Supreme Court 2019 with 19 Important Judgments

Supreme Court 2019 with 19 Important Judgments

The Supreme Court of India pronounced some landmark judgments in 2019. Many of these verdicts were delivered towards the end of then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s tenure. These judgments very important for various competitive exam.

  1. Alok Verma v Union of India : CBI Director’s Divestment

[Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309 of 2018]

Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors.

[Writ Petition (Civil) No.1315 of 2018]

A three judges bench comprising the CJI Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph held that approval of the Selection Committee under Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was necessary to divest an incumbent of powers of CBI Director.

  1. Ayodhya land dispute

M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others, C.A No. 10866- 10867/2010, decided on 08.11.2019)

A five-judge Constitution bench of the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer in a unanimous verdict said the disputed property will be for Constructionof  Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque.  The apex Court use Article 142 of the Indian Constitution in this case.

  1. CJI office now under RTI

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, decided on 13.11.2019

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court  CJI Ranjan Googi, Justices Ramana, Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna while upholding a 2010 judgement of the Delhi High Court, which ruled that office of the CJI comes under the purview of RTI, said transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence.

  1. SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; Resignation Not To Affect Impact Of Defection

Supreme Court Weekly Update 16-20 September, 2019

Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, WP(c) No. 992/2019, decided on 13.11.2019

The apex Court upheld the decision of Karnataka Speaker decision of disqualification of 17 MLA’s on the ground of defection under 10th Schedule of the Constitution. However, partial relief granted to the MLA’s , disqualification can’t be till the end of the term of House.

  1. SC send Sabarimala Review to Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices

Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association, RP(c) No. 3358/18 in WP(c) No. 373/06, decided on 14.11.2019

The five judges bench of Supreme Court decided to keep the review petition pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices, by 3:2 majority , CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger bench. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman dissented.

  1. SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation, RP(Crl) No. 46/2019 in WP(Crl_) No.298/2018, decided on 14.11.2019

The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions filed against the December 14, 2018 judgment.  

  1. SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019 Amendment

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v Union of India, WP(c) No. 1074/2019, decided on 27.11.2019

The bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian  struck down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which was inserted through the 2019 amendment Act passed by the Parliament last monsoon session. 

  1. State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court

Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, Civil Appeal No.3613/2016, decided on 10.12.2019)

The Bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat held that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing direct appeal to Supreme Court of India.

  1. Forest Rights Act : Eviction of over 1 million forest dwellers ordered; later stayed

Wildlife First and others v MoEF and others, WP(c) No.109/08, ordered on 21.02.2019

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee directed states to ensure the eviction of all those persons from forestland whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been rejected. The order would have impacted over 1 million forest dwelling tribals.

  1. Anil Ambani held for contempt in Reliance -Ericsson case

Reliance Communication Ltd and Others v State Bank of India and others, WP(c) 845/2018, decided on 20.02.2019


A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran held Anil Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Communications, guilty of contempt of court for defaulting payments to Ericsson as per the undertaking given to the Court.

  1. Blanket ban on Maharashtra dance bars overturned

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of Maharashtra, WP(c) No.576/2016, decided on 17.01.2019)

A two judges bench of Justices A K Sikri (since retired) and Ashok Bhushan held that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Court however upheld several provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016.

  1. CBI Addl.Director Nageswara Rao held guilty of Contempt of Court

Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar and others, SLP(c) No. 24978/18, decided on 12.02.2019

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi held CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of the orders of the Court.


  1. Saravana Bhavan’s founder held guilty in murder case


Pattu Rajan and others v State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.680-681 of 2009, decided on 29.03.2019


The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal – the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan – and 􀂦ve of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001.

The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals 􀂦led by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court.


  1. Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld

B K Pavitra and others v Union of India, M.A No. 1151/2018 in C.A No.2368/11, decided on 10.05.2019

The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 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.

  1. Section 143A NI Act has no retrospective effect

G J Raja v Tej Raj Surana, decided on 30.07.2019

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the case has no retrospective application.


  1. Article 137 Limitation Act applies to IBC

Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd and others, C.A No. 4952/2019, decided on 18.09.2019

The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act would only apply to suits and not to “an application” which is _led under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which would fall only within the residuary Article 137.

  1. Sec 3J Of National Highways Act, to the extent it excludes solatium & interest as per Land Acquisition Act, unconstitutional

Union of India & ors v. Tarsem Singh and ors, C.A No. 7064/2019, decided on 19.09.2019

The Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the NH Act to be unconstitutional.

  1. Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC even at post-cognizance stage, SC says 43 Yr old precedent wrongly decided

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat and others, Crl Appeal No. 478-479/2017, decided on 16.10.2019)

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court has virtually overruled a 43 year old precedent and held that Magistrate can invoke power under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage.

The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that this judgment was rendered without adverting to the de_nition of “investigation” in Section 2(h) of the CrPC.

It observed that the _nding in law in the said judgment that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC can only be exercised at the pre-cognizance stage is erroneous.

  1. SC Allows Centre’s Plea To Recover Adjusted Gross Revenue Of Rs 92k cr From Telecom Companies

Union of India v Association of Uni_ed Telecom Service Providers of India, C.A No.6328-6399/2015, decided on 24.10.2019

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra allowed the Centre’s plea to recover adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of about Rs 92,000 crore from them.

Leave a Comment