New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Friday (November 8), while speaking at a ceremonial bench, said that even on his last working day, he learnt so much about life in the 45 cases he dealt with.
CJI Chandrachud, while heading various benches, including constitution bench, even on November 8 on his last working day delivered some important verdicts, including on the issue that what parameters are required for an educational institution to grant it a minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and whether the AMU qualifies as a minority institution and whether a person, who is ineligible to be an arbitrator, can appoint an arbitrator.
CJI Chandrachud will demit office on November 10, 2024.
CJI Chandrachud, as a Chief Justice of India, has headed several benches that delivered important verdicts on issues of national and social importance, including the constitutionality of scrapping of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and the Electoral Bonds. He, as a Supreme Court judge, has also been part of some important verdicts, including the Ayodhya issue.
Here are the list of some important verdicts of which CJI DY Chandrachud has been part of –
1. Issue of minority status of the AMU
CJI Chandrachud-headed constitution bench, in a 4:1 verdict overruled top court’s 1967 verdict in S Azeez Basha holding that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot claim the minority status as it was created by a statute and said that the issue whether the AMU was established by a minority will be decided by a regular bench on basis of tests laid down by it.
2. Constitutionality of Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Law while setting aside an order of the Allahabad High Court, which declared the said law as “unconstitutional” and violative of the principle of secularism. The bench said that a statute cannot be struck down on the ground of secularism. The bench, however, held that provisions of the Madarsa Act seeking to regulate higher-education degrees, such as Fazil (post-graduate degree) and Kamil (undergraduate degree), are unconstitutional as they are in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act.
3. Can private properties be requisitioned and redistributed by government?
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, while delivering its verdict on whether the private properties can be requisitioned and redistributed by the government under Article 39(b) of the Constitution to subserve the common good, held that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.
4. Whether a person holding LMV licence is automatically permitted to drive a transport vehicle under 7500 kgs?
A five-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud unanimously held that a transport vehicle which has an unladen weight below 7,500 kg, is also a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and an LMV license holder is entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
5. Whether NCLAT order order stopping insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju’s correct?
A three-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) halting insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju’s and ordered for fresh adjudication in the matter, saying that the NCLAT did not apply its mind and flouted established rules while closing the insolvency proceedings against Byju’s.
6. Constitutionality of scrapping of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir
A five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud upheld Centre’s decision and said that Article 370 of the Constitution is a temporary provision and the President has the power to revoke it. The constitution bench also upheld the validity of the Centre’s decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.
7. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage
A five-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud unanimously refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, saying that it is for the Parliament to take a call whether a change in the regime of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) is required for validating such union. The top court bench, however, had made a strong pitch for the rights of queer people in order to ensure that they do not face discrimination. The bench had also recorded the submissions of Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta that the Centre will set out a committee to examine the rights that can be conferred on such couples.
8. Constitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme
A constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme for funding of political parties declaring it to be arbitrary and violating the right to information. The constitution bench held unanimously that the non-disclosure of source of funding violates right to information.
9. Sub-classification within SC/ST category
A seven-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, in a 8:1 verdict, held that states could make laws by which some castes among the Scheduled Castes (SCs) can be given preference over other SC castes in matters of public employments and admissions to government institutes and that such sub-classification was permissible and and did not violate the provisions of the constitution.
10. Issue of child marriage
A three-judge bench headed by CJI issued a slew of directions for effective implementation and achieve whole purpose of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) while deciding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging rise in the cases of child marriage across the country and non-implemetation of the relevant law.
11. Supreme Court in 4:1 majority verdict upheld validity of section 6A of Citizenship Act
A five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud in a 4:1 verdict upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, holding that the Assam accord was a political solution to the issue of growing migration and 6A was the legislative solution.
12. Apex court ruled state government has the power to regulate industrial alcohol
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud overruled an earlier verdict and held in a 8:1 majority verdict that the state government, not the Centre, has the power to regulate industrial alcohol and tax it.
13. Whether ‘royalty’ determined under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 is in the nature of tax?
A nine-judge constitution bench headed By CJI Chandrachud put to rest a dispute that was pending for more than two decades on whether royalty payable by mining lease holders can be in the nature of a tax and said that royalty is not a tax but a contractual consideration paid by a lessee to a lessor. The bench also said that the parliament does not have the power to tax mineral rights under entry 49 of the States List and no provision of the Mines and Mineral regulation and Control Act impose a limitation on the power of the state government to tax minerals. The bench later clarified that clarified that its judgment on the issue of the rights of the states to collect taxes on mineral lands and rights will not have prospective effect.
14. Constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act
CJI Chandrachud was a part of a nine-judge constitution bench, as a judge, hearing a plea by Justice KS Puttaswamy challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. Writing the majority opinion on behalf of the bench, he wrote that privacy was an “intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
15. Decriminalising homosexuality
CJI Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench that decriminalise same-sex relationship between consenting adults.
16. Denying women of menstruating age entry into the Sabarimala temple
A constitution bench, of which Justice Chandrachud was part of, in a 4:1 majority verdict held that denying entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional and it violated women’s fundamental rights to freedom of religion, equality and liberty.
17. Ayodhya title dispute
A five-judge bench, of which Justice Chandrachud was a part of, overturned a 2010 Allahabad High Court decision dividing the disputed Ayodhya title equally among Nirmohi Akhara, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Shri Ram Virajman and unanimously awarded the Ayodhya title to the deity, Shri Ram Virajman. It directed the state government of Uttar Pradesh to grant the Sunni Waqf Board an alternate site in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque.
18. Control over services in NCR
A five-judge bench, of which Justice Chandrachud was part of, unanimously held in 2018 that the Chief Minister of Delhi, and not the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG), was the executive head of the Delhi government. Five years later in 2023, CJI Chandrachu-headed bench held that the Delhi government has control over services subject to the ones excluded from its legislative domain and the legislative power of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) would extend to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and it shall control them even if they are not recruited by it, except to the services which comes under land, law and order and police.
19. Decriminalisation of adultery
A five-judge bench, of which Justice Chandrachud was part of, unanimously decriminalised adultery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the provision under the IPC violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
