Justice Chandrachud retires after 2 years as CJI, a have a look at his prime 7 judgements –

Justice Dhanajaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, the son of India’s longest-serving chief justice YV Chandrachud, assumed workplace because the fiftieth Chief Justice of India on November 8, 2022. Friday was his final working day on the Supreme Court of India. He retires on Sunday because the CJI.  

Like Chandrachud Sr, the outgoing CJI, too, heard and delivered among the historic judgments — from the precise to privateness and the safety of kids’s rights to the Ayodhya ruling, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the putting down of the Electoral Bonds Scheme.

Let’s check out the seven prime judgements that Justice Chandrachud delivered because the CJI throughout his two-year tenure.  

Protection towards local weather change a elementary proper 

The case was formally known as the MK Ranjitsinh and others vs the Union of India. In this landmark judgement, Justice Chandrachud expanded the interpretation of two elementary rights — the precise to Life (assured beneath Article 21 of the Constitution) and the Right to Equality (Article 14).  

The court docket dominated that safety from environmental elements equivalent to local weather change is a elementary proper and it’s the accountability of the state to guard the surroundings. The residents also needs to be compassionate with the dwelling creatures.

Protection of kids from sexual abuse 

This judgement got here within the Just Rights for Children Alliance Case. Justice Chandrachud, in a landmark judgement, overturned the Madras High Court ruling to make clear that the possession of kid pornographic materials with particular intent is a criminal offense beneath the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences or Pocso Act.  

Earlier, in an inaccurate ruling, the Madras High Court had stated that possessing little one pornographic materials was not an offence.  

However, Justice Chandrachud’s bench overturned the ruling and directed India’s Women and Child Development Ministry to unfold consciousness concerning the authorized and moral implications of kid pornography.  

The judgement additionally proposed to keep away from utilizing the phrase “child pornography” and substitute it with “CSEAM — Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material”. The prime court docket additionally instructed the decrease courts to make use of CSEAM in all court docket proceedings and judgements.  

After this historic transfer, India joined the listing of nations that had criminalised the specific viewing of kid pornography.

Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional 

It was some of the politically delicate circumstances that reached the courts in current occasions — the Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India case. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenged the federal government’s scheme for political funding via the sale of electoral bonds within the Supreme Court.

CJI Chandrachud-led the five-judge Constitution Bench heard the case and located that the scheme lacked constitutional backing. The bench struck it down, ending the formidable programme of the federal government, which had billed the scheme as one to wash up the political funding processes in India.

The prime court docket directed that the sale of electoral bonds via banks should be stopped with instant impact. The scheme launched in 2017 through the Union Budget presentation resulted in February this 12 months with the unanimous verdict of the court docket.

The scheme was discovered to violate the Right to Information, declared a elementary proper beneath Article 19 (1)(a). The prime court docket ordered the State Bank of India (SBI), which offered the bonds, to share the main points of the electoral bonds bought from April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and publish the identical on the official web site to make sure transparency and free stream of data.

Scheduled Castes aren’t a homogenous class 

In the State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case, CJI Chandrachud-led:seven-judge bench overruled the EV Chinnaiah’s judgement, permitting them to make sub-classifications inside Scheduled Castes (SCs). The earlier judgement had barred the states from sub-categorisation of the SCs.  

With a 6:1 majority, the highest court docket declared that the Scheduled Castes weren’t a homogenous class. The judgement defined that the sub-categorisation of the SCs didn’t violate Article 14 or Article 341(2).  

The states have the accountability to relocate advantages equally and successfully, it dominated. The judgement has vital implications for the execution of quota insurance policies in authorities jobs and better training.

Redistribution of personal property 

Just days earlier than his retirement, CJI Chandrachud headed a nine-judge Constitution Bench that pronounced a major judgement decoding Article 39(b) relating to the federal government’s energy over non-public property.  

The ruling has essential implications for personal possession of property. The bench dominated that the federal government can not purchase and redistribute all privately owned properties deeming them “material resources of the community”, as talked about in Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Aligarh Muslim University’s minority tag

On November 8, a seven-judge bench of the highest court docket headed by CJI Chandrachud overruled its 1967 judgement, saying that an establishment established by statute couldn’t declare minority standing. This disqualified the Aligarh Muslim University from claiming the minority establishment tag.

The new judgement, in a majority view of 4:3, dominated that the concept behind the origin and “founding mind” behind an establishment ought to decide its eligibility beneath Article 30 for claiming a minority standing. Article 30 protects the rights of minorities to ascertain and administer academic establishments.  

The final query of AMU’s minority standing has now been referred to an everyday bench for factual examination. But the judgement paves the best way for restoration of the minority standing of the Aligarh Muslim University.

Cracking the whip on bar councils 

In the Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India case, CJI Chandrachud’s bench delivered a landmark judgement ruling that the bar councils can not cost past statutory limits. The statutory restrict is talked about in Section 24 (1)(f) and should be imposed with strict rules.  

The prices are Rs 750 for advocates belonging to the final class and Rs 125 for advocates belonging to the SC/ST class.