "Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him", the Court held while observing that it cannot quash a resignation which was voluntarily tendered.

The Court doubted the correctness of the law laid down in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, which states that a Speaker will be disabled from initiating disqualification proceedings when a notice seeking their removal is pending. Since this was pronounced by a 5-judge bench, its reconsideration was pending before a bench headed by CJI, comprising Sanjay Kishan Kaul [retired since then], Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Manoj Misra, Surya Kant, and J.B. Pardiwala. This bench will have to be reconstituted by incoming CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha

3. Supriyo v. Union of India (October 17, 2023): The Supreme Court refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [minority judgment], Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul [minority judgment], S Ravindra Bhat [majority judgment], Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha [concurred with majority]

4. Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd (December 6, 2023): The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement can bind non-signatories as per the "group of companies" doctrine. "The 'group of companies' doctrine must be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements," the Court observed.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha [concurring judgment], JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

5. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India (December 11, 2023): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Union Government's 2019 decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution. The Court held that the State of J&K had no internal sovereignty and the concurrence of the State Government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution to the State of J&K. It was held that Article 370 was a temporary provision.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul [concurring opinion], Sanjiv Khanna [concurring opinion], BR Gavai, and Surya Kant

6. In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 (December 13, 2023):  The Supreme Court ruled that arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible in evidence. However, the Court pointed out that it is a curable defect as per the Indian Stamp Act. The Court overruled the judgment rendered by a 5-judge bench in April this year in M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors which had by a 3:2 majority held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority opinion], Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna [concurring opinion], B R Gavai, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra

7. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (February 15, 2024): The Supreme Court held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the scheme has been struck down as unconstitutional.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Abhay S Oka [authored majority judgment], JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal [concurring opinion], and Manoj Misra.

9. Sita Soren vs Union Of India (March 4, 2024): The Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.

10. Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (July 25, 2024): 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 - do not limit such power of the States.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud[authored majority opinion], Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna [partially concurred], Sudhanshu Dhulia [dissented], J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

15. M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors (November 6, 2024): The Supreme Court held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy [authored the judgment], PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra

16. Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors ( November 7, 2024): The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed midway after the selection process for posts has begun unless the relevant rules expressly permit so.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra [authored]

17. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal (November 8, 2024): In the case relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:3 majority), overruled the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. The issue of whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench based on this view of the majority.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant [partially dissented] JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta [dissented], Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma [dissented]

18. Central Organisation For Railways Electrification v. M/S ECI Spic Smo MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company (November 8, 2024): The Supreme Court ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors. The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices Hrishikesh Roy [partially dissented], PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra

List of some significant Constitution bench judgments from his tenure as judge: 

1. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar (January 2, 2017): The Supreme Court has held that the re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes. The court also held that the satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the Governor under Article 213 while issuing ordinances is not immune from judicial review.

Bench: Former CJI Tirath Singh Thakur, Justices M.B. Lokur [dissented], Sharad Bobde, A. K. Goel, U.U. Lalit, D.Y. Chandrachud [authored majority judgment]

2. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (January 2, 2017): The Supreme Court held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and election of a candidate who indulged in it can be set aside.

Bench: Former CJI Tirath Singh Thakur [concurred], Justices M.B. Lokur [authored majority judgment], Sharad Bobde [concurred], L.N. Rao, U.U. Lalit, D.Y. Chandrachud [dissented]

3. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. (August 24, 2017)  The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to privacy is a Fundamental Right and it is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a unanimous decision the Nine -Judge Constitution bench overruled the Judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases.

Bench: Former CJI J S Khehar, Justices J Chelameswar [concurring opinion], S A Bobde[ concurring opinion], R.K. Agarwal, Rohinton Nariman [concurring opinion], A M Sapre [concurring opinion], D Y Chandrachud (majority judgment authored], Sanjay Kishan Kaul [concurring opinion] and S Abdul Nazeer.

4. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India ( March 6, 2018): The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will are also legally valid. The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. "The right to life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty."

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud [concurring opinion] and Ashok Bhushan

5. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law (September 6, 2018): The Supreme Court partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which made “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” a criminal offence. 

Bench: Former CJI Deepak Misra [authored for J Khanwilkar and himself], Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman [concurring opinion], DY Chandrachud [concurring opinion] and Indu Malhotra [concurring opinion]

6. Public Interest Foundation vs Union Of India (September 25, 2018): The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that candidates cannot be disqualified merely because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case. The bench has urged the legislature to consider framing law to ensure decriminalisation of politics.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra [authored majority judgment], Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

7. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India (September 26, 2018): The Supreme Court read down some of the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016, struck down a few but significant ones (mainly Section 33(2), 47 and 57), and upheld the rest.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Mishra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud [dissented], Ashok Bhushan [concurring opinion], and A.K. Sikri [authored majority judgment].

8. Joseph Shine vs Union Of India (September 27, 2018): The Supreme Court struck down 158-year-old Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, as unconstitutional. "Any provision of law affecting individual dignity and equality of women invites wrath of constitution. It's time to say that husband is not the master of wife. Legal soverignity of one sex over other sex is wrong", read Chief Justice Misra from the judgment written for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar. The judgment held Section 497 to be "manifestly arbitrary".

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Mishra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud [concurring opinion], R.F. Nariman [concurring opinion], and Indu Malhotra [concurring opinion].

9. Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala (September 28, 2018): The Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority, the Court has permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra [authored for J Khanwilkar and himself, Justices R F Nariman [concurring opinion], A M Khanwilkar,  D Y Chandrachud [concurring opinion] and Indu Malhotra [dissented].

10. M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (November 9, 2019): The Supreme Court held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of the mosque. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The Central Government has been directed to formulate a scheme in this regard within three months. A Board of Trustees must be set up for the construction of temple.

Bench: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and Sharad Bobde [unanimous decision/no author]

11. Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors Chief (November 13, 2019): The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in its judgment examining the validity of provisions of the Finance Act 2017 affecting tribunals, has doubted the correctness of the interpretation of the majority judgment which held that Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution. It noted that the majority dictum in Aadhaar judgment did not substantially discuss the effect of the word 'only' in Article 110(1) and did not examine the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a "Money Bill" do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g).

A reference to the seven-judge bench remains pending.

Bench: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana, DY Chandrachud [concurring opinion], Deepak Gupta [dissented], and Sanjiv Khanna

12. Central Public Information Officer, SCI vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (November 13, 2019): the Supreme Court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.

Bench: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana [concurring opinion], D.Y. Chandrachud [concurring opinion], Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna [authored for majority]

Also Read - The Mixed Legacy Of CJI DY Chandrachud