FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF CHIEF JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar took oath on May 30. His appointment superseded Chief Justices Nitin Jamdar and K. R. Shriram of the Kerala and Madras High Court respectively.
He has served as a judge at Bombay High Court for over twelve years and has practiced as a lawyer and authored two books over the course of thirty six years. Justice Chandurkar’s most impactful decisions have ranged from critical issues on free speech and digital rights to the separation of powers. While certain judgements, such as his decision in the Kunal Kamra (2024) ruling on the government’s Fact Checking Units, was widely appreciated for “reaffirming the core principle of free speech”, other decisions such as his judgement upholding the ban on Hijab in a Bombay college (currently under challenge in the Supreme Court), was seen as a curb to religious freedom.
We list a handful of Justice Chandurkar’s notable judgements. :
Nine undergraduate students at colleges run by Chembur Trombay Education Society challenged the instruction requiring them to follow the prescribed dress code, which essentially restrained them from wearing a Hijab or Nakab. The students challenged the instruction as being arbitrary, discriminatory and infringing upon their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India. The dress code, which prohibited any revealing dress for girl students and mandated them to wear formal and decent dresses, considered the hijab or nakab as indecent.
While the petitioners challenged it as an infringement of their fundamental rights, the judgement authored by Justice Chandurkar upheld the university’s action as constitutional. He held that the prescription of such dress code intended to conceal religion in campus and thus was not a violation of any constitutional rights of students professing Islam. Rather, it was necessary to achieve uniformity among students and avoid disclosure of one’s religion.
The college’s decision was held as part of their right to establish and administer an educational institution under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26 of the Constitution. Justice Chandurkar also denied the claim under Clause 3 of UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 and observed that the instructions issued by the college are applicable to all students irrespective of their caste, creed, religion or language.
Justice Chandurkar further noted that donning of a Hijab and Nakab was not an essential religious practice, and following the dress code was a step towards ensuring focus on gaining knowledge and education which was in students’ larger interest.
Some commentators have noted that the decision served as “another blow to religious freedom” and was “symbolic of the unsatisfactory state of affairs where the essential religious practice (ERP) reigns supreme.”
Kunal Kamra v Union of India (2024)
On January 31, 2024, a division bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict concerning the the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology Rules. The amendment empowered the central government to establish a fact-checking unit to identify "fake, false or misleading" information about the government's work on social media. While Justice Gokhale had upheld the amendment, Justice Patel found the rule unconstitutional, stating that it contravened Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) and placed an undue burden on digital intermediaries.
In February 2024, the chief justice of the Bombay HC appointed Justice Chandurkar as the third judge to resolve the split verdict..
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Fact Checking Unit (FCU) under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and the principles of natural justice.
Relying on a catena of decisions, Justice Chandurkar opined that there is no further “right to the truth” nor is it the responsibility of the State to ensure that citizens are entitled only to “information” that was not fake, false or misleading as identified by the FCU. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) sought to restrict the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) by putting restrictions that were not in consonance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Justice Chandurkar remarked that there was no reasonable basis for determining whether information related to the business of the Central Government was fake, false, or misleading only when it appeared in digital form, and not doing the same when the same information was published in print. This difference in treatment violated the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Chandurkar held that the FCU was the arbiter in its own cause. He observed that subjecting the decision of the FCU to challenge before a constitutional Court could be treated as an adequate safeguard. If any piece of information was patently false or misleading, there was no provision for any identification by the FCU. If after identification by the FCU such content continued to be hosted, irrespective of knowledge and intent of the user, that would result in automatic loss of safe harbour.
Justice Chandurkar opined that since there were no clear guidelines or methods provided to identify what counted as fake or misleading information, the use of the terms “vague or false or misleading” became unclear and overly broad. He held that the Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Rules of 2021 as amended in 2023 was ultra vires the Act of 2000, and resulted in deprivation of safe harbour. He sided with Justice Patel that the provision’s vagueness had the potential of causing a “chilling effect”. Thus, it could not be saved by reading it down or by limiting its operation.
Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. State of Maharashtra (2025)
The petitioners, in this case, challenged the validity of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non Tribals) Rules, 1975. The petitioner belonged to the Mahadev Koli tribe, a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. They claimed that the restriction placed on transfer of land by a tribal person to a non-tribal person, if the land was meant for agricultural use, and the differentiation between non-agricultural purpose and agricultural purpose, was violative of Article 14 as it unfairly limited the right of a tribal person to transfer their land.
Justice Chandurkar noted that the restriction placed on transfer of land by sale in favour of non-tribal only when the transferee intended to use it for non-agricultural purpose was legally justifiable. The object behind it was to prevent non-tribals from accumulating agricultural lands of tribals and exploiting them by making them undertake agricultural operations on the very lands of which they were owners.
Justice Chandurkar stated, “Individual hardship by itself cannot be a ground to hold a provision to be invalid or unworkable especially in the light of the fact that such provision is enacted keeping in mind the Directive Principles under Article 46 of the Constitution for the larger good and welfare of tribals.” Thus, he upheld the validity of Rule 4(1)(a).
Pundlik Martandrao Yevatkar vs Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik (2018)
In a decision upholding a woman’s right to bodily integrity, Justice Chandurkar concurred with Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, stating that “the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an in-segregable part of her personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21”.
The Bench observed that a woman cannot be forced to give birth to a child. It was held that a wife’s desire to pursue employment did not constitute cruelty, and the husband’s claim for divorce on the ground of cruelty was unsustainable.
Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General (2024)
The petitioner sought to quash an order issued by the Government of Maharashtra, which directed his removal from the post of Civil Judge Junior Division on account of several complaints concerning his behaviour and conduct.
It was alleged that the petitioner exhibited abnormal behaviour, misbehaved, frequently failed to attend court, and was often under the influence of alcohol. Justice Chandurkar, siding with Justice Jitendra Jain, held that the court would not interfere with the order of the government as judges and judicial officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in any conduct or behaviour which was likely to affect the image of the judiciary. Judges. he noted, should maintain the highest standard as they exercise sovereign judicial powers of the State.
Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye v Union of India (2023)
In this decision, Justice Chandurkar, upheld the doctrine of separation of powers and struck down Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.
The petition challenged the Rules relating to the procedure of appointment of the President and members of the State Commission and the District Commission. The Rules stated that they can be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee comprising Chief Justice of the High Court, Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government and Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State. The petitioners contended that the constitution of the committee violated the doctrine of separation of powers, and the committee gave primacy to the Executive, placing the Chairperson in a minority.
Justice Chandurkar noted that the rules suffer from the lack of judicial dominance, which violated the doctrine of separation of power and encroached upon the judicial domain. Furthermore, the sponsoring department had a definite role in the matter of recommendation for appointment of members. The challenge was upheld, and the Rules were struck down as they diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the process of appointment of the President and members of the State Commission and the District Commission.