The Bonavero Institute seeks to foster robust and open discussion about some of the most important questions for constitutional and human rights lawyers in jurisdictions all over the world. We facilitate conversations between scholars engaged in human rights research and practitioners engaged in litigating and adjudicating rights.
The Adjudicating Rights conversation series invites judges to reflect upon the role of the judiciary in protecting and promoting rights in their jurisdictions. The role that the judiciary plays in any democracy is determined in large part by the constitutional text, conventions, and practice of that jurisdiction, as well as its history and political and legal culture. This series explores the legal and political factors that determine the role of the judiciary, the relationship between the judiciary and other institutions, and the concept of judicial independence, among other issues.
The Bonavero institute of Human Rights is delighted to host Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud in conversation with Prof Kate O' Regan and Prof Tarun Khaitan as part of our continuing ‘Adjudicating Rights’ series of judicial conversations.
Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and a former judge of Bombay High Court. He is set to serve as the 50th Chief Justice of India from November 2022.
He has written several prominent judgments on various aspects of constitutional law - privacy, free speech, gender justice, personal liberty. Among his notable judgments is his lead opinion in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. as part of a unanimous nine-judge Bench decision of the Indian Supreme Court, which affirmed that the right to privacy is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Justice Chandrachud wrote a separate concurring opinion in Navtej Johar v Union of India that read down section 377 and decriminalised same-sex relations between consenting adults. In the Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, Justice Chandrachud held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years from Sabarimala Temple violated constitutional morality. In Joseph Shine v Union of India, he authored a concurring judgment which unanimously struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery,and emphasised that the provision was 'destructive' and deprives women of their 'autonomy, dignity and privacy'.