Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired on November 10, 2024, after an impactful tenure in the Supreme Court, notable for leading Constitution Benches that handled key issues like public appointment rules, marriage equality, and the validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme. His judgments emphasized fairness, transparency, and the separation of powers, shaping constitutional jurisprudence significantly.
On 10 November 2024, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired after an illustrious eight-year tenure at the Supreme Court of India, including two years as the 50th Chief Justice of India. During his time as Chief Justice, he played a pivotal role in addressing some of the most pressing constitutional issues by constituting several Constitution Benches. His leadership as Master of the Roster was marked by a commitment to resolving long-pending questions of law.
Here, we recap the Constitution Benches he constituted during his tenure:
Altering Rules for Appointment to Public Posts
Case: Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court
Judgement Date: 7 November 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J)
This case examined whether public sector employers could alter selection rules after the recruitment process had started. The issue arose after candidates for a translator post at the Rajasthan High Court were disqualified based on new criteria announced post-examination.
After three days of arguments, the bench unanimously ruled that recruitment rules cannot be altered once the process has begun. They emphasized that benchmarks for evaluation must be established before the recruitment process starts. The decision reaffirmed the principles of fairness and transparency in public appointments.
Plea for Marriage Equality
Case: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India
Judgement Date: 17 October 2023
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, S.K. Kaul J, S.R. Bhat J, Hima Kohli J, P.S. Narasimha J)
CJI Chandrachud constituted a five-judge bench to address petitions seeking marriage rights for sexual minorities. Petitioners argued that terms like “man” and “woman” in Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, should be interpreted as “any person” to accommodate non-heterosexual relationships. They claimed that a fundamental right to marry existed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.
The Union opposed the petitions, stating that the Court lacked authority to recognize same-sex marriages. They argued that the SMA was designed for inter-caste and inter-faith heterosexual unions and that the Constitution does not recognize a fundamental right to marry.
In its judgment, the bench unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry for sexual minorities and that the SMA cannot be interpreted to include non-heterosexual unions. In a 3:2 majority decision, they also ruled that the Constitution does not recognize civil unions for sexual minorities and that non-heterosexual partners cannot adopt. However, the Court reaffirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing law.
Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration Proceedings
Case: Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Pvt. Ltd.
Judgement Date: 6 December 2023
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J)
The first Constitution Bench case under CJI Chandrachud’s leadership addressed the “group of companies” doctrine in arbitration. The issue was whether non-signatory companies could be included in arbitration proceedings if they were closely connected to signatories of an arbitration agreement.
Former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had referred the case to a Constitution Bench, questioning the correctness of Chloro Controls v Severn Trent Water Purification (2012), which allowed non-signatories to be bound by arbitration agreements.
After extensive arguments in March and April 2023, the bench unanimously held that the group of companies doctrine is applicable in arbitration agreements. They ruled that a non-signatory’s conduct could indicate consent to be bound by the agreement and clarified that the requirement for a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act does not exclude non-signatories.
Validity of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ Licence to Drive ‘Transport Vehicle’
Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v Rambha Devi
Judgement Date: 6 November 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J)
This bench tackled whether a light motor vehicle (LMV) licence qualifies its holder to drive a transport vehicle weighing under 7500 kilograms. The petitioners, mainly insurance companies, argued that driving transport vehicles requires specific expertise.
The Court upheld the earlier judgment in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017), stating that holders of LMV licences can drive transport vehicles under 7500 kilograms. However, they clarified that e-rickshaws, e-cars, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods would require separate licences. This decision is expected to benefit gig workers and prevent insurance claim rejections due to licence disputes.
Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370
Case: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution
Judgement Date: 11 December 2023
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, S.K. Kaul J, Sanjiv Khanna J, B.R. Gavai J, Surya Kant J)
This politically sensitive case concerned the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners argued that the article could only be revoked with the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’s consent. The Union countered that Article 370 was temporary and could be revoked without such recommendations.
After 16 days of arguments, the bench upheld the abrogation, stating that Article 370 was not permanent but a temporary measure. They accepted the Union’s assurance of restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir once normalcy is achieved.
Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme
Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India
Judgement Date: February 15, 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Sanjiv Khanna J, B.R. Gavai J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J)
The Supreme Court struck down the controversial Electoral Bond Scheme, highlighting its adverse impact on free and fair elections. Petitioners argued that donor anonymity enabled quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties and violated the fundamental right to information.
The Union defended the scheme as necessary to curb black money and protect donor privacy. However, the Court held that voter awareness about political funding was paramount for informed choices, emphasizing alternative mechanisms to curb black money.
Appointment of Arbitrators by Ineligible Persons
Case: Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
Judgement Date: November 8, 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J)
The Court ruled that no party, including government entities, can unilaterally appoint arbitrators. It clarified that arbitration panels must be jointly selected, preserving equality under the Arbitration Act. This landmark judgement emphasized limited court intervention unless consensus among parties was absent.
Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders
Case: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v State of Uttar Pradesh
Judgement Date: February 29, 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, A.S. Oka J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J)
The Court overruled its 2018 Asian Resurfacing decision, which mandated automatic lapsing of stay orders after six months. The bench held that judicial discretion must determine the continuation of stay orders, ensuring fairness for all litigants.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Case: In re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Judgement Date: October 17, 2024
Bench: 5 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Surya Kant J, M.M. Sundresh J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J)
Section 6A, crystallizing the Assam Accord, was upheld in a 4:1 majority. This provision granted Indian citizenship to migrants entering Assam before March 1971. Petitioners highlighted demographic and cultural shifts due to weak implementation, while the Union emphasized its constitutional authority to enact special citizenship laws.
The Court mandated Supreme Court-supervised hearings to address post-1971 migrants. Justice Pardiwala dissented, citing the provision’s “temporal unreasonableness.”
Legislative Immunity for Accepting Bribes
Case: Sita Soren v Union of India
Judgement Date: March 4, 2024
Bench: 7 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, A.S. Bopanna J, M.M. Sundresh J, P.S. Narasimha J, J.B. Pardiwala J, P.V. Sanjay Kumar J, Manoj Misra J)
The seven-judge bench overruled the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao case, which granted immunity to legislators accepting bribes for votes. The Court criticized such immunity for undermining democracy, holding that bribery corrupts legislative integrity and cannot be protected under parliamentary privilege.
Validity of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements
Case: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act
Judgement Date: December 13, 2023
Bench: 7 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, S.K. Kaul J, Sanjiv Khanna J, B.R. Gavai J, Surya Kant J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J)
The bench unanimously held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not void but represent a curable defect. Tribunals, not courts, should assess the validity of such agreements under the Arbitration Act.
Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status
Case: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal
Judgement Date: November 8, 2024
Bench: 7 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Sanjiv Khanna J, Surya Kant J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Dipankar Datta J, Manoj Misra J, S.C. Sharma J)
In a 4:3 split, the Court overruled Azeez Basha (1967), which denied AMU’s minority status. The majority outlined that institutions can achieve minority status if established by individuals from minority communities, irrespective of subsequent administration.
Validity of Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories
Case: State of Punjab v Davinder Singh
Judgement Date: August 1, 2024
Bench: 7 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, B.R. Gavai J, Vikram Nath J, B.M. Trivedi J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J, S.C. Sharma J)
The Court upheld states’ authority to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes, stating that the group is not homogenous. It clarified that such efforts do not alter the Presidential List, ensuring targeted upliftment of disadvantaged sub-groups.
Nature of Private Property
Case: Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra
Judgement Date: November 5, 2024
Bench: 9 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, B.V. Nagarathna J, Sudhanshu Dhulia J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J, Rajesh Bindal J, S.C. Sharma J, A.G. Masih J)
The Court clarified that not all private property qualifies as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b). It upheld the pre-amended, narrower version of Article 31C, shielding laws advancing Directive Principles from fundamental rights challenges.
States’ Power to Regulate Industrial Alcohol
Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v Lalta Prasad Vaish
Judgement Date: October 23, 2024
Bench: 9 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, A.S. Oka J, B.V. Nagarathna J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J, Ujjal Bhuyan J, S.C. Sharma J, A.G. Masih J)
Overturning the Synthetics & Chemicals (1989) decision, the Court held that state governments have regulatory authority over industrial alcohol under Entry 8 of the State List. The majority acknowledged the broader scope of “intoxicating liquor,” including industrial alcohol.
States’ Power to Tax Mines and Minerals
Case: Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India
Judgement Date: July 25, 2024
Bench: 9 Judges (D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, A.S. Oka J, B.V. Nagarathna J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J, Ujjal Bhuyan J, S.C. Sharma J, A.G. Masih J)
The bench ruled that states can levy taxes on mines and minerals under Entry 50 of the State List, while clarifying that “royalty” is not a tax. The judgement applies retrospectively, allowing mining companies to settle unpaid dues over 12 years.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
