Justice DY Chandrachud's Judgments On Socio-Economic Justice, Gender Equality, Reproductive Rights, Child Welfare & Disability Rights

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who is set to demit office on November 10, was involved in some of the most significant judgments during his tenure as a judge. Some of his notable judgments on socio-economic and political justice, gender equality and disability rights are briefly discussed below. 

On socio-economic justice

1. E.R. Kumar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors (November 11, 2016): On writ petitions concerning the right to shelter to homeless persons in urban areas, especially during winters, the Supreme Court-monitored the implementation of the “Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless”, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, which refers to the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM).

The Court found that despite the availability of funds and a clear mechanism through which they are disbursed, the conditions of urban shelters are extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs on the ground. The Court appointed a committee headed by Justice Kailash Gambhir, retired Judge, High Court of Delhi as its Chairman to verify whether the shelters comply with the operational guidelines for the Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless under the NULM.

Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices L. Nageswara Rao, and D. Y. Chandrachud

2. Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India (December 14, 2016): In this case, an Article 32 petition was filed by Bachpan Bacho Andolan seeking mandamus to the Union of India to formulate and implement a national action plan for children on the issue of drugs, alcohol and substance abuse amongst children, the Supreme Court directed that the Government shall conclude the national survey on drug abuse within 6 months. It shall also formulate a national action plan for children, create a module containing an appropriate curriculum for children of all age groups to keep them away from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and also set up de-addiction centres.

Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices D Y Chandrachud, and A.M. Khanwilkar

3. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Sec.&Ors; vs K. Balu & Anr (December 15, 2016): The issue raised in this case was the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country, which have claimed human lives and caused debility and injury. It was stated that both on a personal scale (in terms of the injuries and loss of life) as well as in a social context, restitution in the form of mandatory awards of compensation can never undo the trauma of loss and the pain of suffering. Observing that there is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade in liquor, the Court passed directions including that all States and Union Territories shall cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways.

In March 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the review petition against the judgment and stated that there is a rationale basis for not allowing the exemption for those segments of national and state highways which fall within the limits of municipal or local authorities [bench: Former CJI T.S. Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and L. Nageswara Rao]

Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices L. Nageswara Rao, and D. Y. Chandrachud [authored]

4. Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union Of India (July 17, 2018): The Supreme Court held that “lynching is an affront to the rule of law and the exalted values of the Constitution.” The Court issued guidelines including extensive preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat mob lynching. The Court directed States to prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in light of Section 357A of the CrPC within a month from the judgment.

As per the guidelines, the state government shall designate a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), as a nodal officer who shall be assisted by one of the deputy superintendent of police (DSP) rank officers in taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They must also constitute a special task force to procure intelligence reports about people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud

5. Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India (September 26, 2018): The Supreme Court held that Court proceedings shall be live-streamed in the larger public interest. In this, reliance was put on Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which recognises the know and receive information and the right to carry out trade, occupation or profession respectively. This is clubbed with the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar[authored for CJI and himself], and D.Y. Chandrachud [concurring judgment]

6. In Re: Distribution Of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (April 30, 2021): The Supreme Court directed that the Central Government shall, in collaboration with the States, prepare a buffer stock of oxygen for emergency purposes and decentralize the location of the emergency stocks including in the National Capital. It directed the Central Government, within two weeks, to formulate a national policy on admissions to hospitals which shall be followed by all States amongst other directions.

Bench: S Ravindra Bhat, L Nageswara Rao, DY Chandrachud

7. State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors (August 1, 2024): The Supreme Court (by 6-1) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. The States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota. The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.

8. In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash (November 6, 2024): The Supreme Court has strongly denounced the trend of "bulldozer justice", whereby State authorities resort to demolition of homes of persons as a punitive action for alleged involvement in crimes. "Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter," the judgment stated. After finding that the house was demolished without following the due procedure, the Court had orally dictated an order directing the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner. 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

Gender equality and anti-discrimination

1. Karma Dorjee & Ors vs U.O.I (December 14, 2016) [Discrimination faced by Northeast citizens]: In a public interest litigation filed for guidelines to be set down to curb acts of discrimination against persons from the northeastern states, the Supreme Court set up a monitoring and redressal committee consisting of Joint Secretary (North-east), Ministry of Home Affairs and two members to be nominated by the Union Government to monitor the redressal of issues pertaining to racial discrimination faced by citizens of the nation drawn from the northeast. 

Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, L. Nageswara Rao, and D. Y. Chandrachud [authored]

2. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. (August 24, 2017) [Right to privacy includes reproductive autonomy judgment]: 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. CJI in his majority judgment held that privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. He said: "Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone." This became a precedent for many fundamental judgments on reproductive rights. 

3. Sabu Mathew George vs Union Of India And Ors. (December 13, 2017): In a petition filed by Sabu Mathew George, who is a member of the National Inspection and Monitoring Committee set up by the court in 2003 to inspect and report the implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) (PCPNDT) Act, 1994, in addition to the direction that internet search engines Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! are under obligation to see that the “doctrine of autoblock” is applied within a reasonable period of time to prohibit any attempt to search any keyword pertaining to pre-natal sex determination, the Supreme Court passed additional directions.

It held that the Union of India and its Committee will be in a position to take appropriate steps so that the mandate of the 1994 Act is not violated and the falling sex ratio in the country, as has been noted in the Centre for Enquiry into Health & Allied Themes (CEHAT), Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (the 1st) and Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (the 2nd), does not remain a haunting problem.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra [authored], Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, and A.M. Khanwilkar

4. Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. (March 8, 2018): The Supreme Court has set aside the Kerala High Court judgment annulling the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan- a marriage which was debated throughout the country during the past few months. It held that the right to marry a person of choice is protected under Articles 19 and 21. The case concerned Hadiya's conversion to Islam and her subsequent marriage to a Muslim man Shafin Jahan. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court had called her marriage a “sham”, and had annulled it, directing her return to the protective custody of her Hindu parents.

The Bench comprising Justice Surendra Mohan and Justice Abraham Mathew had made some controversial observations like: “a girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways” and “her marriage being the most important decision in her life, can also be taken only with the active involvement of her parents”.

Bench: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, and D.Y. Chandrachud[authored]

5. Shakti Vahini vs Union Of India (March 27, 2018) [Honour killings judgment]: The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by NGO Shakti Vahini under Article 32 seeking directions for the Government to take preventive steps to combat honour killings against Khap Panchayats. The court while laying down preventive and remedial measures reiterated that the right to choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity and when two adults marry out of their violation, they choose their path and consummate their relationship, which is constitutionally protected.

"When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution," the Court held.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Mishra [authored], D.Y. Chandrachud, and A.M. Khanwilkar

6. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law (September 6, 2018) [Decriminalisation of homosexuality judgment]: 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. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also stated that discrimination based on sex and another ground (sex plus) would very well fall within the purview of Article 15. He added that 'sex' under Article 15(1) is inclusive of sexual orientation and therefore, any discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited

7. Social Action Forum vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Law (September 14, 2018): The Supreme Court modified its directions issued in the 2017 Rajesh Sharma judgment case to prevent misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court withdrew the earlier direction issued by a two judges bench that complaints under Section 498A IPC should be scrutinised by Family Welfare Committees before further legal action by police. Though the bench acknowledged that there was misuse of the provision leading to social unrest, it said that the Court cannot fill in legislative gaps.

Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra [authored], D.Y. Chandrachud, and A.M. Khanwilkar

8. Joseph Shine vs Union Of India (September 27, 2018) [Adultry judgment]: The Supreme Court struck down 158-year-old Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, as unconstitutional.

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) [Sabrimala judgment]: 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'. CJI in his concurring opinion also mentioned that the exclusion amounted to untouchability. He stated that gender-based exclusion which stigmatised women violated Article 17.

CJI (then Justice Chandrachud) was also a part of the bench which heard Sabrimala's review petitions [Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Association: November 14, 2019} but did not decide the narrow question before it. It referred some overarching questions of law to a larger bench. By 3-2, the majority held that women's access to other religious places such as Muslim women's right to enter mosques, Parsi women's right to enter fire temple after marrying a non-Parsi and the practice of FGM in the Dawoodi Bohra community may conflict with the Sabrimala judgment and needs to be decided by a larger bench first. However, D.Y. Chandrachud disagreed. [Bench: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi [authored majority judgment for Khanwilkar, Malhotra and himself], Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Fali Nariman [authored dissenting opinion on behalf of Justice Chandrachud and himself], D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

Eventually, a nine-judge bench was constituted and upheld the November 14 referral but the three issues on women's access to religious places and religious practices remain pending.

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. Secretary, Ministry Of Defence vs Babita Puniya (February 17, 2020): The Supreme Court paved the way for the women officers on the Short Service Commission to be considered for Permanent Commission in the Army regardless of their service.

Bench: Justices D Y Chandrachud [authored] and Ajay Rastogi

11. Lt Col Nitisha & Ors v. UOI (March 25, 2021): The Supreme Court noted that the evaluation deployed by the Army to implement its Babita Puniya judgment constituted 'systematic discrimination' against the women officers which is anaesthesia to substantive equality. The Court directed the Army to reconsider the pleas of women Short Service Commission officers for the grant of PC within two months in accordance with the fresh directions issued by the Court.

Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud [authored] and Justice MR Shah

12. Patan Jamal Vali v The State Of Andhra Pradesh (April 27, 2021): The Supreme Court recognised intersectional identities of a disabled woman from the Scheduled Caste community placed her in a uniquely disadvantageous position and affirmed the compounding effect of the multiple discrimination on sentencing the accused persons to life imprisonment.

Bench: Justices M R Shah, DY Chandrachud [authored]

13. Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (August 7, 2023) [Manipur ethnic violence]: The Supreme Court in relation to the Manipur ethnic violence constituted a panel of three women judges to oversee the humanitarian works for the victims and appointed officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes. The Court has slammed the Manipur police investigation as "tardy" and expressed anguish at the sexual violence committed against women amidst the sectarian conflict. It held that the Committee is mandated to enquire into the nature of violence against women that occurred in the State of Manipur from 4 May 2023.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

14. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (October 3, 2024): The Supreme Court laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons. The Court struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.

Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrahud [authored] and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

Abortion and reproductive rights and child rights

1. Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal (August 16, 2022): The Supreme Court while granting the relief of maternity leave to a Central Government employee even though she had availed child care leave for the children of her husband from his earlier marriage, held that "familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships". It held that atypical family units, different from traditional family units, are also entitled to equal protection of the law.

Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud [authored] and AS Bopanna

2. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Gov of NCT Delhi (September 29, 2022): The Supreme Court held that all women are entitled to the fundamental right to safe and legal abortion. It also stated that a wife who conceives out of forced sex by their husband will be protected within the ambit of 'survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest” under Rule 3B(a) (mentions the categories of women who can seek termination of pregnancy in terms of 20-24 weeks) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. This essentially mentioned that the definition of 'rape' under the 1971 Act and Rules would include marital rape.

Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud [authored], A.S. Bopanna, J.B. Pardiwala

3. Just Rights For Children Alliance v S. Harish (September 23, 2024): The Supreme Court held that watching child pornography over the internet without downloading would also amount to "possession" of such material in terms of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Section 15 deals with the offence of storage or possession of child pornographic material with the intention to transmit the same. The judgment also held that the intention to transmit can be gauged from the failure of a person to delete and report the material.

Bench: CJI Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala [authored]

4. Society For Enlightenment And ... vs Union Of India (October 18, 2024): While issuing several guidelines to prevent child marriages, the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed how child marriages violate Constitutional rights. The judgment, delivered in a petition filed by the NGO Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, stated that child marriages violate the rights to self-determination, choice, autonomy, sexuality, health and education of children, resulting in the infraction of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

Disability rights

1. Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (February 11, 2021): The Supreme Court recognised the right to reasonable accommodation as a positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society through the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. It termed it as a substantive equality facilitator. The court, in this case, held that the judgment rendered that stipulating a limit of 50 percent disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is no longer a binding precedent after the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was enforced.

Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Indira Banerjee, DY Chandrachud [authored]

2. Nipun Malhotra v Sony Pictures Films India Private (July 8, 2024): The Supreme Court has issued a set of guidelines to the visual media to ensure a dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities. The Court stressed that portrayals which carry negative stereotypes about persons with disabilities would impact their dignity and perpetuate social discrimination against them.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

3. Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services ( October 25, 2024)  :The Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines to the NMC to facilitate the admission of persons with disabilities to medical courses. 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

4. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (November 8, 2024) : Directions issued to the Union to frame mandatory guidelines to enhance the accessibility of public spaces for persons with disabilities.

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored], Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Also Read - The Mixed Legacy Of CJI DY Chandrachud

Constitution Bench Judgments Of Justice DY Chandrachud