On 5 December 2023, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave wrote an open letter to Chandrachud stating that he was violating listing rules by moving politically sensitive cases to particular benches.

Chandrachud, highlighting his perceived inconsistencies, majoritarian and politically savvy mindset, questionable integrity and the long-term impact of his term as judge and Chief Justice on Indian judicial system.

[22] In 2013, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in the Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation case upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalized homosexuality.

"[21] He concluded by disagreeing "with the manner in which Koushal has dealt with the privacy – dignity-based claims of LGBT persons"[21] and held that:The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection.

The instruments of the state must be utilised to effectuate the exercise of freedom.The judgment was reported[37][38] for preventing the censorship of free speech and limiting its exceptions strictly to the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The plea came in the context of media reports on the observations of judges of the Madras High Court stating that the Election Commission was responsible for the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the country for allowing political parties to hold massive rallies without adhering to the COVID-19 protocols.

[42] In the suo motu writ petition dealing with the management of the COVID-19 pandemic,[43] Chandrachud criticised certain State Governments for clamping down on free speech of citizens when they sought help for resources online.

During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Indians resorted to social media websites to source medical aid - procure oxygen, essential drugs or locate a hospital bed.

"[87] At the International Judicial Conference hosted by India on the 'Judiciary and the Changing World', which saw the participation of Chief Justices and judges from over 23 countries, the President of India welcomed the judgment and commended it for its "progressive social transformation"[88] In 2021, the women who received the benefit of the Babita Puniya ruling contended that the Union Government applied a facially neural standard for their belated assessment for Permanent Commission, on medical standards that were applicable to men when they were 25–30 years old and by discounting their subsequent achievements.

In such a situation, it becomes imperative to use an intersectional lens to evaluate how multiple sources of oppression operate cumulatively to produce a specific experience of subordination for a blind Scheduled Caste woman.

[116] A challenge was brought before the Supreme Court against the order of the National Green Tribunal upholding the grant of an Environmental Clearance to a proposed greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa.

A myriad of contentions were urged by the appellants questioning the grant of the clearance, which included the failure to make disclosures on forests and Ecologically Sensitive Zones as well as a faulty appraisal process and the use of erroneous sampling points.

[126] The erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued an administrative circular in 2002 envisaging the grant of ex post facto clearances to those industries that had failed to comply with the mandatory EIA notification of 1994.

[131] Developing on the concept of environmental rule of law propounded by him in the Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India case, he discussed how actual implementation may suffer from lack of access to scientific data to ascertain concrete harm.

"[133] In addition to its contribution on labour jurisprudence and the interpretation of directive principles of state policy,[134][135] the judgement was also hailed for critically examining executive actions, which were otherwise given a wide leeway during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In defining constitutional principle, however, this Court must be conscious of the position on the ground as admitted by Counsel of both sides and an effort has to be made to the extent possible to ensure that democratic values prevail.

Pavitra II v. Union of India case,[155] where he upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.

[157] Drawing on the work of Amartya Sen, he held that:A meritocratic system is one that rewards actions that result in the outcomes that we as a society value…Thus, the providing of reservations for SCs and the STs is not at odds with the principle of meritocracy.

[155]In the Chairman and managing director, Food Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira case,[159] Chandrachud affirmed the principle that a person who receives the benefit of public employment on the basis of a false caste certificate is not entitled to protection in exercise of the equitable power conferred upon Courts.

Chandrachud held that the "withdrawal of civil benefits flowed as a logical result of the validation of a claim to belong to a group or category for whom the reservation is intended" and that "the selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systematic failure and has deleterious effects on good governance."

The once-iconic Co-Operative Society had fallen on hard times and Writers and Publishers had won the bid to revive Super Bazar under a court regulated recovery scheme.

[178] Chandrachud delivered a significant judgment in the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta case, where the termination of a Power Purchase Agreement with the corporate debtor, solely on account of its insolvency, was under challenge.

[182] In the present case, however, the Supreme Court noted that the Power Purchase Agreement was the sole contract of the corporate debtor and held: "Given that the terms used in Section 60(5)(c) are of wide import, as recognised in a consistent line of authority, we hold that the NCLT was empowered to restrain the appellant from terminating the PPA.

Circumspect of the Aadhaar infrastructure in plugging loopholes in welfare leakages, he held that:The test of proportionality stipulates that the nature and extent of the State's interference with the exercise of a right (in this case, the rights to privacy, dignity, choice, and access to basic entitlements) must be proportionate to the goal it seeks to achieve (in this case, purported plugging of welfare leakage and better targeting… … by collecting identity information, the Aadhaar program treats every citizen as a potential criminal without even requiring the State to draw a reasonable belief that a citizen might be perpetrating a crime or an identity fraud.

[204]One academician wrote shortly thereafter that Chandrachud's reading of the constitutional provision and assessment of the Aadhaar Act upheld "the delicate balance of bicameralism" which lies at the heart of India's parliamentary democracy"[215]

It finds fertile soil far from home, there to bloom into the full richness that it has been denied in its own native environment… Sometimes, we need friends and colleagues in other parts of the world to hold up the mirror that we are unwilling or unable to look into.

In this sense, pluralism furthers the basic postulates of the Constitution and nourishes and provides content to the goal of national unity...No single individual or institution can claim a monopoly over the idea of India…what is of utmost relevance today is our ability and commitment to preserve, conserve and build on the rich pluralistic history we have inherited.The speech was reported [266][267][268][269] as a plea to protect the right to dissent in a free and democratic society.

Currently the e-Court's Project is in Phase II, which in addition to providing necessary hardware to courts for meeting technological demands, has also undertaken to introduce various digital services for the benefit of the lawyers and general public.

[274] NJDG is a flagship project of e-Committee that tracks the country's pending cases, ensuring transparency in the functioning of the judicial system by making this information available in the public domain.

[282] Other initiatives include installation of touch screen kiosks at court complexes to obtain case information,[283] e-Courts Services application for mobiles[284] and the e-Committee YouTube Channel.