- K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) Privacy as a Fundamental Right- In this crucial case, the apex court for the first time explained, mostly by all justices of the constitution bench, the meaning of the *Right to Privacy* in relation to Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, declared it as a fundamental right. Justice Chandrachud wrote the greatest share of the verdict which went against the previous decision rendered in *ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla* case. He stated that privacy is one of the aspects of the dignity of an individual and of personal liberty, therefore, since it is a right that is critical in the digital era such a right has to be recognized.
Key Contributions:
- Justice Chandrachud opined that privacy was critical in ensuring personal liberty by preventing excessive state control of individual conduct.
- His observation provided an objective benchmark for cases that followed such as those involving pleas against the Aadhaar scheme and data protection legislation.
- Navtej Singh Johar Az. w. Union of India (In Relation To decriminalization of Homosexual Acts with specific reference to India: A Case Study)
This case has made history in the advancement of the LGBTQ+ movement in India. The provision was recast and edited in order to eliminate barriers to participation in homosexual offenses as previously criminalized under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. He was part of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court and wrote a separate, concurring opinion.
Key Contribution:
- He discussed the concept of “self-identification” that an individual enjoys, and the lack of any constraint, discrimination or oppression that one can possibly face in the society.
- As emphasized by Justice Chandrachud, social values or social aspirations should always be subservient to the constitutional norms.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala Case
Being in the majority, justice Chandrachud was part of the judgment which held the restriction on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional. The judgment stressed on notions of equality, non-discrimination and the right to religion as provided under Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the constitution.
Key Contribution:
- Cockeyed challenged the concept of purity frowning that vow defies the dignity of women and is aggressively rooted in patriarchy.
- Justice Chandrachud argued that all religious practices have to be regulated by the constitution.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Abrogation of Laws on Adultery.
Justice Chandrachud is one of the judges who struck down Article 497 of Indian Penal Code which criminalized the act of adultery. The court deemed the provision unconstitutional and held that it treated women as mere objects in violation of their dignity and the equality principle.
Key Contribution:
- He opposed harmful laws that are biased and strengthen society’s views, nullifying Articles 14 and 21.
- This was furthered by the individual capacity of a person to choose their relationships and how to live their life.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Talaq-e-Hasan.
The Supreme Court struck down in this case the practice of instant or triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) which is prevalent amongst Muslims. Justice Chandrachud concurred with the majority, adding that the practice was primitive, barbaric to women and in any case, could not be allowed in the guise of fundamental rights.
Key contribution:
- As per Justice Chandrachud, these are very useful concepts, but cannot be applied to the rights of the people, women in this case, as enshrined in the Constitution.
- Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) – Passive Euthanasia and Living Wills
This was a remarkable decision by the Supreme Court of India wherein the Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right. Justice Chandrachud, who served as a member of the bench, also formulated procedural rules for passive euthanasia as well as living wills.
Key Contribution:
- He expressed that the right to life also encompasses the right to a dignified existence, which includes the right to die.
- He provided a practical solution that integrated healthcare ethics and the provisions of the constitution.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) – NJAC Case
Justice Chandrachud was also involved in the bench that deemed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act strikable, thus retaining the collegium system of judicial appointments in a manner that was not compromised. It was voted by the majority that the NJAC was inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers, which is a primary structure of the Constitution.
Key Contribution:
- J. Chandrachud highlighted the irreducible value of judicial independence in any democracy.
- He appreciated the need to reform the processes in the collegium system but safeguarded the core principles.
- Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020) – Cryptocurrency Ban
The Supreme Court of India has ruled against the cryptocurrency ban imposed by the RBI. In the judgment delivered by Justice Chandrachud, the court found that the RBI’s prohibition on cryptocurrency was disproportionate in its application and infringed on the right to carry out trade as contained in article 19(1)(g) of the constitution.
Key Contribution:
- He made use of the doctrine of proportionality in respect of interference with fundamental human rights by the state.
- The decision was assertive in the recognition of risks posed by disruptive technologies and adoption of new business models.
- Hadiya Case (Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., 2018) – Right to Marry
Justice Chandrachud was part of the bench which acknowledged the right of Hadiya, a Muslim convert to marry according to her choice. The ruling cemented that a person’s right to marry is protected under Shield Article 21.
Key Contribution:
- He championed the cause of individual liberty and self-determination in the context of marriage and religion over parental and societal influence.
- Environment Foundation Case (Sterlite Plant, 2020) – Environmental Jurisprudence
Justice Chandrachud has been a consistent proponent of environmentalism. For example, while dealing with cases of industrial pollution, particularly the case with Sterlite Copper plant, he took to sustainable development principles instead.
Key Contribution:
- He ensured sustainable development in use of resources in driving economic development in the industrialized economy, taking care that such advancement does not compromise health and environmental equilibrium.
