Exploring Six Landmark Judgments by Chief Justice of India
Share on:
Six Landmark Judgments of 2023 by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
The NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor
Judgment Name: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India, decided on May 11, 2023
The matter was heard by the five-judge Constitution bench constituting of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, and Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narasimha. Parties involved in the case were the Government of NCT of Delhi (Petitioner), represented by Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Advocate Shadan Farasat, and the Union of India (Respondent), represented by Learned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Constitution bench upheld the Delhi Government’s power to control civil services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. This case dealt with the asymmetric federal model of governance in India and the issue addressed here was regarding the control over the ‘services’ in the NCT of Delhi and Lieutenant Governor. The SC held that “NCTD is not similar to other Union Territories. By virtue of Article 239AA, NCTD is accorded a “sui generis” status, setting it apart from other Union Territories.” It also highlighted that the executive power of NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power. Referring to the phrase in Article 239AA(3), ‘Subject to the provisions of this Constitution’, “the legislative power of NCTD is to be guided, and not just limited, by the broader principles and provisions of the Constitution.” Concluding the judgment, the bench said, “We have answered the issue referred to this Constitution Bench…papers of this appeal before the Regular Bench for disposal after obtaining the directions of the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.” This SC verdict was authored by CJI Chandrachud running into 105 pages.
Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena Rift
Judgment Name: Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors., decided on May 11, 2023
The Maharashtra Political crisis case was heard by the Constitution bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, and Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narasimha. Senior Advocate (SA) Harish Salve, SA Mahesh Jethmalani, and SA Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the Eknath Shinde group. SA A.M. Singhvi and SA Kapil Sibal appeared for the Uddhav Thackeray group. Learned Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Maharashtra Governor.
Supreme Court Judgment
The SC bench said that the restoration of Uddhav Thackeray's government was not possible as he resigned without facing a floor test. The order reads, “Status quo ante cannot be restored as Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation. Hence the Governor was justified in administering oath to Mr. Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP.” It also highlighted that the speaker’s decision to appoint Mr. Gogawale as the whip of the party (Shiv Sena Party) was illegal. Along with this, Nabam Rebia’s judgment was also addressed during the proceedings. The bench referred to the correctness of the above-mentioned judgment to a larger bench of seven judges. This SC verdict was also authored by CJI Chandrachud running into 141 pages.
Legalization of Same-Sex Marriages
Judgment Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. vs. Union of India, decided on October 17, 2023
The Constitution bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, and Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul heard this matter. Parties involved were Supriyo Chakraborty, Abhay Dang, Parth Phiroze, and Uday Raj Anand (Petitioner), represented by Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Karuna Nundy, Menaka Guruswamy, Jayna Kothari, Priya Puri, Saurabh Kirpal, Arundhati Katju, Shristi Borthakur, and Mukul Rohatgi, and the Union of India (Respondents), represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, SA Rakesh Dwivedi, and SA Kapil Sibal.
Supreme Court Judgment
In this case, a marriage equality petition was filed aiming to establish the right to sexuality, sexual autonomy, and choosing a sexual partner under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This much-awaited judgment on the legal validation of same-sex marriages was delivered by a 3:2 majority including four separate opinions running into 366 pages. With a 3:2 majority, the SC held that non-heterosexual couples cannot claim an unqualified right to marry. All the judges agreed to a point that it was up to Parliament to decide whether to expand marriage laws and include queer unions in them. Moreover, the bench, in its judgment, also listed directions to obviate discrimination and to protect the queer community from various forms of violence and discrimination.
Non-Signatories bound to Arbitration Agreement
Judgment Name: Cox and Kings Ltd. vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., decided on December 06, 2023
The bench consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, and Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narasimha heard the matter on 06 December 2023. Parties involved in the case were Cox and Kings Ltd. (Petitioner), represented by Advocate Hiroo Advani and Advocate Divyakant Lahoti, SAP India Pvt. Ltd.; SAP SE GMBH (Respondent), represented by Advocate Dheeraj Nair, and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.; Jindal Drilling Industries; ECom Express Ltd.; Dost Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (Intervenor), represented by SA A.M. Singhvi and SA Kapil Sibal.
Supreme Court Judgment
The bench held that the ‘group of companies’ doctrine (GoC doctrine) will apply to arbitration proceedings in India. It concluded, “The Group of Companies doctrine is also premised on ascertaining the intention of the non-signatory to be party to an arbitration agreement. The doctrine requires the intention to be gathered from additional factors such as direct relationship with the signatory parties, commonality of subject matter, composite nature of the transaction, and performance of the contract.” The judgment included two verdicts running into 152 pages, one was authored by CJI and the other concurring judgment was delivered by P.S. Narasimha.
Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India
Judgment Name: In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, decided on December 11, 2023
The matter was heard by a Constitution bench consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, and Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Parties involved in the matter were Manohar Lal Sharma; We the Citizens; Dr. Charu Wali Khanna; Mohammed Akbar Lone; Hasnain Masoodi; Shakir Shabir; Anuradha Bhasin (Petitioner), represented by Advocates Raju Ramachandran, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, M.L. Sharma, and Shakir Shabir, and the Union of India (Respondent), represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench upheld the validity of the Central Government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India. The bench initiated the hearing on this matter on August 02, 2023, whereas the judgment was reserved on September 05, 2023. One of the key points of the judgment is that “the State of Jammu and Kashmir lost any element of sovereignty following the execution of the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the adoption of the Constitution of India. Article 370 represented asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty.” The bench also said that Article 370, which is placed in Part XXI of the Constitution, is deemed a temporary provision based on its historical context. Three judgments were delivered, one by CJI along with Justice Gavai and Justice Kant, one concurring judgment by Justice Kaul, and another concurring judgment by Justice Khanna, with a total page count of 476 pages.
Unstamped Arbitration Agreements
Judgment Name: In Re Interplay between arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the India Stamp Act 1899, decided on December 13, 2023
The largest bench of 2023, that is of seven judges heard this matter consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, and Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Supreme Court Judgment
The seven-judge bench of the SC with a majority of 6:1 held that “unstamped arbitration agreements are enforceable.” It overruled the decision of its April 2023 judgment in the N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ors case which stated that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable. The judgment is 155 pages long including two judgments, one was authored by CJI and another was authored by Justice Khanna.
