On May 13, 2016, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, was promoted to the position of Supreme Court judge, a position he held until November 7, 2022. On November 8, 2022, he was appointed the 50th CJI, and on November 10, 2024, he will step down. Chandrachud has participated in over 700 rulings as a judge and CJI, including constitution bench rulings, many of which he has written, dissented from, and concurred with.
He participated in 18 Constitution bench rulings while serving as a CJI. The 104th Amendment Act of 2019 increased reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) populations in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies by an additional ten years. He was also a member of the bench assigned to hear the challenge [Ashok Kumar Jail v. UOI]. The case was to be heard by a bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and consisting of Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha starting on November 1st, 2022. However, the hearing never started.
1. Union of India v. Govt. of the NCT of Delhi (May 11, 2023): The Supreme Court ruled that, with the exception of issues pertaining to public order, law enforcement, and land, the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive authority over administrative services in the National Capital. With the exception of public order, law enforcement, and land, the Lieutenant Governor will be subject to the Delhi government's decisions about services.
2. Maharashtra Governor's Principal Secretary v. Subhash Desai (May 11, 2023): The Supreme Court Constitution bench ruled in the Shiv Sena rift case that it could not order the reinstatement of the Uddhav Thackeray cabinet since he resigned without being put to the test. The Court ruled that the Governor was correct to invite Ekanth Shinde from the administration with the backing of the BJP, given that Thackeray left freely. While noting that it cannot revoke a resignation that was willingly submitted, the Court held that "had Mr. Thackeray not resigned from the position of Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him."
The statute established in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, which stipulates that a Speaker will be prevented from starting disqualification proceedings while a notice requesting their removal is still ongoing, was questioned by the Court as being incorrect. Since a five-judge panel made this decision, it was still up for review before a CJI-led bench that included Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Manoj Misra, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who has since retired. New CJI Sanjiv Khanna will need to reassemble this bench.
Bench: Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha; CJI DY Chandrachud [author]
3. Supriyo v. Union of India (October 17, 2023): The Supreme Court ruled that the legislature should make the final decision about the legal recognition of LGBT marriages in India. Nonetheless, every judge on the bench concurred that the Union of India should form a committee to investigate the rights and privileges of individuals in homosexual unions, without recognizing their relationship as a "marriage" under the law, as stated in its previous statement.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul (minority judgment), S Ravindra Bhat (majority judgment), Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha (concurring with majority) with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (minority judgment).
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul (minority judgment), S Ravindra Bhat (majority judgment), Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha (concurring with majority) with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (minority judgment).
4. On December 6, 2023, Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt Ltd: According to the "group of companies" theory, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration agreement can bind non-signatories. "The 'group of companies' doctrine must be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements," the Supreme Court ruled.
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and PS Narasimha (concurring decision), JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, and CJI DY Chandrachud (authoring majority judgment)
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and PS Narasimha (concurring decision), JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, and CJI DY Chandrachud (authoring majority judgment)
5. The Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the Union Government's 2019 decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's (J&K) special status under Article 370 of the Constitution in the case of Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India (December 11, 2023). The Court ruled that the State of J&K lacked internal sovereignty and that the Indian Constitution may be applied to the State of J&K without the State Government's consent. It was decided that Article 370 was only in effect for a limited time.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul (concurring opinion), Sanjiv Khanna (concurring opinion), BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and CJI DY Chandrachud (author of the majority ruling).
6. In Re: The Interaction Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (December 13, 2023): The Supreme Court decided that agreements with unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration clauses are enforceable. A lack of stamping renders the agreement inadmissible in evidence but does not render it null and void or unenforceable. But according to the Indian Stamp Act, the Court noted that it is a deficiency that can be fixed. In M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors, a five-judge panel decided in April of this year that unstamped arbitration agreements are unenforceable by a majority vote of 3:2. The Court overturned that decision.
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul (concurring opinion), Sanjiv Khanna (concurring opinion), BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and CJI DY Chandrachud (author of the majority ruling).
6. In Re: The Interaction Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (December 13, 2023): The Supreme Court decided that agreements with unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration clauses are enforceable. A lack of stamping renders the agreement inadmissible in evidence but does not render it null and void or unenforceable. But according to the Indian Stamp Act, the Court noted that it is a deficiency that can be fixed. In M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors, a five-judge panel decided in April of this year that unstamped arbitration agreements are unenforceable by a majority vote of 3:2. The Court overturned that decision.
7. Union of India & Ors. v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. (February 15, 2024): According to the Supreme Court, anonymous electoral bonds violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to knowledge. The plan has been declared unconstitutional as a result.
Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna (concurring opinion), BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra; CJI DY Chandrachud (author of majority verdict).
8. In High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (February 29, 2024), the Supreme Court reversed its 2018 Asian Resurfacing ruling that stipulated that, absent an express extension from the High Courts, interim orders issued by High Courts halting trials in civil and criminal cases would automatically expire six months after the order's date.
JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal [concurring view], CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Abhay S. Oka [authoring the majority judgment], PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra comprise the bench.
JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal [concurring view], CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Abhay S. Oka [authoring the majority judgment], PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra comprise the bench.
9. Sita Soren vs. Union Of India (March 4, 2024): The Supreme Court reversed the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao ruling, which maintained that lawmakers and members of legislative assemblies could invoke Article 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution to claim immunity for accepting a bribe in anticipation of a legislative vote or speech.
Bench: Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra; CJI DY Chandrachud [wrote majority verdict].
Bench: Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra; CJI DY Chandrachud [wrote majority verdict].
10. In the case of Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (July 25, 2024), the Supreme Court ruled by an 8:1 majority that the Union law, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, does not restrict the States' ability to impose taxes on mineral rights.
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna [dissented], JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma, and AG Masih; CJI DY Chandrachud [wrote majority verdict].
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna [dissented], JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma, and AG Masih; CJI DY Chandrachud [wrote majority verdict].
11. On August 1, 2024, State of Punjab and others v. Davinder Singh and others: By a vote of 6-1, the Supreme Court ruled that it is acceptable to subclassify Scheduled Castes in order to provide more backwards within the SC categories with different quotas. Within the SC categories, the States are able to pick those that are more retrograde and subclassify them for a different quota. The Court made it clear that although subclassification is permitted, the State is not permitted to set aside 100% of the available space for a subclass. Additionally, the State must provide empirical evidence of the subclass's inadequate representation in order to support the subclassification.
DY Chandrachud, CJI [concurring opinion for Misra and himself], Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi [dissented], Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma [concurring opinions] comprise the bench.
12. In Re: Citizenship Act 1955, Section 6A (October 17, 2024): By a vote of 4:1, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which acknowledged the Assam Accord. According to the majority, the Parliament possessed the legislative authority to implement the clause. According to the ruling, Section 6A was passed in order to strike a compromise between the necessity to safeguard the local populace and humanitarian concerns.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant (who wrote the majority ruling), MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala (who dissented), Manoj Misra, and CJI DY Chandrachud [concurred]
DY Chandrachud, CJI [concurring opinion for Misra and himself], Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi [dissented], Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma [concurring opinions] comprise the bench.
12. In Re: Citizenship Act 1955, Section 6A (October 17, 2024): By a vote of 4:1, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which acknowledged the Assam Accord. According to the majority, the Parliament possessed the legislative authority to implement the clause. According to the ruling, Section 6A was passed in order to strike a compromise between the necessity to safeguard the local populace and humanitarian concerns.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant (who wrote the majority ruling), MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala (who dissented), Manoj Misra, and CJI DY Chandrachud [concurred]
0 Comments