As the year
2023 comes to a close, the Supreme Court (SC)'s
verdicts stand out as pivotal milestones, impacting the socio-legal landscape
of the nation. Several important rulings, ranging from the status of Article
370 to the refusal of recognition of same-sex marriages, as well as decisions
on demonetisation, have shaped the judicial discourse throughout the year.
Let's take a look at all
the major judgements of 2023:
Supreme Court's Article 370
verdict
In a landmark
decision on December 11, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the central government’s
decision to abrogate Article 370, which granted special status to the erstwhile
state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The apex
court, in its majority judgement, held that the Presidential Orders issued in
2019, which revoked Article 370 and bifurcated the state into two Union
Territories — Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh — were constitutionally valid. The
bench concluded that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that the
President, acting under Article 370 itself, had the power to revoke it.
Supreme Court declines to legally
recognise same-sex marriage
On October
17, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court refused to grant legal
recognition to same-sex marriages.
In its
much-awaited judgment, the apex court said that the right to marriage is not a
fundamental one. It added that it cannot strike down the provisions of the
Special Marriage Act or read words differently while maintaining that
homosexuality is not an urban or elite concept. The focus of the petitions was
the gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, a secular
legislation designed to facilitate inter-caste and inter-faith marriages.
Supreme Court upholds legality of
2016 note ban decision
The Supreme
Court upheld the legality of the government’s decision in 2016 to demonetise 86 per cent of the
country’s cash in circulation, saying the decision was taken in consultation
with the central bank and followed due process.
A five-judge
bench of the country’s top court passed the verdict on January 2 by a majority
on a batch of petitions questioning the move. One out of the five judges wrote
a dissenting opinion.
Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, in a surprise TV announcement in November 2016, led the
move to outlaw all Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes – 86 per cent of the cash in
circulation – to target undeclared “black money” and fight corruption.
Supreme
Court stays Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in ‘Modi surname’ remark
On August 4,
the Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a 2019
criminal defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark, paving the
way for revival of his Lok Sabha membership.
A bench
comprising Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and P V Sanjay Kumar said the
trial court did not give any particular reasons for imposing a punishment of
two years imprisonment on Gandhi.
"Considering
the aforesaid and particularly that no reasons have been given by the trial
judge for a maximum sentence which has incurred disqualification, order of conviction
needs to stay during pendency of proceedings," the court added.
Maharashtra Shiv Sena split
The Supreme
Court on May 11 held that then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari was
not justified in calling upon then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to prove
majority in the Assembly on June 30 last year but refused to order status quo
ante, saying he resigned first and did not face the floor test.
The verdict
was delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of
India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprised of Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari,
Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha.
“In the
present case, the governor did not have any objective material to indicate the
government had lost confidence…so his exercise was not legal,” the Supreme
Court said.
Cauvery River Dispute
On September
21, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Cauvery Water
Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC)
directing the Karnataka government to release 5,000 cusecs of water per day to
Tamil Nadu for 15 days.
The CWRC in
its September 12 order, which was upheld by CWMA, directed Karnataka to release
5,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water every day for the next 15 days to
Tamil Nadu.
A bench of
Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra said it was not
inclined to entertain Tamil Nadu's plea challenging the CWMA decision on the
ground that it was facing a drought-like situation due to rain deficit.
The bench
further noted that bodies like CWMA and CWRC, which have experts from the India
Meteorological Department (IMD), and those on agriculture and water resource
management, have considered all relevant aspects like drought, deficit
rainfall, water level in the river and only then passed the order.
Marital
rape 'no offence' if wife is 18 or above
The Allahabad
High Court observed that marital rape cannot be considered an offence under the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the wife is 18 or above. The court made these
remarks while acquitting a husband of charges of committing an ‘unnatural
offence’ against his wife.
While holding
that the accused in this case cannot be convicted under Section 377 of the IPC,
the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra stated that marital rape has
not been criminalised in this country as yet.
Journalist Soumya Vishwanathan’s
killers get life sentence
On November
25, Delhi's Saket court sentenced four convicts in the killing of TV journalist Soumya Vishwanathan in 2008 to life
imprisonment, while a fifth convict was sent to three years in jail.
The court
said the crime does not fall under the rarest of rare and hence did not give
the convicts the death penalty.
Ravi Kapoor,
Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, and Ajay Kumar have been sentenced to life
imprisonment. The fifth convict, Ajay Sethi, has been sentenced to three years
for helping them.
Surrogate mothers cannot be
denied maternity leave
The Rajasthan
High Court ruled that maternity leave must be granted to women who have children through
surrogacy, stating that any distinction between different types of
mothers is an "insult" to motherhood.
The court
ordered the state to grant the petitioner 180 days of maternity leave and to
enact legislation for maternity leave for surrogate and commissioning mothers.
Gujarat High Court rejects plea
to ban loudspeakers at mosques
On November
28, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking
a ban on the use of loudspeakers for 'azaan' or the Islamic call to prayer at
mosques, terming the plea as "wholly misconceived."
A division bench
of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee also asked,
during the hearing, if it was the petitioner's case that the noise of bells and
gongs during 'aarti' at a temple is not heard outside.
The petition,
filed by Bajrang Dal leader Shaktisinh Zala, claimed that "noise
pollution" caused by 'azaan' when played through loudspeakers affects
people's, especially children's health and causes inconvenience otherwise.
However, the high court noted that the claims in the petition had no scientific
foundation.
Special mentions
Delhi govt gets control over
administrative services
In a dispute
between the Centre and the Delhi government, the Supreme Court held on May 11,
that the Delhi government has control over the bureaucracy in the National
Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
The
five-judge Constitution bench led by CJI Chandrachud, however, clarified that
the power of the Delhi government would not extend to the administrative
services that come under land, law and order, and police.
Woman’s plea for abortion
rejected by SC
On October
16, the Supreme Court rejected the petition for medical termination of a
woman’s 27-week pregnancy, saying that there was no immediate threat to her or
her child.
A bench of
CJI Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the
pregnancy had crossed the 24-week threshold under the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
The Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act allows women to opt for abortion even after the
24-week limit if a board of doctors agree that the continuation of pregnancy is
a risk to her life or if a substantial abnormality was medically detected in
the foetus.
The
petitioner had sought an abortion on the grounds that it was her third
pregnancy and that she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis since
October 2022, when she delivered her second child. Her request to abort the
pregnancy was also based on her financial situation.
Supreme Court dismisses PFI's
plea against Centre's ban under UAPA
The Supreme
Court refused to hear a plea filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging a ban on the
organisation and its designation as an 'unlawful' organisation under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the Union government.
In its
observations, a two-judge bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi
said it would be appropriate for the PFI to first approach the high court
against a tribunal’s order which upheld the government's decision of banning
and designating PFI and eight other organisations as 'unlawful' under the UAPA
Act.
Supreme Court blames parents for
Kota suicides
The Supreme
Court said that parents, not the institutions, put excessive pressure on
students to perform well in competitive exams.
The apex
court further said that blaming the mushrooming of coaching institutes for the
increased suicides among students, particularly in Kota, was
incorrect since it was the high expectations placed by parents in a competitive
surrounding that drove youngsters to end their lives.
'Total eradication of manual
scavenging'
The Supreme
Court directed the central and state governments to eradicate the practice of manual scavenging entirely. The
court also called for an increase in compensation to Rs 30 lakh in cases of
fatalities during sewer cleaning.
The court
recognised the need to address permanent disability resulting from sewer
operations and suggested an increase in compensation to Rs 20 lakh. It also
called for not less than Rs 10 lakh in compensation for other forms of
disablement.
……………….