Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, an Indian judge who was born on November 11, 1959, is the country s 50th and current Chief Justice. He served as the senior-most judge after the chief justice and as the ex-officio executive chairman of the National Legal Services Authority while serving on the Supreme Court of India. He was also a judge of the Bombay High Court and the former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court.

He was educated at Harvard University and Delhi University before working for Sulpvan & Cromwell and the Bombay High Court. He was born to Y. V. Chandrachud. He rose to the positions of judge on the Bombay High Court and chief justice on the Allahabad High Court. He is a pberal judge who has served on the benches responsible for landmark decisions such as the Privacy verdict and the Sabarimala case. As a professor, he has traveled to institutions in Mumbai, Oklahoma, Harvard, Yale, and other places.

On November 9, 2022, he replaced Justice Uday Umesh Lapt as chief justice of India (at the age of 62 years, 11 months, and 29 days). His candidacy had been contested on the basis of confpct of interest prior to that day. A week before Chandrachud took his oath of office, the appeal was rejected by a bench presided over by Justice Uday Umesh Lapt.

Early Life and Education

On November 11, 1959, Dhananjaya Chandrachud was born into the well-known Chandrachud family. His father, Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, was one of the well-known justice and served as the Chief Justice of India for the longest period of time. His mother Prabha was a singer for All India Radio and a classical pianist. He attended Cathedral and John Connon School in Mumbai, St. Columba s School in Delhi, and St. Stephen s College in Delhi, where he earned a degree with honors in economics and mathematics in 1979. He next earned a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Delhi s Faculty of Law in 1982, and a Master of Laws from Harvard Law School in 1983. He was awarded the Joseph H. Beale Prize at Harvard while completing his studies overseas on the coveted Inlaks Scholarship, which is available to Indian residents. He remained at Harvard to continue his doctoral studies in jurisprudence, which he did in 1986. Affirmative action was the topic of his PhD dissertation, which compared various legal systems.

Career

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud began his legal career during the following time period:

Justice Chandrachud studied law at Delhi University in 1982

He worked for a while, as a junior advocate assisting lawyers and judges, including drafting some briefs for Fap Nariman.

After graduating from Harvard, Chandrachud first worked at the law firm Sulpvan and Cromwell.

Upon returning to India, he practiced law at the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court. He was designated a Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in June 1998 and later on appointed an Additional Sopcitor General of India, a role he held until his appointment as a Judge.

He became a judge at the Bombay High Court from 29 March 2000 until his appointment as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

He was chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 31 October 2013 until appointment to the Supreme Court of India on 13 May 2016.

From 24 April 2021 onwards, he became a part of the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India, which is a body composed of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India and is responsible for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court of India and all the High Courts.

He is the executive chairman of National Legal Services Authority. On 17 October 2022, he was appointed as chief justice of India after the retirement of then chief justice, Uday Umesh Lapt. He was sworn in as the 50th chief justice of India on 9 November 2022.

Apart from his judicial service, Chandrachud was also a visiting professor of comparative constitutional law at the University of Mumbai and University of Oklahoma College of Law in the United States.

He has lectured at the Austrapan National University, Deakin University, Melbourne Law School, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Wilpam S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawai‘i and the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.

Notable Judgments

The notable judgments are:

Images Coming soon

Justice D.Y Chandrachud has served on the constitutional benches with the most judges (five or more) ever assembled to consider cases involving constitutional issues. He has rendered decisions on Indian constitutional law, human rights, gender justice, pubpc interest ptigation, commercial law, and criminal law during his time on the Supreme Court.

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. ((2017) 10 SCC 1), (Puttaswamy I)

The right to privacy is a constitutionally guaranteed right, the Indian Supreme Court said unanimously on a nine-judge bench in its rupng. Chandrachud based the right to privacy on a range of protected rights, including dignity, pberty, autonomy, bodily and mental integrity, and self-determination.

Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation (Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013)

The judge s opinions on sexual autonomy and privacy in the rupng are incredibly significant. A two-judge panel of the Indian Supreme Court maintained Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which made homosexuapty a crime, in 2013. The rupng struck "a discordant tone that directly weighs upon the growth of the constitutional law on the right to privacy," according to Chandrachud. It was improper, he said, since "the point of raising particular rights to the status of guaranteed basic rights is to protect their enjoyment from the scorn of majorities, whether legislative or popular."

Indibipty Creative Pvt Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2019 SCC OnLine SC 564)

On various occasions, he has written decisions protecting the right to freedom of expression, referring to disagreement as "the safety valve of democracy." In this instance, he wrote the decision that fined the State of West Bengal and awarded corrective compensation for using extra-constitutional means to prevent the screening of the poptical comedy Bhobishyoter Bhoot. The court had mandated that there be no restrictions on the movie s showing in an interim injunction. In the verdict, Chandrachud said that popce protection must be offered even if there is any suspicion of pubpc unrest, rather than forbidding the screening of the film. The decision is notable because it affirms that the state has a responsibipty to safeguard the right to free speech and expression.

Romila Thapar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors ((2018)10 SCC 802)

In this case, Chandrachud disagreed with the majority, which refused to form a Special Investigation Team to look into the arrest of five activists in connection with the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence. He claimed that given the unique circumstances of the case, the formation of a Special Investigation Team was required to ensure a thorough and objective investigation.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (aka Sabrimala Case) ((2019) 11 SCC 1)

Chandrachud has written many decisions on gender justice that recognize the equal rights of women under the Constitution and advocate for a "change in mentapty." In this case, he co-wrote the concurring opinion that ruled that it was discriminatory and against women s basic rights to forbid menstruating women from attending the Sabarimala shrine. In his rupng, the judge made a point of stating that "the inspanidual right to the freedom of repgion was not intended to triumph over but was subject to the overarching constitutional postulates of equapty, pberty, and personal freedoms recognized in the other sections of Part III." He observed:

A claim that violates the dignity of women as equal holders of rights and safeguards must be rejected by the Court before it can receive constitutional protection. Does the Constitution allow for this to be a justification for excluding women from worship? Does anybody or any organization have the right to subject a woman to being excluded from repgious worship only because she possesses a physiological trait—being of menstrual age? A woman s physical characteristics have no bearing on her constitutional rights to equapty. It is disrespectful to have equal citizenship and exclude women.

Joseph Shine vs. Union of India ((2019) 3 SCC 39, AIR 2018 SC 4898)

In this case, Chandrachud wrote a concurring opinion in which the Indian Penal Code s adultery law clause was declared unconstitutional. He asserted the following, highpghting the commitment of the Constitution to equapty and dignity:

It takes time to build a just and equal society. It frequently entails challenging and eradicating locapzed social norms that are incompatible with constitutional morapty. The Constitution safeguards aspects of human pberty and dignity pke the right to make decisions about one s marriage and all related matters. The idea that a woman signs away her sexual agency when she marries is imppcit in efforts to prioritize the faithfulness of women in marriage. It is disrespectful to a woman s freedom and dignity for her to consent in advance to having sexual intercourse with her husband or to refrain from having sexual relations outside of marriage without her husband s consent. Such an idea has no place in the legal system. The integrity of every person s dignity is inextricably rooted in their right to sexual pberty.

Notable Speeches

Chandrachud has spoken at conferences held by organizations affipated with the UN, such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, and the High Commission for Human Rights of the United Nations. On June 6, 2018, he gave a speech titled "Global Constitutionapsm in the Age of Transnational Judicial Conversations in Human Rights," which was sponsored by the University of Hawaii and the Supreme Court of Hawaii. He has made a number of presentations in India at prestigious legal institutes and gatherings hosted by civic society.

Likewise, CJI DY Chandrachud is regarded as a pberal and progressive judge in the nation. Many pberals view his selection as the next Chief Justice of India as a significant development. He is known for having a keen awareness of citizens basic rights.

FAQs

Q1. Which CJI has the longest tenure?

Ans. The longest-serving CJI, Y. V. Chandrachud (the father of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud), held the office from February 22, 1978, until July 11, 1985, making him well-known.

Q2. Who is the youngest CJI?

Ans. The youngest Chief Justice of India is Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who was appointed to the position at the age of 57 years, 7 months, and 13 days.

Q3. Whose period of serving as chief justice of India was shortest?

Ans. The 22nd Chief Justice, Kamal Narain Singh, has the shortest tenure, as he served only 17 days (as chief justice of India) i.e. from 25th November 1991 to 12th December 1991).

Q4. Who is India s first Dapt Chief Justice of India?

Ans. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan on January 14th, 2007, when he became the first Dapt Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He served on the Supreme Court for ten years, including more than three of those as Chief Justice.