The Good And Bad : Read 35

Important Supreme Court

Judgments Of 2018

The Year 2018 is about to end soon and it is time for a

flashback into important happenings in the legal
universe.

The year 2018 saw two CJIs- Former CJI Dipak Misra and
the Current CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The constitution benches
headed by Justice Misra, during his last month as CJI,
delivered most of the significant judgments of this year-
Sabarimala, Aadhaar, Homosexuality, Adultery, etc. The
year ended with Rafale judgment by CJI Gogoi headed
bench, which generated diverse responses in political
circles.

Two provisions which criminalized Homosexuality and

Adultery vanished from the penal statutes, when the
Apex court ruled that both these acts are no longer
criminal. The Supreme Court also recognised that to die
with dignity is Fundamental Right by legalizing passive
euthanasia. It also upheld Aadhaar program, though with
riders. Dissents penned by Justice Chandrachud in
Aadhaar and Bhima Koregaon cases, and that of Justice
Indu Malhotra in Sabarimala case, got widely debated.

It also turned to be a good year for Indian women. The

Supreme Court allowed young women to enter
Sabarimala, where they were not permitted for many
centuries, in the name of custom and tradition. Justice
Indu Malhotra became the first woman Judge to be
elevated to Supreme Court directly from the Bar. It also
witnessed the rarity of an all-women bench as Justice R
Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee sat in Court No.12
on September 5 and 6.

In the coming year, we might be able to witness the

Supreme Court proceedings without actually going there,
as a petition seeking live streaming of court proceedings
was allowed by the Apex Court.

Here is the List of 35 important Judgments delivered by

the Supreme Court in 2018:

1. SABARIMALA
DEVOTION CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO GENDER DISCRIMINATION,
WOMEN ENTRY ALLOWED IN SARIMALA BY 4:1 MAJORITY; LONE
WOMAN IN THE BENCH DISSENTS
[Indian Young Lawyer’s Association & Ors. V. State of Kerala & Ors.]
The Supreme Court delivered one of the most keenly
awaited judgment in Sabarimala case. by a 4:1 majority,
the Court has permitted entry of women of all age groups
to the Sabarimala temple, holding that ‘devotion cannot
be subjected to gender discrimination’. The lone woman
in the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented.

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]

In a landmark Judgment Supreme Court of India struck

down 157 year old law which criminalizes consensual
homo sexual acts between adults. The Five Judge Bench
declared Section 377 IPC unconstitutional, insofar as it
criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private.

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 struck down 158 year old Section

497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes
adultery, as unconstitutional. The Court however clarified
that adultery will be a ground for divorce. It was also
stated that if an act of adultery leads the aggrieved
spouse to suicide, the adulterous partner could be
prosecuted for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of
the IPC.

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]

Supreme Court of India 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
issued detailed guidelines in this regard. 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.

6. IN PROMOTIONS SC/ST RESERVATION

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.]

A Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

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.However, the
judgment by Justice Nariman clarified that there is no
requirement to collect quantifiable data of backwardness
of SC/STs to provide reservation in promotions. The
dictum in Nagraj was held contrary to Indira Sawhney
decision to the extent it prescribed collection of
88quantifiable data of backwardness as a prerequisite for
providing reservation in promotions.
 7. SECTION 498A IPC
SC MODIFIES THE EARLIER DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO PREVENT MISUSE
OF 498A IPC, SAYS NOTO ‘WELFARE COMMITTEES’
[Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar V. Union of India]

Supreme Court of India has modified its directions issued

in Rajesh Sharma case for preventing misuse of Section
498A of Indian Penal Code. A three judges’ bench led by
CJI has withdrawn the earlier direction issued by a two
judges bench that complaints under Section 498A IPC
should be scrutinised by Family Welfare Committees
before further legal action by police.

8. HADIYA
‘Right To Change Of Faith Is Part Of Fundamental Right Of
Choice’:
[Shafin Jahan V. Ashokan K. M. & Ors]

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court

judgment annulling the marriage between Hadiya and
Shafin Jahan. The Apex Court quashed the High Court
judgment in view of Hadiya’s statement during her
personal appearance before the Court in November,
2017, and opined that the High Court could not have
annulled the marriage under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It, however, directed the National
Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue with its
investigation. Later, it gave detailed reasons for setting
aside the High Court judgment.

9. AYODHYA
Observations In 88Ismail 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 in the context of land acquisition proceedings.

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 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. RAFALE
Petitions Seeking Probe In To Rafale Deal Dismissed
[Manohar Lal Sharma V. Narendra Damodar Das Modi & Ors.]

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a string of

petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015
Rafale deal, according it a clean chit in all respects-
decision-making, pricing and procurement procedure.
Stating that individual perception cannot influence the
court into intervening, the bench clarified that the limits
of judicial review in respect of defence procurements
have to be determined upon a consideration of the
individual facts and circumstances.

12. 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.]
 In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India
condemned the lynching incidents across the country.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the
horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be allowed to
become a new norm in the Country.

13. 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 Supreme Court ruled against imposing complete ban

on firecrackers but has said that only less polluting green
crackers can be sold, that too only through licensed
traders. The Court has banned online sale of firecrackers,
restraining e-commerce websites from carrying out its
sale. The Court also fixed duration for bursting of
crackers.

14. 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.

15. FORMER ISRO SCIENTIST NAMBI

NARAYANAN
Rs 50 Lakh Compensation Granted To Former ISRO Scientist
Nambi Narayanan, Committee Headed By Justice DK Jain To
Inquire In To The Role Of Kerala Police Officers
[S. Nambi Narayanan V. Siby Mathews &Ors.]

Supreme Court of India granted Rupees 50Lakh

compensation to former ISRO Scientist Nambi
Narayanan. The Court has also constituted a committee
headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice DK Jain
to inquire in to the role of police officers in the conspiracy
against him. The three Judge Bench has pronounced the
Judgment in his petition for action against former top
officials of Kerala Police who had allegedly subjected him
to torture and illegal detention in connection with the
infamous ISRO Espionage Case.

16. JUDGE LOYA DEATH CONTROVERSY

Petitions Seeking Probe Into The Death Of Judge Loya
Dismissed
[TehseenPoonawalla V. Union of India & Anr.]

Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitions seeking

independent probe into Judge Loya’s death. The Three-
Judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, was
pronouncing the verdict in the string of writ petitions
seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI
special judge B. H. Loya.

17. LG VS DELHI GOVT

LG cannot interfere in each and every decision of the Delhi
Government
[Govt. of NCT of Delhi V. Union of India & Anr.]

In a significant judgment, the Constitution Bench of the

Supreme Court held that the Lieutenant-General of the
Delhi had to act as per the aid and advise of the Council
of Ministers of Delhi Government except in matters of
land, police and public order. It held that the LG cannot
interfere in each and every decision of the Delhi
Government. Although decisions of the Government have
to be communicated to the LG, there is no need to obtain
the concurrence of LG in all matters. The Court also held
that Delhi was not a ‘State’, and occupied a special status
under the Constitution.
 18. STAY NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS
Stay In Civil/Criminal Proceedings Not To Be Granted Beyond
Six Months; Further Extension Only By Speaking Order
[Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.& Anr. VS. Central Bureau
of Investigation]

In a very significant judgment, the Supreme Court

directed that in all pending cases where stay against
proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the
same will come to an end on expiry of six months from
today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order
such stay is extended. The Three-Judge Bench headed by
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel also held that where stay is
granted in future, the same will end on the expiry of six
months from the date of such order unless a similar
extension is granted by a speaking order.

19. GST VALIDITY

Constitutional Validity Of Goods And Services Tax
(Compensation To States) Act, 2017 Upheld
[Union of India & Anr. V. Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of

Goods And Services Tax (Compensation To States) Act,
2017, as well as the Goods and Services Tax
Compensation Cess Rules, 2017, as framed under the
Act. The verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising
Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

20. SC-ST ACT MISUSE

SC Issues Directions To Prevent Misuse Of SC/ST Act,
Govt.Servants Can’t Be Arrested Without Prior Sanction
[Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]

Supreme Court of India issued directions to prevent the

misuse of provisions of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
(SC/ST Act). A Two Judge Bench of Justices AK Goel and
UU Lalit was examining the question whether there can
be procedural safeguards so that provisions of Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) (SC/ST) Act 1989 are not abused for
extraneous considerations.

21. LAWMAKER LAWYERS

Can’t Restrict MPs And MLAs From Practicing Law
[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union of India & Anr.]

Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking a

declaration that a person cannot be permitted to perform
the dual role of a lawyer and a legislator (MP/MLA). The
three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India
Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY
Chandrachud was pronouncing the Judgment on a
petition filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar
Upadhyay.

22. DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES

Candidates Cannot Be Disqualified On Framing Of Charges In
Criminal Case
[Public Interest Foundation & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr.]

The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

held that candidates cannot be disqualified merely
because charges have been framed against them in a
criminal case. The bench urged the legislature to consider
framing law to ensure decriminalisation of politics.The
judgment came on petitions filed by BJP Leader
AshwiniUpdhyaya, former CEC JM Lyngdoh& NGO, Public
Interest Foundation by a bench comprising Chief Justice
of India Dipak Misra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM
Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indu
Malhotra.

23. MASTER OF ROSTER CJI

CJI Is The Master Of Roster: Shanti Bhushan’s Petition
Dismissed
[Shanti Bhushan V. Supreme Court of India]
 Dismissing the petition filed by Senior Advocate Santhi
Bhushan seeking regulation of powers of the CJI in
constituting benches and allocating cases, the Supreme
Court asserted that CJI was the ‘Master of the Roster’.

24. NDPS INVESTIGATION OFFICER

INFORMANT
Accused Entitled To Acquittal If Informant And Investigating
Officer Is The Same Person
[Mohan Lal V. State of Punjab]

In a significant pronouncement, a three-judge bench of

the Supreme Court categorically held that the informant
and the investigator in NDPS cases must not be the same
person.

25. KATHUA
The Trial Of Kathua Rape And Murder Case Transferred To
Pathankot Sessions Court, Punjab
[Mohd. Akhtar V. State of Jammu & Kashmir]

Supreme Court of India transferred the trial of rape and

murder of a 8-year-old girl in Kathua district of Jammu
and Kashmir to District and Sessions Court, Pathankot in
Punjab.
 26. NO BUNGALOWS FOR EX- CMS
Ex-CMs Not Entitled To Govt Bungalows

[Lok Prahari V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

Quashing an amendment made in a Uttar Pradesh state

law to permit former Chief Ministers to occupy
government bungalows, the Supreme Court in a
significant ruling held that such a legislation is “arbitrary,
discriminatory and unsupported by the Constitution”. The
SC thereby struck down Section 4(3) of UP Ministers
(Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
The judgment meant that such laws passed by all states
remain scrapped and no former Chief Ministers in India is
entitled to government accommodation.

27. BHIMA KOREGAON

Not A Case Of Arrest For Dissent, Plea For SIT In
BhimaKoregaon Case Turned Down By 2:1 Majority,
Chandrachud.J Dissents
[Romila Thapar& Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.]

The Supreme Court on Friday, in a majority judgment

authored by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar on behalf of Chief
Justice Dipak Misra and himself, declined the prayer for a
SIT probe into the Bhima-Koregaon violence and the
chain of events leading to it. The judgment was rendered
on a PIL filed by historian RomilaThapar and four other
eminent persons challenging the alleged-unlawful arrest
on August 28 of five activists, namely, Gautam
Navalakha, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, P. Varavara
Rao and Advocate Sudha Bharadwaj. Subsequently, four
of these accused have also filed a supplementary affidavit
seeking impleadment before the apex court.

28. FOREIGN LAW FIRMS

Foreign Law Firms Can’t Set Up Office In India: Foreign Lawyers
Can Advice Clients On ‘Fly in And Fly Out’ Basis
[Bar Council of India V. A. K. Balaji& Ors.]

Supreme Court of India held that foreign law firms

cannot set up offices in India or practice in Indian Courts.
But they can give advice to Indian clients on ‘fly in and
fly out’ mode in temporary basis. The Bench also directed
the Centre and BCI to frame rules. The Supreme Court
bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice UU Lalit
was delivering the Judgment in the foreign law firms
case.

29. AMBIGUITY TAX EXEMPTION

Benefit of Ambiguity In Tax Exemption Notification Should Go
In Favour Of Revenue Department
[Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar
and Company]

In an important judgment in the realm of taxation laws

the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that
exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly and
that the burden of proving applicability would be on the
assessee to show that his case comes within the
parameters of the exemption clause or exemption
notification.

30. DEFAULT BAIL

Accused Is Entitled To Default Bail Even If Charge Sheet
Returned Due To Technical Reason, No Court Can Extend
Remand Period U/S 167(2) Beyond 90 Days
[Achpal @ Ramswaroop& Anr. V. State of Rajasthan]

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday held

that an accused is entitled to default bail under Section
167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure even if the charge
sheet filed by police was returned by the Magistrate for
technical reasons. The Court also held that the provisions
of the Code do not empower anyone to extend the period
within which the investigation must be completed nor
does it admit of any such eventuality.
 31. PROFESSIONAL COURT MANAGERS
SC Directs Appointment Of Professionally Qualified Court
Managers In All Principal District And Sessions Courts For
Better Court Administration
[All India Judges Association & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.]

Lamenting how judicial infrastructure has been given

relatively low importance with infrastructure in courts in
interior parts of the country being on ventilator, the
Supreme Court underlined some vital features which
have to provide in all court complexes across India
including court managers with MBA degree for ensuring
efficient court administration in every judicial district.

32. SLP AGAINST DEATH SENTENCE

SLP Against Death Sentence Shall Not Be Dismissed Without
Giving Reasons
[BabasahebMarutiKamble V. State of Maharashtra]

The Supreme Court held that Special Leave Petitions filed

in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the
courts below, should not be dismissed without giving
reasons, at least qua death sentence.The three judge
bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan
and Justice Indira Banerjee has recently recalled two
such orders in two different cases in which it had
dismissed SLPs filed by the accused against imposition of
death penalty.

33. LOW VISION MBBS

Persons With Low Vision Can’t Be Denied Reservation In
Admission To MBBS Course
[PurswaniAshutosh V. Unionof India & Ors.]

In a decision with wide ramifications, the Supreme Court

bench upheld the claim of a medical aspirant with “low
vision” to be admitted in MBBS course in the category of
persons with benchmark disability while holding that
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 which consider low visibility as a benchmark
disability are binding on the Medical Council of India.

34. WITNESS EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL

TRIAL
Directions Issued On Examination Of Witnesses In Criminal
Trial
[State of Kerala V. Rasheed]

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, listed out ‘practical

guidelines’ to be followed by trial courts in the conduct of
a criminal trial, ‘as far as possible’. While setting aside a
Kerala High court order, the bench comprising of Justice
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra
observed that while deciding an Application to defer cross
examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a
balance must be struck between the rights of the
accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead
evidence.

35. CAUVERY
The State of Karnataka Directed to release 177.25 TMC of
water, instead of the 192 TMC, to the state of Tamil Nadu
[State of Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu]

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice, in its

judgement on the Cauvery Water Dispute between the
states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the UT of
Puducherry, partially allowing the appeal preferred by the
state of Karnataka in 2007 against the order of the
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The bench directed the
state of Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of water,
instead of the 192 TMC, to the state of Tamil Nadu.