In the marble corridors of India's Supreme Court, where justice and power intersect, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's retirement marks the end of an era that began with great promise and leaves a complex legacy.
His tenure as India's 50th Chief Justice since Independence for just over two years while not the longest—that distinction belongs to his father YV Chandrachud's 7.3-year term—stands as one of the most significant in recent memory.
In the days leading up to his retirement, CJI Chandrachud’s lament—at a function in Bhutan—on whether he achieved everything he set out to do has become a subject of intense debate.
"As my tenure comes to an end, my mind is heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past," he confessed. "I find myself pondering: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently?"
When he assumed office in November 2022, he was hailed as a "rockstar judge," beloved by liberals and celebrated for his media-savvy approach. In the last two years, he got many other names- the “new right liberal”, “lip service” or as one senior member of the bar put it – “a legacy seeker”.
When CJI Chandrachud took on the job as India’s top judge in November 2022, BOOM highlighted the expectations surrounding his tenure. Now, two years later, BOOM set out to assess whether he met these expectations. To gain insight, this reporter spoke with members of the bar, academics, civil rights activists, and other stakeholders invested in the means of justice.
Almost all agreed that CJI Chandrachud is exceptionally brilliant. However, many felt his brilliance fell short of delivering meaningful relief to those seeking justice—a point of significant disappointment. As one senior member of the bar put it, his tenure has been like an “operation successful, but the patient is dead.”
The Brilliant Jurist and Landmark Judgements
There is unanimous agreement about one aspect of Chandrachud's tenure: his intellectual brilliance. With nearly 600 judgments to his name, he tackled some of India's most pressing legal challenges. His rulings shaped the nation's stance on privacy, fundamental rights, free speech, women's rights, and LGBTQIA+ rights.
He decriminalised adultery, opened the Sabarimala temple to women of all ages, struck down electoral bonds, expanded abortion rights for unmarried women, in the Bhima Koregoan case, he noted that “dissent is the safety valve of democracy”, he asserted that individuals have a right to die with dignity and even worked to save the endangered Great Indian Bustard.
As an administrator, CJI Chandrachud pushed the Supreme Court into the digital age. Courts became paperless, new display boards appeared, and litigants could track their cases through WhatsApp updates. Under his watch, 17 new Supreme Court judges were elevated, representing half of the court's sanctioned strength.
The Two Faces Of Justice
When CJI Chandrachud took on the mantle as top judge, he was the darling of the liberals and hailed as a “rockstar judge”. His media savviness – aided in part by social media, only added to an image carefully cultivated by him. However, even then, though opinions on what one could expect from him were divided, there was hope.
Two years on, has CJI Chandrachud fulfilled expectations? Many say that he came with a bang but will leave with a whimper.
Beneath the impressive surface, senior advocates and legal scholars see a more complicated picture. Senior advocate CU Singh describes Chandrachud as a "legacy seeker" caught in an internal struggle: "He is in awe of power. His natural instinct is to bend before a higher power. But at the same time, he has a majoritarian streak and an intense desire to create a legacy for himself. It is a very Jekyll and Hyde-esq situation."
This duality manifested in what many describe as Chandrachud's signature pattern: brilliant legal reasoning that stopped short of practical relief. As one senior advocate memorably put it, it was like "operation successful, but the patient is dead."
The Maharashtra political crisis is a perfect example. In March 2023, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench led by CJI Chandrachud unanimously ruled that Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s call for a floor test was “illegal” and “unjustified”. However, it could not restore Uddhav Thackeray’s government since he chose to resign instead of facing a floor test.
“Cannot quash a resignation that was voluntarily given,” the Supreme Court had said. Senior advocate CU Singh said, the bench failed to acknowledge that Thackeray was forced to resign during the pendency of his petition, because the top court did not stay a floor test was scheduled the next day, while simultaneously staying the Speaker’s notices of disqualification against the defector MLAs who were going to cast their illegal votes against the party whip at the floor test.
“Years down the line, the law will be cited, but one will forget the relief that wasn’t given virtually defeating the purpose of the judgment and taking the sting out of the tale,” Singh said. This, he added, harks back to the Bhagwati judgment in 1978 Maneka Gandhi judgment, which is brilliant on law but gave her no relief.
Similar patterns emerged in cases involving Delhi's governance and disputes between governors and chief ministers.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave's assessment is particularly sharp: "He has been more of an establishment CJI than that of the Constitution and the People... His track record as CJI reflects decision after decision favouring the BJP government. He has definitely shown clear submission to a strong PM and his government in judicial and administrative actions and inactions."
The Contradictions
The contradictions in Chandrachud's tenure run deep. Despite being a champion of women's rights, none of the 17 judges he elevated to the Supreme Court were women. His defense of the collegium system proved weak, and his handling of sensitive cases raised eyebrows.
Alok Prasanna, co-founder of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy told BOOM, “CJI Chandrachud failed to stand up for the collegium system.” Prasanna added that the judge continued what his predecessors did and gave way to the government on the issue of the appointment of judges.
“What the government could not do through a law (NJAC), they did through a collegium itself,” Prasanna said. “The collegium did not stand for those the government did not want,” he said adding, it was a huge disappointment that the collegium became nothing more than a ‘search and selection committee’.
On bail, CJI Chandrachud has spoken at length and exhorted the 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' on several occasions. As master of the roster, he said he ensured bail matters were given priority. "Speaking for myself, I have always granted bail from A to Z. From Arnab to Zubair. That's my philosophy," CJI Chandrachud said at a recent event.
However, in cases of political importance, he fell short. The case of student activist Umar Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, who has spent four years in jail without trial, stands as a stark example. Khalid’s bail hearings saw repeated adjournments and ultimately, as master of the roster, the case—considered to be one of the few politically sensitive ones—was listed before a judge known to be hostile. On several occasions, many have also withdrawn bail pleas instead of getting a negative order from the Supreme Court.
The Ayodhya judgment and the divine intervention that led to its conclusion is another example. Justice Chandrachud, as he then was, was one of the five judges on the Constitution Bench hearing the matter. While acknowledging that the destruction of the Babri Masjid was a criminal act, the five-judge constitution bench allowed the land to be handed over to Lord Ram and his devotees.
The judgment was anonymous—it remained unsigned—till Chandrachud revealed that he prayed before a deity for a solution outed him as the lead author.
While de-legalising Electoral Bonds, the bench led by Chandrachud rejected the probe into allegations of its misuse and quid pro quo between donors and political parties.
The champion of LGBTQ+ rights also failed the community on marriage equality. While senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan acknowledged that CJI Chandrachud is singularly responsible for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, he said, “On marriage equality, he tried what he could.”
CJI Chandrachud was part of the bench that unanimously agreed that marriage was not a fundamental right. In his minority opinion, he said marriage could not be characterised as a “static and unchanging institution”. He said governments must not discriminate against the “right of the queer community to enter into union”. But at the same time, CJI Chandrachud lobbed the issue back to the parliament which has a government that vehemently argued against marriage equality.
Even his administrative reforms, while pioneering, struck some as superficial. He led the beautification project at the Supreme Court – a new logo, a new seal, lady justice without a blindfold, and other cosmetic changes. Alok Prasanna of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy likens them to "a paint job where real structural repairs were needed."
The Verdict Of History
Will history be kind to CJI Chandrachud? Opinions remain divided.
Legal scholar Upendra Baxi said CJI Chandrachud played the role of two chief justices – one on the bench, and the other off the bench. “He is certainly media savvy and was constantly agreeable for a judge – especially a CJI,” Baxi told BOOM.
However, CJI Chandrachud will be equally known for his forays off the bench. A lot has been spoken about the much-publicised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Ganpati visit at the CJI’s residence is the most recent of the examples. The CJI’s defence – that members of the executive and the judiciary often meet at social functions but no deals are cut there, was even more telling.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave believes he "leaves behind a poor legacy and a poorer image of the office of the CJI," suggesting he spent more time cultivating his image as 'DYC' - as he is known in the legal circles, than serving as a strong Chief Justice.
A senior member of the bar said history will not be kind to him. “This was an era where the judiciary needed to be strong in the face of a brute majority,” he said preferring to remain anonymous. “Yes, the Supreme Court cannot be the opposition to a government, but it is an institution that needed to take note of weak legislations passed by the government with an overwhelming mandate. The CJI and the institution let the people down,” he said.
Yet others counsel against such harsh judgment. Senior advocate Raju Ramchandran said "we are looking for the perfect judge, who does not exist." He argues that the role of Chief Justice is "unenviable" and places immense pressure even on the most well-meaning judges.
Ramchandran acknowledged that while some of CJI Chandrachud’s actions have drawn legitimate criticism, and that he has also been disappointed, on the whole “I will remember him as a fine judge”.
“History will be kinder to him than what is being said presently,” Ramchandran said. Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan concurred when he said, “He will be remembered as one of the greatest judges if you look back on some of his judgments”.
Perhaps the most balanced perspective comes from legal scholar Upendra Baxi, who notes simply, "No judge is beyond human failings including 'DYC'... No judge is perfect or can deliver perfect justice."