Legacy of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, the 50th Chief Justice of India, concludes his tenure marked by landmark rulings that have reshaped Indian jurisprudence. His tenure began in May 2016 and culminates with decisions that uphold fundamental rights and interpret constitutional provisions in contemporary contexts. His judgments have often emphasised individual liberties, privacy rights, and the separation of powers.

Right to Privacy

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. This unanimous decision overruled a previous Emergency-era judgement. The ruling established that the state cannot infringe on personal liberties without adequate justification.

Right to Marry

The Hadiya case affirmed the right to marry a person of one’s choice as integral to Article 21. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion brought into light the inviolability of personal autonomy in marriage decisions, regardless of faith. This ruling reinforced individual rights against state interference.

Governance in Delhi

In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified the powers of the Delhi government over bureaucrats. The verdict established that while the Delhi legislature has control over administration, it does not extend to matters of public order, police, and land. This ruling delineated the boundaries of state and central powers in governance.

Decriminalisation of Homosexuality

The Navtej Johar case resulted in the decriminalisation of homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The ruling telld that LGBTQ individuals possess equal rights and cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

Electoral Bonds Scheme

In February 2024, the Supreme Court ruled against the electoral bond scheme, declaring it unconstitutional. The judgement mandated the cessation of bond issuance and required transparency in political funding. This ruling aimed to enhance electoral integrity and accountability.

Ayodhya Verdict

In the M Siddiq case, the Supreme Court awarded the disputed land in Ayodhya for the construction of a Ram temple while also ensuring a five-acre plot for the Muslim community for a mosque. This judgement sought to balance historical grievances and contemporary societal needs.

Property Rights

In the Property Owners Association case, the Supreme Court clarified the limitations of redistributing private property under Article 39(b). The ruling distinguished between personal property and resources deemed for community redistribution, reinforcing property rights.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the right to privacy judgement on individual freedoms in India.
2. With suitable examples, explain the significance of the Hadiya case in the context of personal liberty.
3. Point out the key differences in governance powers as established in the Delhi governance case.
4. Estimate the impact of the Navtej Johar ruling on the LGBTQ community in India.
5. Underline the challenges posed by the electoral bond scheme as identified by the Supreme Court.

1. Critically analyse the implications of the right to privacy judgement on individual freedoms in India.

The right to privacy judgement in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India is monumental in the context of individual freedoms in India. The Supreme Court’s ruling established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, fundamentally altering the relationship between the state and individuals. The implications of this judgement are deep and multifaceted:

1. Empowerment of Individuals: The ruling empowers citizens by affirming that personal choices, whether related to marriage, sexuality, or personal data, cannot be infringed upon without substantial justification. This has led to greater autonomy for individuals in making personal decisions.
2. Legal Precedent: The judgement overruled the Emergency-era ADM Jabalpur case, which allowed for the suspension of fundamental rights during crises. This reversal strengthens the legal framework protecting individual liberties, ensuring that such rights are upheld even in challenging times.
3. Impact on Surveillance and Data Privacy: The judgement has implications for data privacy, especially in the age of technology and digital surveillance. It mandates that any state intrusion into personal data must be justified by law, promoting a more accountable and transparent governance model.
4. Foundation for Future Judgements: This ruling has set a precedent for subsequent cases involving personal freedoms, including those related to LGBTQ rights and bodily autonomy, further entrenching the right to privacy within the Indian legal framework.
5. Social and Cultural Changes: By recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, the judgement encourages a cultural shift towards respecting individual choices in a diverse society, encouraging an environment where personal freedoms can thrive.

In this way, the right to privacy judgement has enhanced individual freedoms in India, reinforcing the notion that personal autonomy is a mainstay of a democratic society. It serves as a protective shield against arbitrary state action and has laid the groundwork for ongoing discussions about privacy and individual rights in the digital age.

2. With suitable examples, explain the significance of the Hadiya case in the context of personal liberty.

The Hadiya case (Shafin Jahan v. Union of India) is very important in the discourse surrounding personal liberty in India, particularly in the context of marriage and individual choice. The Supreme Court’s decision telld the sanctity of personal autonomy and the right to choose one’s partner, irrespective of religious or societal norms. The significance of this case can be examined through several key aspects:

1. Affirmation of Individual Choice: The ruling explicitly stated that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. This affirmation is crucial in a country where societal pressures often dictate personal choices, especially in matters of marriage.
2. Protection Against State Interference: The judgement brought into light that neither the state nor the law can dictate personal relationships. This is particularly in a multicultural society like India, where interfaith marriages can be contentious. The ruling acts as a bulwark against state interference in personal matters.
3. Reinforcement of Gender Rights: The case also has implications for women’s rights, as it empowers women to make autonomous choices regarding their partners. This is especially relevant in the context of patriarchal norms that often limit women’s agency in personal relationships.
4. Legal Precedent for Future Cases: The Hadiya case sets a precedent for future legal battles concerning personal liberty. It strengthens the argument for autonomy in various contexts, including LGBTQ rights and other interfaith or intercultural relationships.
5. Broader Societal Impact: The case has prompted discussions on individual rights and personal freedoms, contributing to a broader societal understanding of the importance of autonomy in personal relationships. It encourages a more progressive outlook towards marriage and relationships in Indian society.

Thus, the Hadiya case is as it not only affirms personal liberty and individual choice but also sets a legal precedent that protects these rights against state interference. It marks a progressive step towards recognizing and respecting individual autonomy in a diverse and complex society.

3. Point out the key differences in governance powers as established in the Delhi governance case.

The Delhi governance case (Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India) delineated crucial distinctions in the governance powers between the elected government of Delhi and the central government, particularly regarding the control over bureaucrats and administrative services. The Supreme Court’s verdict clarified the following key differences:

1. Legislative Powers: The ruling established that the Delhi government has legislative control over services related to the administration of the National Capital Territory (NCT), except in areas specifically excluded, such as public order, police, and land. This means that the Delhi Assembly can legislate on matters pertaining to the functioning of its bureaucracy.
2. Executive Powers: While the Delhi government holds executive powers over the administration of services, it does not extend to areas like public order and police. This limits the Delhi government’s authority in critical areas that impact law and order, thereby centralizing power in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) for these specific domains.
3. Role of the Lieutenant Governor: The judgement reinforced the role of the LG as a representative of the central government, particularly in matters outside the legislative competence of the Delhi government. This creates a dual governance structure where the LG retains authority in certain areas, potentially leading to conflicts between state and central governance.
4. Interpretation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in this case emphasized the need for a clear delineation of powers, which is critical for maintaining the federal structure of governance in India. It telld the importance of cooperative federalism while also recognizing the unique status of Delhi as a union territory.
5. Impact on Governance: The verdict has implications for the day-to-day functioning of the Delhi government, as it must navigate the complexities of operating under a dual governance structure. This can lead to challenges in policy implementation and administrative efficiency, particularly in areas where jurisdiction is contested.

In this way, the Delhi governance case established clear distinctions in the powers of the Delhi government versus the central government, particularly concerning legislative and executive control over bureaucratic functions. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach to governance that respects the unique status of Delhi while ensuring effective administration.

4. Estimate the impact of the Navtej Johar ruling on the LGBTQ community in India.

The Navtej Johar ruling, which decriminalized homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, represents a watershed moment for the LGBTQ community in India. The impact of this landmark judgement can be assessed through various dimensions:

1. Legal Recognition and Equality: The ruling affirms that LGBTQ individuals are equal citizens under the law, thereby dismantling a colonial-era provision that criminalized consensual same-sex relationships. This legal recognition is crucial for encouraging a sense of belonging and equality among LGBTQ individuals.
2. Societal Acceptance: The judgement has catalyzed discussions around LGBTQ rights in Indian society, contributing to a gradual shift in public perception. Increased visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ identities can lead to reduced stigma and discrimination, promoting a more inclusive society.
3. Empowerment and Advocacy: The ruling empowers LGBTQ individuals to advocate for their rights without the fear of legal repercussions. This has spurred activism and advocacy for further rights, including marriage equality, adoption rights, and anti-discrimination protections.
4. Psychological Well-being: Decriminalization has implications for the mental health of LGBTQ individuals, who often face societal rejection and discrimination. The ruling can alleviate feelings of shame and isolation, promoting psychological well-being and self-acceptance.
5. International Standing: The judgement enhances India’s global standing regarding human rights, aligning the country with international norms that respect and protect LGBTQ rights. This can have diplomatic implications and influence India’s relations with other nations advocating for human rights.

Thus, the Navtej Johar ruling has had a transformative impact on the LGBTQ community in India, encouraging legal recognition, societal acceptance, and empowerment. It marks an important step towards equality and justice, paving the way for further advancements in the rights of LGBTQ individuals in the country.

5. Underline the challenges posed by the electoral bond scheme as identified by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling against the electoral bond scheme brought into light several critical challenges associated with this controversial political funding mechanism. These challenges can be summarized as follows:

1. Lack of Transparency: One of the primary concerns raised by the Court was the opacity surrounding the electoral bond scheme. The scheme allowed anonymous donations to political parties, which undermined transparency in political funding. This lack of accountability can lead to corruption and the influence of undisclosed interests in politics.
2. Potential for Abuse: The Court identified the risk of misuse of the scheme, where large corporations or individuals could exert undue influence over political parties through undisclosed contributions. This raises concerns about the integrity of the democratic process and the potential for quid pro quo arrangements.
3. Disproportionate Advantage to Ruling Parties: The electoral bond scheme has been criticized for disproportionately favoring ruling parties, as they are likely to receive a larger share of anonymous donations. This can create an uneven playing field in elections, undermining the principles of free and fair competition.
4. Impact on Electoral Integrity: By allowing unaccounted money to flow into the political system, the scheme poses a threat to electoral integrity. It can lead to the entrenchment of money in politics, making it difficult for candidates without substantial financial backing to compete effectively.
5. Constitutional Concerns: The Supreme Court’s judgement deemed amendments related to the scheme unconstitutional, raising questions about the legality of the provisions that facilitated anonymous donations. This can have far-reaching implications for the regulatory framework governing political financing in India.

In this way, the challenges posed by the electoral bond scheme, as identified by the Supreme Court, revolve around issues of transparency, potential abuse, and the impact on electoral integrity. The ruling puts stress on the need for comprehensive reforms in political funding to ensure accountability and uphold the democratic process.