Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was recently appointed as the 50th Chief Justice of India, is the son of revered Justice Y.V. Chandrachud. He previously served as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, and as a judge at the Bombay High Court. He is known for his liberal outlook, and has contributed immensely to the Indian Jurisprudence by way of various landmark judgments.
In this article, Team YLCC looks to elaborate on 10 such judgments laid down by the venerable legal luminary and forward-thinking judge. Read on!
INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT. LTD. V. GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL (2019)
In this case presented before the Apex Court of India, an unofficial ban on the screening of a Bengali Film, ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’, a work of satire, was declared unconstitutional by the Apex Court. It was contended that the state had unduly misused its powers to curb the screening of the film, thereby violating the rights of the petitioner with regards to free speech and expression enshrined under Article 19. After a thorough review of the circumstances preceding the release of the film, the court held that the state had a positive obligation to protect rights enshrined vide Article 19 and there was an interference with the rights of free speech of the petitioner, thus warranting an award of Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation, in addition to legal costs.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
This case pertained to the constant power-tussles between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister, leading the Cabinet, in the National Capital Territory of India. Striking down on the powers vested in the Lieutenant Governor, the court held that despite being a significant head vested with considerable powers, the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the ‘aid and advice’ of the Chief Minister, leading the Cabinet, in matters barring land, ensuring public order and police matters, further stating that the Lieutenant Governor had no independent powers of decision making and adjudication.
ARNAV GOSWAMI V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2020)
After Arnav Goswami, Editor-in-Chief, Republic TV, was arrested in connection to a charge of abetment to suicide, he was subjected to remand and detention for a prolonged period. Aggrieved by the extended detention, he sought the relief of habeas corpus, and sought bail and release. After being snubbed by the Bombay High Court, Goswami approached the Supreme Court, which eschewed from the High Court, stating that human liberty is of paramount constitutional significance and must not be curtailed or restricted, and also emphasized on the importance of construing bail as a rule and not an exception, thus acceding to the request of Goswami and other accused for grant of bail.
JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
This case pertained to a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), which criminalized adultery. In this case, the Apex Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code on the grounds that it was in violation of Articles 14, 15 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Bench held unanimously, in four concurring judgments, held that the law criminalizing adultery was archaic, arbitrary and paternalistic in nature, and infringed upon a woman’s autonomy, dignity, and privacy. Section 198(2) of the CrPC which allowed only a husband to bring a prosecution under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was also struck down as unconstitutional, as being in violation of the rights of a women under the Indian Constitution.
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. V. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. (2018)
In this case, the constitutionality of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (KHPW Act), which prohibited women of menstruating age, i.e. between the age of 10-50 years, from entering the Sabarimala Temple was challenged, as it impeded and restricted women from exercising their right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1).
In this case, despite the fact that religious institutions are allowed to run their own affairs under Article 26(b), the court did not determine or find that Lord Ayyappa’s followers met the requirements of a distinct religion, so as to isolate menstruating women from the rights accorded to them.
The Court argued that because such a restriction on worship of Lord Ayyappa violated women’s autonomy, freedom, and dignity, a practise that discriminated against people based on their biological traits could never be upheld as constitutional. The Court stated that a woman’s menstruation status was a part of her person and privacy and that forcing a woman to disclose its happening infringed on her right to privacy under Article 21. Thus, the court upheld the right of women to worship Lord Ayyappa freely regardless of age or menstruation.
ROMILA THAPAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
In this case, the Court considered and assessed the arrests of five human rights activists made under the draconic Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), facilitated by the Maharashtra Police. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been subjected to widespread criticism and is often seen as a means to suppress dissent and stifle opposition.
In this case, the police accused the activists of involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence and sedition. The petitioner Romila Thapar and others contended that the arrests were arbitrarily done, and mala-fide in nature, violating the rights of the arrested enshrined under Article 14,19 and 21, the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution. Justice Chandrachud held that the sudden arrest of the five activists for allegedly invoking violence at Bhima Koregaon have violated their fundamental rights under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also ordered for the formation of a Special Investigation Team in order to probe the arrests.
SHAFIN JAHAN V. ASHOKAN K.M. (‘HADIYA CASE’) (2018)
Famously known as the ‘Hadiya Case’, this case is considered as a landmark judgment in the domain of the individual’s right to privacy, which was affirmed by way of grant of protection towards the individual’s right to decide on changing of religion post-marriage, stating that such a right falls under the individual’s right to liberty as well as privacy. Rejecting the contentions alleging ‘love-jihad’ of the women, and that the marriage of the women was a farce and smokescreen for enabling ‘love-jihad’, as well as rebuking claims of indoctrination and brainwashing of the petitioner, the apex court upheld the freedom of the petitioner to marry at her own volition and choice, restoring the annulled marriage of the petitioner.
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
The Nine Judge Bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right enshrined under the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to privacy was integral to freedoms guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and liberty. Justice Chandrachud stated in his lone dissenting opinion that the Aadhaar Act was passed illegally as a Money Bill, which has been analyzed as one of the most significant dissents in contemporary Indian law. His specific objections to the parts of the law that interfered with a person’s autonomy, dignity, and privacy were also noted.
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)
Hailed as one of the most landmark judgments in the fields of LGBTQ+ rights, as well as Gender/Sexual Orientation, this judgment stated that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” was unconstitutional. Dancer Navtej Singh Johar filed a petition challenging Section 377 of the Penal Code on the grounds that it infringed upon constitutional rights to equality, freedom of expression, privacy, and protection from discrimination.
It was argued that criminalizing consensual sex between adults in private was a violation of the right to privacy, that sexual orientation is an inherent component of one’s self-identity and that denying it would be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 377 was declared unconstitutional, further stating that a person’s sexual orientation forms an integral part of one’s self-identity and denying this right violates the right to life, and that a person’s fundamental rights cannot be denied on the ground that they only affect a minuscule section of the population.
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA (2017)
Embarking on an area of jurisprudence unheard of before, the Supreme Court firmly affirmed that Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India, after a challenge was made to the constitutional validity of the Aadhar Act by Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy, a Retired High Court Judge. In the judgment, wherein the majority opinion was authored by Justice Chandrachud, the court stated that Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and also falls under Right to Life, and other freedoms encompassed under the Indian Constitution. This judgment went on to be cited as a precedent in other landmark cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Joseph Shine’s case.
YLCC would like to thank its Content Team for their valuable insights in this article.
