Justice DY Chandrachud's Judgments On Socio-Economic Justice, Gender Equality, Reproductive Rights, Child Welfare & Disability Rights

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who is set to demit office on November 10, was involved in some of the most significant judgments during his tenure as a judge. Some of his notable judgments on socio-economic and political justice, gender equality and disability rights are briefly discussed below. On socio-economic justice1. E.R. Kumar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors (November 11, 2016): On writ petitions concerning the right to shelter to homeless persons in urban areas, especially during winters, the Supreme Court-monitored the implementation of the “Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless”, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, which refers to the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM). The Court found that despite the availability of funds and a clear mechanism through which they are disbursed, the conditions of urban shelters are extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs on the ground. The Court appointed a committee headed by Justice Kailash Gambhir, retired Judge, High Court of Delhi as its Chairman to verify whether the shelters comply with the operational guidelines for the Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless under the NULM.Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices L. Nageswara Rao, and D. Y. Chandrachud2. Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India (December 14, 2016): In this case, an Article 32 petition was filed by Bachpan Bacho Andolan seeking mandamus to the Union of India to formulate and implement a national action plan for children on the issue of drugs, alcohol and substance abuse amongst children, the Supreme Court directed that the Government shall conclude the national survey on drug abuse within 6 months. It shall also formulate a national action plan for children, create a module containing an appropriate curriculum for children of all age groups to keep them away from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and also set up de-addiction centres.Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices D Y Chandrachud, and A.M. Khanwilkar3. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Sec.&Ors; vs K. Balu & Anr (December 15, 2016): The issue raised in this case was the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country, which have claimed human lives and caused debility and injury. It was stated that both on a personal scale (in terms of the injuries and loss of life) as well as in a social context, restitution in the form of mandatory awards of compensation can never undo the trauma of loss and the pain of suffering. Observing that there is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade in liquor, the Court passed directions including that all States and Union Territories shall cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways.In March 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the review petition against the judgment and stated that there is a rationale basis for not allowing the exemption for those segments of national and state highways which fall within the limits of municipal or local authorities [bench: Former CJI T.S. Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and L. Nageswara Rao]Bench: Former CJI T.S. Thakur, Justices L. Nageswara Rao, and D. Y. Chandrachud [authored]4. Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union Of India (July 17, 2018): The Supreme Court held that “lynching is an affront to the rule of law and the exalted values of the Constitution.” The Court issued guidelines including extensive preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat mob lynching. The Court directed States to prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in light of Section 357A of the CrPC within a month from the judgment.As per the guidelines, the state government shall designate a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), as a nodal officer who shall be assisted by one of the deputy superintendent of police (DSP) rank officers in taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They must also constitute a special task force to procure intelligence reports about people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud5. Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India (September 26, 2018): The Supreme Court held that Court proceedings shall be live-streamed in the larger public interest. In this, reliance was put on Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which recognises the know and receive information and the right to carry out trade, occupation or profession respectively. This is clubbed with the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep.Bench: Former CJI Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar[authored for CJI and himself], and D.Y. Chandrachud [concurring judgment]6. In Re: Distribution Of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic...

Justice DY Chandrachud's Judgments On Socio-Economic Justice, Gender Equality, Reproductive Rights, Child Welfare & Disability Rights

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags