Supreme Court 2018 Flashback Part-I

Supreme Court Flashback 2018 Part-I The Year 2k18 is about to end soon and it is time for a flashback into important judgments of Supreme Court of India.

Supreme Court 2018 Flashback Part-I


The Year 2k18 is about to end soon and it is time for a flashback into important judgments of Supreme Court of India.

1. SABARIMALA 


Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discrimination, Women Entry Allowed In Sabarimala By 4:1 Majority; Lone Woman In The Bench Dissents 


[Indian Young Lawyer’s Association & Ors. V. State of Kerala & Ors.]


Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R F Nariman, Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice D Y Chandrachud constituted the majority. 

“Women is not lesser or inferior to man. Patriarchy of religion cannot be permitted to trump over faith.Biological or physiological reasons cannot be accepted in freedom for faith Religion is basically way of life however certain practices create incongruities“, the Chief Justice read out portions of the judgment written for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar.   


2. HOMOSEXUALITY 


157-Year-Old Law Criminalizing Consensual Homo-Sexual Acts Between Adults Struck Down; Section 377 IPC Held Unconstitutional To That Extent 


 [Navtej Singh Johar& Ors. V. Union of India]


The 2013 SC judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal case was overturned by the Constitution Bench.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it is a unanimous verdict expressed through four separate but concurring judgments.

“Section 377 IPC is irrational , indefensible and arbitrary.The majoritarian views and popular morality cannot dictate constitutional rights”.

“Constitution is a dynamic document, having the primary objective of establishing a dynamic and inclusive society”, said the judgment.

“Section 377 has travelled so much that it has been destructive to LGBT community. It has inflicted tragedy and anguish, which are to be remedied”, stated his judgment.


3. AADHAAR 

Sections 33(2),47& 57 Of Aadhaar Act Struck Down; National Security Exception Gone; Private Entities Cannot Demand Aadhaar Data 


[Justice K. S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) and Anr V Union of India & Ors.]


The judgment authored by Justice AK Sikri, which has concurrence of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, read down some of the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016, struck down a few but significant ones (mainly Section 33(2), 47 and 57), and upheld the rest.


4. ADULTERY


 ‘Husband Is Not The Master Of Wife’, 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Section 497 IPC Struck Down 


[Joseph Shine V. Union of India]


The Supreme Court has struck down 158 year old Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, as unconstitutional.


“Any provision of law affecting individual dignity and equality of women invites wrath of  constitution. It’s time to say that husband is not the master of wife. Legal soverignity of one sex over other sex is wrong”, read out Chief Justice Misra from the judgment written for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar. The judgment held Section 497 to be “manifestly arbitrary”.

5. EUTHANASIA 

Right To Die With Dignity A Fundamental Right, Passive Euthanasia And Living Will Allowed, Guidelines Issued 


[Common Cause (A Regd. Society) V. Union of India & Anr]


“The right to life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty”.


6. SC/ST RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS 


No Need To Collect Quantifiable Data Of Backwardness To Give Reservation In Promotions For SC/STs- Nagraj Decision Clarified; Reference To Larger Bench Declined 


[Jarnail Singh v LachhmiNarain Gupta& Ors.]


Constitution Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice R F Nariman, Justice S K Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra held that the 2006 Judgment in Nagraj Case, relating to reservations for SC/ST in promotions, need not be referred for consideration of larger Bench.

7. SECTION 498A IPC 

SC Modifies The Earlier Directions Issued To Prevent Misuse Of 498A IPC, Says No To ‘Welfare Committees’ 


[Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar  V. Union of India]



8. HADIYA

‘Right To Change Of Faith Is Part Of Fundamental Right Of Choice’:  


[Shafin Jahan V. Ashokan K. M. & Ors]


A Bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had thereafter directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Kerala Government to submit all documents related to the case. It had also directed Hadiya’s father Asokan to submit proof of his claim that Hadiya was converted after being radicalized. Soon after, the Apex Court had directed an NIA probe into the case, under the supervision of former Supreme Court Judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran.


9. AYODHYA 

Observations In Ismail Faruqui Need To Be Viewed In Context Of Land Acquisition Proceedings; Not Relevant In Ayodhya Title Dispute 


[M. Siddiq (D) THR LRS..Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.]


The Supreme Court by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case to a larger bench. While the majority judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, for himself and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer delivered the dissenting opinion. The majority judgment clarified that the observations made in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. judgment, that mosque was not an integral part of Islam, have to be understood.


10. LIVE STREAMING OF SC PROCEEDINGS 


Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant: Live-Streaming Of Court Proceedings In Larger Public Interest Allowed 


[Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India] 


Supreme Court of India held that the Court proceedings shall be be live-streamed in the larger public interest. The Bench has said that appropriate Rules in that regard will be framed soon under Article 145 of the Constitution of India.


11. FIRECRACKERS 


Complete Ban On Sale Of Firecrackers Refused; Online Sale Banned; Duration For Bursting Crackers Fixed 

[Arjun Gopal & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.]

The bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan fixed duration for bursting of crackers. On the day of Diwali and other religious festivals, it will be between 8 PM and 10 PM. On Chirstmas eve and New Year, it will be allowed only between 11.45 PM and 12.45 AM. The Court has also ordered that crackers can be burst only in designated areas.
12. VICTIM APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL 

Victim Can File Appeal Against Acquittal Without Seeking Leave To Appeal: SC, Justice Gupta Dissents 

[Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) … vs The State Of Karnataka] 

In a landmark judgment, A three Judge Bench comprising  Justice Madan B. Lokur ,Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Dipak Gupta held that a victim can file an appeal in the High Court against the acquittal without seeking leave to appeal.

The majority judgment authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur (Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring) concluded: “On the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction.”

14. LYNCHING 

Horrendous Acts Of Mobocracy Can’t Be Allowed Become New Norm: Lynching Incidents Condemned; Directions Issued 

[Tehseen S. Poonawalla V. Union of India & Ors.]

“The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become “the new normal”. The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its People, since its concern, to quote Woodrow Wilson, “must ring with the voices of the people.” The exigencies of the situation require us to sound a clarion call for earnest action to strengthen our inclusive and all-embracing social order which would, in turn, reaffirm the constitutional faith. We expect nothing more and nothing less”

Also Read: Supreme Court 2018 Flashback Part-II