Major Verdicts by Supreme Court of India

Ayodhya Land Dispute, 2019 (M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors)

Supreme Court in Ram Janmbhoomi title dispute pronounced the judgment, the specifics of judgment include,

• Entire 2.77 acre of land was awarded for the deity of Ram Lalla, after recognizing it as a legitimate owner.
• A trust was ordered to be setup within 3 months to manage the affairs of the temple.
• It also awarded 5 acre of land to Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya for the construction of mosque.
• It also refuted the claims of other parties on ownership of land.

Sabarimala Temple Review, 2019 (PIL by Indian Young Lawyers Association)

In 2018, Supreme Court allowed women’s entry in Sabarimala Temple (Kerala), which was revolted by many conservative groups, religious factions and political parties. Despite Supreme Court’s verdict, women devotees faced trouble in entering the temple premises.

• In November 2019, Supreme Court issued the temple entry issue to a seven-judge bench that adjudicate on other religious questions too like genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra community and the women temple entry restrictions in Parsi community.
• The Court in Feb, 2020 has listed out 7 questions around which it will limit its jurisdiction.

CJI Office now Under RTI (2019)

In November 2019, Supreme Court in lieu of promoting transparency in judicial administration has decided to bring in the office of CJI under the ambit of RTI Act.

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while upholding a 2010 judgment 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.

RTI Act supersedes Official Secrets Act (2019)

The Supreme Court while hearing the PIL on reviewing the apex court’s verdict on Rafale deal with France observed the following related to Right to Information Act (RTI Act):

• The oral observation was made by Justice KM Joseph, who said that ‘the Centre cannot withhold documents from disclosure under the RTI Act citing national security if it is established that retention of such information produces greater harm than disclosing it.’
• He further added that section 8(2) of the RTI act confers a ‘priceless right’ upon citizens with the right to demand information even in respect of such matters as security of the country and matters relating to relation with foreign state.

Triple Talaq, 2018

The Supreme Court on August 22, 2017 banned a controversial Islamic practice of instant divorce as arbitrary and unconstitutional, in a landmark verdict for gender justice that will stop Muslim men calling off a marriage on a whim.

• The top court said Triple Talaq violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women as it irrevocably ends marriage without any chance of reconciliation.

Politicians with Criminal Antecedents, 2018

In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge bench led by the then Chief Justice Misra left it to Parliament to bar lawmakers facing trial for heinous and grievous offences from contesting elections by enacting a “strong law”, while it observed that the criminalization of politics is a bitter manifest truth and a “termite” to the citadel of democracy.

• Refusing to put a ban on candidates with criminal antecedents from entering the poll fray, the court said the law should also make it mandatory for political parties to revoke the membership of candidates facing serious criminal cases.

Live Streaming of Court Hearing, 2018

The Supreme Court decided to bring its courtroom proceedings under public glare by agreeing to live-streaming of court functioning, paving the way for people to watch the courtroom drama live.

Bhima Koregaon Arrest, 2018

In a setback for activists, the Supreme Court ordered an extension of the house arrest of activists for four more weeks on September 28, 2018.

Verdict on Adultery, 2018

In a historic judgement, the Supreme Court quashed adultery as a criminal offence in India. The court underlined that Section 497 treats women as properties of their husbands and is hence manifestly discriminatory. It trashed the central government’s defence of Section 497 that it protects the sanctity of marriages.

Sabarimala Verdict, 2018

The Supreme Court lifted centuries’ old prohibition of women between ages 10 and 50 from entering Sabarimala temple in Kerala. “The practice in Sabarimala temple violates the rights of Hindu women. It has to be in harmony with the Constitution” said the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Validity of Aadhaar, 2018

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Aadhaar on September 26, 2018 and struck down Section 57 of Aadhaar Act. It said, private companies cannot ask for Aadhaar. It won’t be mandatory for opening of bank accounts, mobile connections.

Reservation in Promotion for SC/ST Government Employees, 2018

The Supreme Court turned down an appeal to reconsider its own earlier order that had rejected the idea of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government job promotions on September 26, 2018.

Decriminalisation of Section 377, 2018

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on 6 September 2018 decriminalised homosexuality. The five-judge SC bench’s decision to make gay sex legal has restored the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) community members’ faith in the Indian judicial system.

• The Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality between consenting adults by declaring Section 377, the penal provision which criminalised gay sex, as “manifestly arbitrary”.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017

The Nine-Judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld that right to privacy as a fundamental right.

National Judicial Appointments Commission, 2015

In this case, the Supreme Court by a majority upheld the Collegium System and struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) terming it as unconstitutional in nature.

Transgender as “Third Gender”, 2014

The Supreme Court created a “Third Gender” status for the Transgenders.

Re-Opening Dance Bars, 2013

Eight years after the Maharashtra Government banned dance bars in Mumbai, the Supreme Court on 16th July gave its nod to their re-opening in the city.

Right to Reject, 2013

The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to introduce a ‘None of The Above’ (NOTA) button on electronic voting machines (EVM) and ballot papers which can be used by the voters to reject all the contestants contesting elections in a constituency.

IR Coelho Case, 2006

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Governor of a State doesnot enjoy absolute immunity from judicial review and the courts can invalidate any malafide actions of the Governor.

TMA Pai Case, 2002

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to administer minority educational institution is not absolute and the state can control the institutional affairs in the interest of maintaining healthy educational criterions.

Chandra Kumar Case, 1997

In this case, the Supreme Court safeguarded that judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away or restricted.

SR Bommai Case, 1994

The Supreme Court held that Federalism is a part of Basic Structure and State Governments and cannot be randomly dismissed by a Governor of a State. This case laid down the procedures in proving a majority under Article 356.

Unnikrishnan Case, 1993

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld that the Right to Education is also a part of Fundamental Rights as a part of the Right to Life under Article 21.

Indira Sawhney Case, 1993

In this case, the Supreme Court stated that reservation cannot exceed 50% and presented the term ‘Creamy Layer’.

St. Stephen’s College Case, 1992

The Supreme Court held that atleast 50% of seats in minority institutions should be held in reserve for non- minority students.

Shah Bano Case, 1985

The Supreme Court held that Muslim women also have the right to get maintenance from their husbands after they were divorced.

Neeraja Chaudhary Case, 1984

The Supreme Court held that the bonded labour demeans the Right to Life under Article 21 and the Government must enact suitable policies to immediately eliminate the practice of bonded labour.

Waman Rao Case, 1981

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld that the basic structure and declared that Article 31 (b) was well within the purview of amending power of the Parliament.

Minerva Mills Case, 1980

The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are corresponding to each other and any law legislated to implement the Directive Principle could not restraint the Fundamental Rights.

Keshvananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala, 1973

The Supreme Court put forward the Basic Structure Doctrine and held that certain “Basic features” of the Constitution cannot be amended.

Golaknath Case, 1967

The Supreme Court held that Constitutional Amendment cannot be prolonged to infringement of Fundamental Rights.

Berubari Case, I960

While ceding a part of Indian Territory to an alien state, the court in an advisory opinion held that such process cannot take place without a Constitutional Amendment to that effect is made.

Shankari Prasad Case, 1952

The First Constitutional Amendment Act, providing for reservations, was challenged that it violated the Fundamental Rights itself. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution.

Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951

This case tested the reservations given to backward classes in educational institutes in Tamil Nadu. The first Amendment Act was inserted as Article 15(4) in the Constitution.

AK Gopalan Case, 1950

The case relates to the charges of violation of Fundamental Rights to freedom under the Preventive Detention Act. The Supreme Court was approached over the rationality of the act. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional rationality of a law cannot be certified by the judiciary and the judiciary has only the ability to authenticate whether the due process of the law has been followed or not.