As Chief Justice DY Chandrachud retires, a look at 5 landmark verdicts by him

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud bid an emotional farewell on the last working day on Friday as his colleagues recalled fond memories while working with him. Known also for his many pithy statements, DY Chandrachud leaves an imprint all his own on the annals of legal history.
He has judgments such as the Ayodhya land dispute, the decriminalisation of consensual gay sex and abortion rights for unmarried women that shaped society and politics to his name.
DY Chandrachud has recommended the most senior justice, Sanjiv Khanna, to be the next CJI. “There is not going to be any difference when I leave this court because a person as stable as Justice Khanna will take over and is so dignified,” he said at his farewell event on Friday.
CJI Chandrachud assumed office as the Chief Justice on November 11, 2022, after being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2016. According to the Supreme Court Observer, he has been a part of 1,275 benches. India Today sheds light on five significant rulings that would have a lasting impact on society.
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in August 2017 that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
CJI Chandrachud authored the judgment, highlighting that privacy is intrinsic to freedom and dignity. This decision has since influenced other judgments related to data protection, Aadhaar, and personal liberty.
It all began in 2012 when retired justice KS Puttaswamy challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhar Act. The Aadhar Act legitimised India’s Unique Identity Number programme.
On September 6, 2018, a unanimous five-judge Supreme Court bench partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a 158-year-old law that criminalised same-sex relations between consenting adults.
The Court ruled that the section’s provisions regarding homosexuality would remain in effect.
In a detailed concurring opinion, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the harm Section 377 had caused by marginalising an entire class of citizens. Citing his prior judgment in the Puttaswamy case, which affirmed the right to privacy, he argued that denying the right to sexual orientation was also a denial of privacy.
He stressed that human sexuality should not be “reduced to a binary” or narrowly defined as merely a means of procreation.
In a major ruling ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha election, a five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud unanimously struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme. The bench cited the scheme as a violation of voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In the judgment, the court stated that “information about funding a political party is essential for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote effectively.”
The decision implied that the scheme was not “fool-proof” and contained gaps allowing political parties to identify contributors. The court also ordered an immediate halt to all sales of electoral bonds and directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to publish data on the transactions of bonds.
In the most significant judgment, a five-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud awarded the disputed Ayodhya land to build the Ram temple and the Uttar Pradesh government was directed to provide an alternative site in Ayodhya for the construction of the mosque. The judgment came in November 2019 and settled the fractious issue going back more than a century.
The Supreme Court sets aside a 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court which in its judgment had divided the disputed land and gave it to the temple and mosque trusts for the construction of these structures.
CJI Chandrachud earlier said that he had prayed to God for a solution to the Ayodhya dispute, remarks that sparked a row in the political spectrum.
In a crucial ruling, CJI Chandrachud expanded the rights of unmarried women by allowing them access to abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act up to 24 weeks, on par with married women.
The judgment stressed the reproductive autonomy of women, affirming that a woman’s marital status should not impact her rights over her body and her choices related to pregnancy.