CJI DY Chandrachud’s last day in office: A look back at his 10 landmark rulings

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud will retire on November 10. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, currently the senior-most judge in the top court, will assume the office as the new Chief Justice of India on November 11.
Today, November 8, is the last working day of CJI Chandrachud, who assumed office on November 9, 2022. Justice Chandrachud, son of the longest-serving Chief Justice of India, Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, has served as Supreme Court judge since 2016.
Here is a look at landmark judgements that Justice Chandrachud has been part of:
In February 2024, the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, unanimously ruled against the Union government’s electoral bond scheme for political funding.
In its landmark verdict, the court declared the amendments to the Income Tax Act and Section 29C of the Representation of Peoples Act unconstitutional. The Court also said the State Bank of India (SBI) will ‘forthwith stop the issue of electoral bonds and furnish all details of those who have encashed the bonds so far.
In a landmark ruling on November 5, the Supreme Court ruled that not all private property can be deemed “material resource of the community” for redistribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud wrote the majority ruling of the 9-judge that included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. Justice B V Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgment, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.
In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled unanimously that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
In this landmark judgement, Justice DY Chandrachud, along with all the other members of the Bench, overruled the Emergency-era judgment of April 28, 1976. Justice Chandrachud’s father, YV Chandrachud, was part of the majority on the Bench that had previously ruled that the fundamental right to life was a gift of the Constitution and could be suspended during an Emergency.
A 5-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, ruled in May 2023 that the legislature has control over bureaucrats in the administration of services, except in areas outside the legislative powers of the National Capital Territory (NCT). There are three areas outside the control of the Delhi government – public order, police and land.
A question about the regulation of services was at the root of the dispute between the elected government in the national capital and the Centre’s appointee, Lieutenant Governor (L-G)
In April 2018, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered two separate detailed concurring judgments in the famous Hadiya case. One was by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar, and the other was by Justice D Y Chandrachud.
The Court held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. In doing so, the top court set aside a 2017 order of the Kerala High Court, which annulled the marriage of Kerala Muslim convert girl Hadiya and Shefin Jahan.
“Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution,” Justice Chandrachud wrote in the judgement.
In August 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down IPC Section 377 to the extent that it criminalised homosexuality. The ‘Navtej’ ruling essentially said that the LGBTQ community are equal citizens and underlined that there cannot be discrimination in law based on sexual orientation and gender.
Navtej Singh Johar, a Sangeet Natak Akademi awardee Bharatnatyam dancer, and four others, all members of the LGBTQI community, filed a writ petition in June 2016 in the Supreme Court challenging IPC 377 (The Naz Foundation case was a PIL.)
In its verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down IPC Section 377 to the extent that it criminalised homosexuality. DY Chandrachud was part of the five-judge Constitution Bench along with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra.
In September 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a rule that disallowed girls and women in the 10-50 age group from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Chief Justice Dipak Misra-headed Constitution bench, in a 4-1 verdict, said the temple rule violated their right to equality and worship.
Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the bench, termed the custom a form of “untouchability” that cannot be allowed under the Constitution.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict in November 2019, ruled that the entire disputed land be handed over to a trust to be constituted for the construction of a Ram mandir and that Muslims, in the name of “equity”, be given five acres of either the acquired land near the site or at “a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya” for building a mosque.
D Y Chandrachud was on the bench along with CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
The Supreme Court in November 2020 granted bail to news anchor and Republic TV’s editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami in an abetment to suicide case. The top court bench, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, said Goswami and two others accused should be released on interim bail on a bond of ₹50,000.
Goswami was arrested in connection with a double suicide. Justice Chandrachud, in his judgement, reminded the lower courts of their role in providing bail within the framework of the law and disposing of these petitions swiftly. 
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in four separate but concurring opinions held that adultery is not a crime and struck it off the Indian Penal Code,
Justice Chandrachud, writing in the majority opinion, held that Section 497 of the IPC was unconstitutional because it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.