DY Chandrachud’s legacy as CJI: Pragmatic progress over disruption

When Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud assumed the position of chief justice of India in November 2022, he carried with him high hopes for a transformative tenure. Known for his intellectual depth, progressive judgments and commitment to a “transformative Constitution”, he symbolised the judiciary’s aspirations to uphold constitutional values amid a shifting socio-political environment.
His two-year term unfolded during a critical juncture for India’s judiciary, marked by challenges ranging from diminishing public trust to intense political pressures. Throughout this period, Justice Chandrachud navigated these complexities with a focus on progressive ideals, judicial independence and the modernisation of the judiciary.
As he stepped down on November 10, his legacy encapsulates the complexities of his role, balancing a steadfast commitment to justice with the political realities of a rapidly evolving nation. Central to his legacy is his belief that justice should not be disruptive or confrontational; rather, it should aim for pragmatic, progressive solutions within the bounds of law and constitutionality.
Upon taking office, Justice Chandrachud inherited a judiciary clouded by scepticism regarding its independence, burdened by a severe backlog of cases, and overseeing a nation increasingly divided by ideology. His tenure began with a series of pressing issues demanding attention—such as transparency in electoral funding, state autonomy and protection of individual liberties—each posing unique challenges and opportunities.
Justice Chandrachud’s elevation to chief justice was met with high expectations, particularly given his previous landmark judgments on privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India and the decriminalisation of same-sex relations in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, both underscoring his commitment to expanding individual rights.
This foundation provided hope for those who viewed him as a liberal standard-bearer capable of restoring public faith in the judiciary. However, as his tenure unfolded, the realities of balancing delicate judicial-executive relations would present Justice Chandrachud with situations requiring restraint, which some critics interpreted as compromise.
Throughout his term, Justice Chandrachud presided over pivotal decisions on sensitive constitutional matters, including the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which rescinded Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. The Supreme Court bench, led by him, upheld the argument that Jammu and Kashmir’s internal sovereignty was inherently limited, supporting the central government’s position that the decision was a constitutional manoeuvre. Critics of the ruling argued that it risked setting a precedent for unilateral central action in federal matters, while supporters viewed it as a unifying move for the nation. This judgment highlighted the delicate balance of upholding federal principles while addressing security and unity concerns.
A notable case in his tenure involved the conflict between Delhi’s elected government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG). Justice Chandrachud’s bench ruled in favour of the Delhi government, granting it control over administrative services and asserting that the Constitution should not permit a centrally-appointed representative to undermine an elected state government. However, the impact of this decision was short-lived, as Parliament soon exercised its authority under Article 239AA (7), allowing it to legislate on matters concerning Delhi’s governance.
This led to the passing of the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s decision by granting the LG final control over administrative services in Delhi. This legislative response raised questions about the durability of judicial pronouncements when faced with executive actions. His bench also ruled on the contentious Shiv Sena case, declining to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray as chief minister of Maharashtra on technical grounds and refraining from overturning the Election Commission’s decision on the party’s factional split.
Justice Chandrachud’s term also included significant rulings on federalism, including his landmark decision in Union of India vs Mohit Minerals, where he held that GST Council recommendations are advisory rather than binding on state legislatures. This judgment underscored the judiciary’s respect for state autonomy within India’s federal structure and affirmed the role of states in policymaking. He also addressed the controversial role of governors in state matters, cautioning against interference in legislative processes. His judgments in cases involving the Telangana and Punjab governors set limits on governors’ discretionary powers, upholding democratic principles in state governance.
One of his landmark rulings involved political funding. Justice Chandrachud’s bench declared the controversial anonymous electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional and “manifestly arbitrary”. This judgment was celebrated for promoting transparency in political funding, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a guardian of democratic integrity. By ruling that voters have a right to know the sources of funding for political parties, Justice Chandrachud took a stand against opaque practices that critics claim favour ruling parties by concealing sources of their financial backing. His rulings on media freedom also reinforced his commitment to transparency, as seen in Madhyamam Broadcasting vs Union of India, where he opposed government-imposed telecast bans on news channels. By rejecting “national security” as a blanket justification for censorship, he reaffirmed the media’s role as a watchdog vital to democratic integrity.
Justice Chandrachud’s tenure also highlighted the importance of personal liberty, particularly in cases involving prolonged detention. He strongly advocated that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” and expedited hearings for individuals held under stringent laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). His approach to personal liberty extended to economic offences and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), balancing public demands for swift justice in economic matters while cautioning against overly strict bail conditions under PMLA and UAPA. Nonetheless, his tenure faced criticism over unresolved cases, particularly those involving political detainees, raising questions about the judiciary’s effectiveness in politically sensitive matters.
He also took a firm stand against the practice of “bulldozer justice”, where properties are demolished without legal process, often as a punitive measure. In a November 6 judgment, Justice Chandrachud, leading a Supreme Court bench with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasised that such actions violated the rule of law and infringed upon property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice Chandrachud’s jurisprudence also reflected a nuanced understanding of India’s social hierarchies, including caste, gender and religion. He delivered judgments aimed at tackling caste discrimination, supporting affirmative action and endorsing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes. His judgments emphasised the need for empirical data to justify sub-classification, showcasing a methodical approach to India’s complex caste dynamics. His decisions in the UP Madarsa Education Act and Aligarh Muslim University cases also strengthened minority rights.
His compassion extended to marginalised groups, including the disabled and children. In Rajive Raturi vs Union of India, he directed that public spaces be made more accessible for disabled individuals. His progressive stance on child rights was evident in decisions that fortified protections against child abuse and underscored the importance of sensitivity in representing children and disabled individuals in the media.
Despite his progressive stance on many issues, the Supreme Court, under his leadership, ultimately did not grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, a decision seen as a setback for the LGBTQIA++ community. However, he broadened the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, extending eligibility for abortion between 20 and 24 weeks to include unmarried women and transgender individuals.
Justice Chandrachud’s role as head of the collegium drew scrutiny over transparency and executive interference. He took unprecedented steps to make the collegium’s recommendations public, especially in cases involving contentious nominees. Yet, notable delays persisted, such as in the appointment of Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, whose sexual orientation reportedly factored into the questioning of his candidacy. Instances where recommendations were altered or delayed by the executive led to criticism about the erosion of judicial independence under his leadership.
The appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri was especially controversial, with allegations of hate speech against minorities surfacing after her nomination. The collegium proceeded with her elevation despite public criticism, raising concerns about its vetting process. Justice Chandrachud’s response—that judges should not be rejected based on political beliefs—failed to allay concerns, particularly among advocates of minority rights.
One of Justice Chandrachud’s most lasting contributions may be his efforts to modernise India’s judiciary. His commitment to the e-courts project, which expanded virtual hearings, live-streaming, and digitised court records, marked a transformative shift. Under this initiative, several landmark projects were introduced, including the e-SCR project for digital access to Supreme Court reports, an online database of Supreme Court judgments, and a neutral citation system. Under his leadership, the judiciary embraced technological advancements, such as AI-based transcription of hearings and translation services in regional languages, making the courts more accessible to the public.
In his advocacy for transparency, he remained steadfast in his decision to live-stream Supreme Court proceedings, asserting that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Despite occasional controversies when judges’ remarks during hearings spurred media debates, Justice Chandrachud defended the move, arguing that transparency would ultimately strengthen judicial accountability.
A symbolic element of his legacy was the reimagining of Lady Justice in a new statue at the Supreme Court. The statue, draped in a sari and holding the Constitution instead of a sword, represented an embrace of Indian culture and constitutional values. However, the removal of the blindfold—a traditional symbol of impartiality—sparked debate over whether it signalled a new judicial perspective, one where justice is vigilant, potentially at the cost of impartiality.
While Justice Chandrachud was recognised for his progressive decisions, his tenure included instances where significant cases were deferred or left unresolved. Prolonged hearings on the Places of Worship Act, which protects the status of religious sites as they stood in 1947, drew criticism for allowing communal tensions to persist. His decision to let the Gyanvapi mosque dispute continue, despite his earlier commitment to secularism, was seen as a missed opportunity to uphold constitutional protections on religious freedom.
Similarly, cases involving “love jihad” laws that restrict interfaith marriages were not conclusively resolved, despite the implications for individual rights and freedoms. Critics contend that Justice Chandrachud’s reticence on these issues reflected a cautious approach that sometimes favoured deference over direct intervention.
However, the biggest controversy during Justice Chandrachud’s tenure as the chief justice of India arose when he invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a Ganesh Puja at his residence—a move that many saw as compromising the judiciary’s independence by bringing it closer to the executive. Widely publicised and amplified by media coverage, the event sparked questions about the judiciary’s impartiality, especially given the traditionally strict separation between the judiciary and government.
The controversy starkly underscored the extremity of today’s polarised environment. A private, courtesy meeting between the chief justice and prime minister—by no means unprecedented in India’s history—was interpreted by some as evidence of a covert nexus between the judiciary and executive. The intense scrutiny reflected a climate in which even traditional gestures are scrutinised for hidden agendas. Justice Chandrachud and others aptly argued that political deals are unlikely to be struck under the glare of multiple cameras, highlighting the disconnect between perception and reality in an era of deep political suspicion.
This debate intensified when Justice Chandrachud later revealed that he had prayed to his deity for guidance on the Ayodhya verdict. Many viewed this as a troubling departure from the secular and objective stance expected of a judge, especially in a case with deep religious and communal sensitivities. Critics argued that these actions undermined the image of the judiciary as a neutral institution, casting a shadow over Justice Chandrachud’s otherwise reform-focused tenure.
Justice Chandrachud’s tenure as the chief justice of India will be remembered as a legacy of complexity. His landmark judgments on individual rights, transparency in governance and federalism reveal a jurist deeply committed to a progressive and accessible judiciary. His technological reforms in the e-courts project laid a foundation for a more efficient, transparent, and inclusive judicial system. However, despite these strides in transparency, issues such as the opacity of the collegium system and perceived executive influence on judicial appointments underscored ongoing challenges to judicial independence. His tenure embodies both the aspirations and limitations of judicial authority within India’s democratic framework, reflecting a judiciary navigating not just law, but the intricate power dynamics of a modern republic.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine