Supreme Court Archives - Legal Desire Media and Insights https://legaldesire.com/tag/supreme-court/ Latest Legal Industry News and Insights Mon, 17 Dec 2018 04:57:21 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/cropped-cropped-cropped-favicon-1-32x32.jpg Supreme Court Archives - Legal Desire Media and Insights https://legaldesire.com/tag/supreme-court/ 32 32 Top 12 Landmark Judgments of 2018 delivered by Supreme Court https://legaldesire.com/top-12-landmark-judgments-of-2018-delivered-by-supreme-court/ https://legaldesire.com/top-12-landmark-judgments-of-2018-delivered-by-supreme-court/#respond Mon, 17 Dec 2018 04:57:21 +0000 https://legaldesire.com/?p=32783 2018 has been a fascinating year up until this point. The legal aspect of the nation has seen a great deal of milestone decisions which legitimate dignitaries have communicated disparate perspectives. A few laws have been abrogated while others have been maintained. Here’re top 12 landmark judgments delivered by Supreme Court in 2018:   Indian […]

The post Top 12 Landmark Judgments of 2018 delivered by Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
2018 has been a fascinating year up until this point. The legal aspect of the nation has seen a great deal of milestone decisions which legitimate dignitaries have communicated disparate perspectives. A few laws have been abrogated while others have been maintained.

Here’re top 12 landmark judgments delivered by Supreme Court in 2018:

 

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerela & Ors. (Popularly known as the Sabrimala Verdict)

The Supreme Court considered whether the Sabarimala Temple’s customary religious practice, which prohibits the entry of women, violates fundamental rights guaranteed to women by the Indian Constitution.[1]

In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Sabrimala Temple’s custom of excluding women. The Association argued that the custom violates the rights to equality under Article 14 and freedom of religion under Article 25 of female worshipers.

In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that Sabarimala’s exclusion of women violated the fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10-50 years and Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules was unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra delivering a dissenting opinion observed that in a secular polity, it was not for the Courts to interfere in matters of religion and the same must be left to those practicing the religion.

 

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Aadhaar Verdict)

“It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one, but being unique makes you the only one.”[2]

In a 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court has declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid, but with conditions. The majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution Bench has ruled that there is no need to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones, but held that Aadhaar could be passed as a money bill. The court further says that schools cannot insist on Aadhaar and read down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, barring sharing of information with corporate bodies.

 

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (Verdict on adultery law)

In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court scrapped the 150-year old adultery law. Reading out the judgement, CJI Dipak Misra clearly stated that equality is the need of the hour. He also added that time has come when the husband should not be considered the master.

“Adultery cannot and should not be a crime. It can be a ground for a civil offence, a ground for divorce,”[3] a five judge bench led by outgoing Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said.

 

Mohammad Salimullah & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Verdict on Rohingya Crisis)

The Supreme Court Thursday rejected the plea to stop the deportation of seven Rohingya immigrants to Myanmar from Assam. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the plea saying that the seven were found as illegal immigrants by the court earlier and that Myanmar is also ready to accept them as their nationals.  “We are not inclined to interfere on the decision taken,”[4] the apex court said.

The plea filed by two Rohingya immigrants challenged the Centre’s decision to deport over 40,000 refugees who came to India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination and violence against the community. The fresh plea said that the decision to deport was in “grave violation” of India’s international obligation and moreover, the situation in Myanmar was extremely dangerous for the Rohingyas to return and they are likely to be subjected to torture and even killed.

 

M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Ayodhya Verdict)

A case related to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case has found closure in the Supreme Court today with a three-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra and comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer refusing to refer to a larger bench the issue of a 1994 ruling that said mosques were not necessary for practice of Islam. Justice Nazeer, however, disagreed with the majority judgement.

Now when SC now refused to refer it to a larger bench, it would in essence be used to establish the fact that site of Babri Masjid can indeed be shifted to a different site since “neither namaz in mosque”[5] essential to Islam and state can also acquire such a land.

 

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (Section 377 Verdict)

“―I am what I am, so take me as I am.”[6]

In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today scrapped the controversial Section 377– a 158-year-old colonial law on consensual gay sex. The Supreme Court reversed its own decision and said Sectuion 377 is irrational and arbitary. “LGBT Community has same rights as of any ordinary citizen. Respect for individual choice is the essence of liberty; LGBT community possesses equal rights under the constitution. Criminalising gay sex is irrational and indefensible,” said Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who headed the five judge bench hearing the case.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

CJI Misra and Justices Nariman, Chandrachud and Malhotra delivered separate, concurring judgments.

 

Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. V. Supreme Court of India & Ors. (Verdict on Live Coverage of Supreme Court Verdict)

The Supreme Court has pushed for greater transparency in the judicial system by setting the stage for live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of constitutional importance. The court directed the centre to frame rules for this and said the project will be carried out in phases.

The three-judge bench agreed that it would serve as an instrument for greater accountability and formed part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

“It will encourage the principle of open court, effectuate the public’s right to know and reduce dependence on second-hand views,”[7] said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

 

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Anr. (Power tussle between Delhi Government and Lt. Governor)

In this landmark verdict that came as a shot in the arm for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government in its tussle with Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal for control of Delhi, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the elected government of Delhi do not require the concurrence of the Lt Governor who only needs to be informed.[8]

Calling for Constitutional pragmatism and underlining the clear separation of powers, the bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, in three separate yet concurring orders, made it clear that “the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.

 

Common Cause (A regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Passive Euthanasia)

Supreme Court of India has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally valid.

The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. “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”.[9]

The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in Persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

 

Public Interest Foundation & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Ban of Charge-sheeted Politician)

The Constitution Bench which gave the ruling comprised CJI Dipak Misra, and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. The bench observed the apex court did not have the power to add new grounds of disqualifications, and thus, could not bar chargesheeted candidates from contesting elections.[10] However, the court urged the Parliament to enact a law to disqualify chargesheeted candidates.

 

Jarnail Singh & Ors. V. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. ( Verdict on SC/ST Reservation)

As the Supreme Court has upheld reservation in promotion for the SC/ST communities, the court’s position on the idea of a creamy layer has put the political class in a dilemma.

So far creamy layer is applicable only for OBCs seeking reservation. Last year, the creamy layer ceiling for OBC reservation was raised to Rs 8 lakh per year — families with income above this were not eligible.

How will a creamy layer apply to SC/STs is uncharted territory. While the government says it is still “examining”[11] the judgment, SC/ST groups are restive in a poll year that has seen caste protests nationwide.

 

Romila Thapar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (Verdict on Bhima Koregaon Arrest)

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court[12] refused to interfere in the arrests of five rights activists in the Bhima-Koregaon violence case in a 2:1 verdict. The activists — poet Vara Vara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj, activists Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam Navlakha — were arrested by Maharashtra Police in cross-country raids in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence probe. The Supreme Court, however, extended the house arrest of the activists. Justice Chandrachud dissented with the majority verdict.

 

Full Judgments Links:

[1] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018) <https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[2] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018) <https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[3] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/32550/32550_2017_Judgement_27-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[4] (Barandbench.com, 2018) <https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Intervention-Application-Rohingyas-matter-watermark.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[5] (Timesofindia.indiatimes.com, 2018) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/realtime/read_full_judgment_supreme_court_refuses_to_refer_ayodhya_land_dispute_case_to_5_judge_bench.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[6] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[7] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/40426/40426_2017_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[8] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018) <https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/29357.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[9] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2005/9123/9123_2005_Judgement_09-Mar-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[10] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/36674/36674_2011_Judgement_25-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[11] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/34614/34614_2011_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

[12] (Sci.gov.in, 2018) <https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32319/32319_2018_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.

The post Top 12 Landmark Judgments of 2018 delivered by Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
https://legaldesire.com/top-12-landmark-judgments-of-2018-delivered-by-supreme-court/feed/ 0
Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his Pick for Supreme Court https://legaldesire.com/trump-announces-brett-kavanaugh-as-his-pick-for-supreme-court/ https://legaldesire.com/trump-announces-brett-kavanaugh-as-his-pick-for-supreme-court/#respond Tue, 10 Jul 2018 02:00:15 +0000 http://legaldesire.com/?p=28859 President Trump on Monday selected Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a politically connected member of Washington’s conservative legal establishment, to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court, setting up an epic confirmation battle and potentially cementing the court’s rightward tilt for a generation. The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, 53, a federal appeals court […]

The post Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his Pick for Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
President Trump on Monday selected Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a politically connected member of Washington’s conservative legal establishment, to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court, setting up an epic confirmation battle and potentially cementing the court’s rightward tilt for a generation.

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, 53, a federal appeals court judge, former aide to President George W. Bush and onetime investigator of President Bill Clinton, was not a huge surprise, given his conservative record, elite credentials and deep ties among the Republican legal groups that have advanced conservatives for the federal bench.

But it will galvanize Democrats and Republicans in the months before the midterm elections. Justice Kennedy, who is retiring, held the swing vote in many closely divided cases on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights and the death penalty. Replacing him with a committed conservative, who could potentially serve for decades, will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and put dozens of precedents at risk.

Judge Kavanaugh’s long history of legal opinions, as well as his role in some of the fiercest partisan battles of the last two decades, will give Democrats plenty of ammunition for tough questions. Nearly 20 years ago, working for the independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, he laid out broad grounds to impeach Mr. Clinton — words that Democrats can now seize on to apply to Mr. Trump and the Russia investigation. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who leads the barest of Republican majorities, had also expressed misgivings about his path to confirmation.

The post Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his Pick for Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
https://legaldesire.com/trump-announces-brett-kavanaugh-as-his-pick-for-supreme-court/feed/ 0
No ‘namaz’ by non-locals at Taj Mahal mosque: Supreme Court https://legaldesire.com/no-namaz-by-non-locals-at-taj-mahal-mosque-supreme-court/ https://legaldesire.com/no-namaz-by-non-locals-at-taj-mahal-mosque-supreme-court/#respond Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:01:03 +0000 http://legaldesire.com/?p=28852 Supreme Court refused to allow prayers by outsiders- that is, not locals – at the mosque on the premises of the Taj Mahal, saying the monument’s preservation is paramount. The top court said the Taj is one of the seven wonders of the world and must be preserved. It added there is no need to perform prayers […]

The post No ‘namaz’ by non-locals at Taj Mahal mosque: Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
Supreme Court refused to allow prayers by outsiders- that is, not locals – at the mosque on the premises of the Taj Mahal, saying the monument’s preservation is paramount.

The top court said the Taj is one of the seven wonders of the world and must be preserved. It added there is no need to perform prayers at the Taj Mahal.

To ensure foolproof security to the Taj Mahal, a world heritage site, the district administration on January 24 this year ordered that only locals with valid identity proof will be allowed entry to the monument complex to offer ‘namaz’ on Fridays. A petitioner had moved the SC against the district magistrate order.

In January, the district administration ordered that people entering the premises of the Taj for offering prayers on Fridays will have to carry identity cards to prove that they are residents of Agra. The Taj Mahal remains closed for tourists on Fridays. The administration’s move came following complaints that “outsiders”, including Bangladeshis and non-Indians”, enter the Taj Mahal complex on Fridays on the pretext of offering ‘namaz”.

The order also stated that the district magistrate should be immediately informed in case any outsider tries to enter the mosque. The order issued by additional district magistrate (city) K P Singh also states that entry of ‘outsiders’ can adversely affect the security of the monument.

“Now, we will allow only residents of Agra city to offer namaz at the mosque located inside the Taj Mahal complex,” said Agra district magistrate Guarav Dayal said.

The post No ‘namaz’ by non-locals at Taj Mahal mosque: Supreme Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
https://legaldesire.com/no-namaz-by-non-locals-at-taj-mahal-mosque-supreme-court/feed/ 0
Analysis: Instances which shows 4 Judges have valid points that needs ‘Serious’ attention https://legaldesire.com/analysis-instances-shows-4-judges-valid-points-needs-serious-attention/ https://legaldesire.com/analysis-instances-shows-4-judges-valid-points-needs-serious-attention/#respond Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:41:59 +0000 http://legaldesire.com/?p=23491 The stand taken by the four senior judges, whose press conference on Friday unleashed a huge crisis in the Supreme Court, will decide the future course. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has announced the composition of a five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Justice Dipak Misra to hear crucial cases. None of the four judges has […]

The post Analysis: Instances which shows 4 Judges have valid points that needs ‘Serious’ attention appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
The stand taken by the four senior judges, whose press conference on Friday unleashed a huge crisis in the Supreme Court, will decide the future course. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has announced the composition of a five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Justice Dipak Misra to hear crucial cases. None of the four judges has been included in the bench.

The Judges in their letter emphasized that Chief Justice is the master of the roster with the privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi-numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which members/Bench of this Court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/Benches of the Court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the Court, but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual, of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well-settled in jurisprudence that the Chief Justice is only the first among equals — nothing more or nothing less.

Instance 1

The Judges addressed that Chief Justice of India with regard to the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest. When the Memorandum of Procedure was a subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association And Anr. vs. Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other Bench could have dealt with the matter.

The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the Collegium of five judges (including CJI) and the Memorandum of Procedure was finalised and sent by the then Honourable Chief Justice of India to the government in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.

Instance 2

On July 4, 2017, a Bench of seven judges of Supreme Court decided In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan [(2017) 1 SCC 1]. In that decision (referred to in R.P. Luthra), two of the judges observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven learned judges with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure.

Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices conference and by the full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.

The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The Honourable Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the Collegium and at a later stage, if required, with either Hon’ble Judges of this Court.

Once the issue arising from the order dated 27.10.2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by CJI and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise CJI specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this Court which would require to be similarly dealt with.

Instance 3:

CJI violated principle of nemo judex in causa sua or ‘no man can be a judge in his own case’

The one case in which a complaint was made against the Chief Justice, the Medical Council of India bribery scam, was re-allocated to himself on the bench by the Chief Justice on November 10, 2017, despite being allocated to another bench (consisting of five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court) by Justice Chelameswar, the second-most senior judge. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua or ‘no man can be a judge in his own case’ was held to be overruled by the other principle of the Chief Justice being the ‘master of the roster’. This may need changing if any meaningful resolution is sought.

In the current controversy, the four judges pointed out in their letter on Friday that the CJI had out of turn marked the petition related to appointment of judges to a bench led by a judge who is at number eleven in seniority. The plea, they claimed, should have been heard by a constitution bench since five judges had decided the validity on the controversial NJAC law on the appointment of judges.

Similarly, the CJI broke convention when he hurriedly set-up a constitution bench in the medical college case and did not include any of the top four judges in it, according to allegations made by one of the four judges. As per convention, a constitution bench usually comprises one senior judge other than the CJI.

The exclusion of Justice Chelameswar and Justice SA Bobde from the bench hearing petitions against Aadhaar is also a departure from practice, lawyers said.

 

Lessons from Past

The most contentious time was in the 1970s, when the idea of the ‘committed judiciary’ that Indira Gandhi and her team spoke of, was almost secured. The infamous ‘ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla’ case (April 28, 1976), which essentially upheld the government’s right to limit the fundamental rights of Indians in an Emergency, had a sole dissenter — Justice HR Khanna, who was penalised for his view.

The appointment of Justice AN Ray, as Chief Justice in April, 1973, superseding three senior judges, is meant to be an all-time low in how the judiciary was sought to be managed. His proximity to then-PM Indira Gandhi raised serious questions over the judiciary’s role in the Emergency.

Later, The government retains administrative control, but especially after the NJAC Bill was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 (Justice Chelameswar being the lone dissenter), appointments again fall in the judiciary’s domain.

Justice Kurian exuded confidence that the issue would have got resolved already. It was for institutional introspection and correction and I hope the issue pertaining to allocation of cases has been already addressed.  The Judges maintained that there was nothing personal and political in unprecedent gestures going public with their concern about judiciary; nor did it smack of indiscipline. “It was born from our commitment to institution and we wanted to bring these issues to the people’s notice. That has been achieved to good effect,” he said.

We as citizens must reject politicisation as a response to this judicial crisis. The Supreme Court has always been there for us our guardian & guard for our rights; it has upheld individual liberty as part of the right to privacy, struck down triple talaq, recognized the rights of transgenders and has almost always been there when elected leaders fail to support the interests of the nation. The act of Judges shouldn’t be linked with politics that some media houses and political forces are doing instead for supporting the cause as these all 4 judges have been there in Landmark judgments for the interest of the nation and linking them with politics is very regretting and saddening. 

The post Analysis: Instances which shows 4 Judges have valid points that needs ‘Serious’ attention appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

]]>
https://legaldesire.com/analysis-instances-shows-4-judges-valid-points-needs-serious-attention/feed/ 0