Home > Judges > D.Y.
Chandrachud
D.Y. Chandrachud
Former Chief Justice of India
ASSUMED OFFICE RETIRED ON
8th Nov, 2022 10th Nov, 2024
PREVIOUSLY
Chief Justice of India
November 8th 2022-November 10th 2024
Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India
May 13th 2016 - November 7th, 2022
Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court
October 31st 2013 - May 12th 2016
Permanent Judge of Bombay High Court
March 29th 2000 - 30th October 2013
Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court
June 1998 - March 29th 2000
Additional Solicitor General for Union of India
1998 - March 28th 2000
AGE: 65 TRACKED CASES: 67
EDUCATION
Doctor of Juridical Sciences
Harvard University
LLM
Harvard University
LLB
Delhi University
Honours in Economics and Mathematics
St. Stephen's College, Delhi
Schooling
St. Columba's , Delhi
PROFILE
Early Life and Education
Chief Justice Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud was born on November 11th, 1959.
His father, Y.V. Chandrachud, was the 16th Chief Justice of India. His mother, Prabha
Chandrachud, was a singer for All India Radio. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud graduated from
St. Stephens College in Delhi with a degree in economics and mathematics in 1979,
before obtaining a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the Faculty of Law at Delhi University
in 1982.
He compounded his legal education with an LL.M from Harvard University in 1983 after
obtaining the ‘Inlaks’ scholarship, and received the Joseph H. Beale prize for securing
the highest marks in the Conflict of Laws course. He stayed at Harvard until 1986 to
complete his Doctorate in Juridical Sciences. On completing his studies, he enrolled as
an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
Career as an Advocate
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s focus on social causes stems from his days as an advocate. In
1997, then-advocate Dr. Chandrachud, represented a labourer who was denied further
employment by the public corporation he worked for after he contracted HIV-AIDS. The
Bombay HC held that merely contracting HIV-AIDS was not a ground for violating the
laborer’s Right to Livelihood as he was still medically fit to perform his job. Dr.
Chandrachud also appeared in cases involving the rights of bonded women laborers,
and religious and linguistic minorities
While practicing as an Advocate, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud remained involved in legal
academics by taking a position as a Visiting Professor of Comparative Constitutional
Law at the University of Bombay between 1988 and 1997.
1998 was a big year for CJI D.Y. Chandrachud. He was designated as a Senior
Advocate in June despite being only 38 years old—this designation is rarely given to
advocates below the age of 40. Further, he was appointed as an Additional Solicitor
General of India, a position he held until his elevation as a Judge of the Bombay HC on
March 29th, 2000.
Career as a Judge
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud spoke about his time as a Judge at the Bombay HC in glowing
terms. He credits Justice Ranjana Desai, who he served with on a criminal Bench, for
the shift in his approach towards crimes agianst women. He admits that he adopted a
‘straight-jacketed approach’ during his initial days as a Judge, but serving alongside
Justice Desai gave him the ‘necessary feminist perspective’ to apply the law to social
realities. This perspective is apparent in his SC Judgments like Lt. Colonel Nitisha
(2021) where he recognised the concept of ‘indirect discrimination’ and held that women
should also be considered for receiving Permanent Commissions in the Army.
After over a decade at the Bombay HC, then-Justice Chandrachud was appointed as
the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court on October 31st, 2013. He was elevated
as a Supreme Court Judge on May 13th 2016, and became the 50th Chief Justice of
India on November 9th, 2022, following CJI U.U. Lalit’s retirement.
Tenure at the Supreme Court in Numbers
Figure 1: Judgements authored
Judgement
Authored Part of Bench
| |
2024 35 81
2023 54 102
2022 95 152
2021 106 196
2020 65 100
2019 126 211
2018 72 211
2017 31 163
2016 28 58
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
*data collected on 6 November 2024
Chart: Supreme Court Observer • Source: Manupatra • Created with Datawrapper
Figure 1 shows the number of Judgments authored by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud during his
SC career and the number of Benches he was a part of. In eight years, CJI D.Y.
Chandrachud wrote 612 judgments and was a part of 1274 benches. Among sitting SC
Judges, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud has written the most number of Judgments.
Figure 2: Subject matter of judgements
Consumer (6%)
Constitution (10%)
Civil (10%) Other (43%)
Criminal (15%)
Service (16%)
*data collected on 6 November 2024
Chart: Supreme Court Observer • Source: Manupatra • Created with Datawrapper
The highest number of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s judgments are in Service (16%) and
Criminal (15%) cases. However, his most impactful judgments were written in cases
dealing with Constitutional (10%) issues.
Notable Judgments
In Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen (2017) the majority in the 7-Judge Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court held that electoral candidates cannot seek votes on the
grounds of religion. Justice Chandrachud delivered the dissenting opinion in the case.
He differentiated between blanket communal appeals and grievance-based communal
appeals to rule that only the former is prohibited under the Representation of People
Act, 1951.
In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the
Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to privacy. Justice Chandrachud
authored the majority decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India speaking for
himself and Khehar J, RK Agarwal J and Abdul Nazeer J. He recognised the right to
privacy and dignity as an intrinsic part of the right to life.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud wrote a concurring opinion in Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M.
(2018) upholding Hadiya’s choice of religion and marriage partner. Hadiya had
converted to Islam and married the petitioner Shafin Jahan, at which point her parents
alleged that she had been brainwashed. Justice Chandrachud reiterated that an adult’s
right to make decisions in marriage or religion falls within her zone of privacy.
Justice Chandrachud dismissed the demand for an enquiry into the circumstances of
Judge Loya's death in Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India. Judge Loya was hearing
the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.
In his concurring opinion in Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India (2018), Justice
Chandrachud held that the Lieutenant Governor is not the executive head of Delhi.
Since representative democracy is an essential feature of the executive, it must be led
by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. He held that the Lieutenant Governor is
bound by the Chief Minister’s advice and has no independent power under the
Constitution.
Justice Chandrachud dissented in Romila Thapar v Union of India (2018) regarding the
arrest of 5 human rights activists for allegedly instigating violence at Bhima Koregaon
and participating in a criminal conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He
stated that the issue was whether the arrests violated the accused of their fundamental
rights to free expression and personal liberty guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution. He suggested that a Special Investigation Team probe the arrest of the
activists.
Justice Chandrachud wrote a separate concurring opinion in Navtej Johar v Union of
India (2018) as well, decriminalising section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and made
same-sex intercourse legal. He held section 377 to be an ‘anachronistic colonial
law,' which violated the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of expression, life and
privacy. He added that this could only be seen as a first step in guaranteeing LGBT
individuals their constitutional rights.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2018) Justice Chandrachud, as a sole
dissenter, held that the Aadhaar was unconstitutionally passed as a Money Bill. He also
reviewed arguments on specific provisions of the Act which affected an individual's
privacy, dignity and autonomy.
In Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018), Justice Chandrachud concurred with the
majority opinion in decriminalising adultery. He found that section 497 IPC violated
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. He read down section 198(2) CrPC. He
opined that decriminalising adultery was rooted in patriarchal notions and had resulted
in centuries of female subjugation.
In the Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, (2019) Justice Chandrachud
held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years from Sabarimala
Temple violated constitutional morality. He further added that it subverted their
autonomy, liberty, and dignity. Uniquely, he held that the custom also violated Article 17,
which prohibits untouchability, as it assigns a notion of impurity to women.
Justice Chandrachud was also a member of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench in the
Ayodhya Title Dispute (2019). The bench unanimously decided to grant the title over the
disputed land, where the demolished Babri Masjid once stood, to the deity Shri Ram
Virajman and allowed them to construct a separate temple at the site. The Sunni Waqf
Board in charge of the Babri Masjid's administration was granted 5-acres of land in a
separate site to build a mosque.