The Supreme Court dealt with a variety of issues in the first half of 2022, ranging from upholding OBC reservation in NEET AIQ to limiting interference of courts in a foreign-funded national project – the Bullet Train Project, resolving the dispute in Space deals involving ISRO’s Antrix and Devas Multimedia to upholding the 2020 amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 and even reinstating an Additional District Judge at Madhya Pradesh High Court, who was forced to resign after levelling charges of sexual harassment against a sitting Judge of the same High Court.
The Apex Court also reviewed its verdict in the 34-year-old road rage case involving cricketer-turned politician Navjot Singh Sidhu and awarded him the maximum punishment under Section 323 of IPC for hitting a person on head, leading to his death in 1988.
India Legal brings to you major judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in 2022 in a two-part series. The first part will detail the cases taken up in the first half of the year, i.e. from January to June, while the second part will consist of verdicts delivered during the months from July to December. The verdicts are as follows:
Devas-Antrix deal
The Supreme Court drew curtains over the 11-year-long legal battle between the commercial arm of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Antrix Corporation and Bengaluru-based firm Devas Multimedia on January 17, 2022, on the latter’s appeal against a 2021 order of the Tribunal that Devas should wind up its operations on the grounds of fraud.
The Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian upheld the NCLAT’s finding that Devas was incorporated with ‘fraudulent’ motive to ‘collude and connive’ with some officials of Antrix for wrongful gains. The commercial dispute started in February 2011, when the government-owned company annulled a 2005 agreement with Devas.
Under this agreement, Devas was to provide multimedia services to mobile platforms in India using the S-band spectrum transponders on two ISRO satellites built at a cost of Rs 766 crore.
Following the 2G telecom controversy and reports alleging that the deal was part of a “quid pro quo” between the officials of Antrix and Devas, which was established by former ISRO officials and a company called World Space.
The NCLT directed liquidation of Devas, which challenged this order in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. NCLAT upheld the NCLT’s order in September. The case then moved to the Supreme Court.
OBC reservation in NEET AIQ
The merit of a person was the sum total of his/her experiences and struggle to overcome the cultural and social setbacks. It could not be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination, which merely provided formal equality of opportunities.
This observation was made by the Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna on January 20, while upholding the constitutional validity of providing 27 percent quota to Other Backward Classes (OBC) in NEET All India Quota (AIQ) seats for undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses.
As per the Supreme Court, reservation was not at odds with merit, but furthered its distributive impact. The material affluence of certain individual members of a socially backward group or ‘creamy layer’ could not be used against the entire group to deny it the benefits of reservation, it added.
It further permitted states like Tamil Nadu to make special provisions and provide reservation in educational admissions, whether in aided or unaided institutions, and government jobs for the advancement of any ‘social or educationally backward’ classes of citizens, or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The power of a state government to provide reservation under Article 15 (4) and (5) of the Constitution was not an ‘exception’ to Article 15 (1), rather it amplified the principle of ‘substantive’ equality manifested through the Article. Exams did not reflect how social, economic and cultural advantages that accrued to certain classes contributed to their success in them, added the Apex Court.
As per the Court, it was possible that individual members of an identified group, which were being given reservation, may not be backward or individuals belonging to a non-identified group may share characteristics of a backward group with members of an identified group. The individual difference may be a result of privilege, fortune and circumstances, but it cannot be used to negate the role of circumstances, it explained.
The Apex Court further confirmed that there was no need for the Centre to get prior consent of the Supreme Court before introducing OBC quota in AIQ seats under NEET, stating that providing reservation to AIQ was a policy decision that would not be subject to judicial review.
Bullet Train Project
On January 31, the Supreme Court passed an important judgement related to interference by a court in the tender process of a foreign-funded project, in absence of any specific allegations of mala fides and/or favouritism.
The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna observed that under the contractual obligation, no company or even the Union of India, was permitted to deviate from any terms and conditions of the agreement including the loan deed, in the Mumbai-Ahmedabad rail project.
The Apex Court made these observations after setting aside an order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2021, stating that the verdict was ‘clearly’ unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The technical bid of a firm called Montecarlo Limited was rejected by an expert committee appointed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for works related to the Bullet train project. The Delhi High Court had quashed the communications of April 27 and 28, 2021, by which the private firm was informed that its technical Bid has been rejected on the ground that the same was non-responsive.
In its 82-page verdict, the Apex Court observed that the Bullet Train Project, a fully foreign-funded project, was envisaged when the Japanese and Indian governments entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. The two nations had agreed that the said project would be fully funded by a Concessional Official Development Assistance (ODA) loan of Rs one lakh crore by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, it added.
The top court of the country said that in absence of any allegation of mala fides/arbitrariness and/or favouritism, the High Court had committed a grave error by interfering with a conscious decision taken by the JICC/JICA, which was followed by the appellant.
It further permitted the appeal of the National High-Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL), set for the Bullet train project.
Reinstatement of Additional District Judge at Madhya Pradesh High Court
On February 10 this year, the Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai reinstated an Additional District Judge in the Madhya Pradesh judiciary, who had levelled sexual harassment charges against a High Court judge eight years ago and tendered resignation after she was transferred by the full Bench of the High Court.
The top court of the country partly allowed the petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising by holding that the resignation of the petitioner could not be construed to be voluntary.
Following an inquiry in 2017, the High Court judge was given a clean chit in the sexual harassment case. Soon after this, the ADJ was transferred from Gwalior to Sidhi district. She moved the Supreme Court, citing the report submitted by the inquiry panel constituted by the Rajya Sabha into her accusations of sexual harassment against the High Court judge, who has since retired. The inquiry panel was set up in 2015 after 58 members of the Rajya Sabha gave a notice to move a motion to impeach the accused judge.
The report by the committee, comprising Supreme Court judge Justice R. Banumathi (now retired), the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Manjula Chellur and Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal (former Attorney General), concluded that the decision of the committee to transfer the petitioner was based on the recommendation sent by the then District Judge Kamal Singh Thakur.
As per the Committee, the then District Judge had transferred the ADJ as she was habitual of making unnecessary complaints regarding her staff and non-allocation of substitute staff.Besides, she did not behave cordially with other Judges, especially with the Civil Judges.
The woman had further made anonymous complaints against the District Judge and other Judges publicly stating that unlike the previous District Judge, administrative skills of the present District Judge were not adequate. Thus, she should be transferred to some other place.
The Apex Court ruled that the transfer committee committed an irregularity by solely relying on the recommendation of District Judge Kamal Singh Thakur and without making any verification or enquiring on the same. The committee was not justified in transferring the complainant in mid-session, as well as rejecting her representations.
The top court of the country observed that the transfer did not seem to be in the interest of the administration and seemed to be punitive.
Upholding the amendment to Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010
On April 8 this year, the Apex Court upheld the 2020 amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to regulate foreign funds received by NGOs. Defending the amendments made in 2020 to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Central government had apprised the top court of the country that the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 did not encompass the right to receive unregulated foreign contributions.
The order was passed by the three-Judge Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice C.T. Ravikumar on a petition filed by Noel Harper of NGO Care And Share Charitable Trust, challenging Sections 7, 12A, 12(1A) and 17 inserted in the FCRA by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Stressing on the need to ensure that the funds received by NGOs from foreign countries were not misused and used only for the purpose they had been sought for, the Apex Court ruled that the changes made through the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 by amending the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 were constitutional.
As per the petitioners, 19,000 NGOs had been invalidated by the 2010 Act, which showed that the system was working fine. They contended that they were not challenging the original FCRA, but only the amendments made to it. Calling the compulsion to open an account with an SBI branch as clearly arbitrary and violated the right to equality, the pleas claimed that the same did not serve any reasonable purpose. Besides, the amendment lacked legitimate purpose and was likely to have an adverse effect on NGOs, added the petitions.
Cooling off period for ex-bureaucrats desiring to contest elections. The Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice A.S. Bopanna on April 18 ruled that it was best left to the Legislature to decide whether a ‘cooling off period’ was required for the civil servants to contest elections.
The Apex Court, while refusing to entertain the writ petition, said that nobody had the fundamental right to get a mandatory order of this court directing the appropriate legislature to enact law or the executive to frame rules imposing restrictions on the eligibility of civil servants to contest elections. The Bench further noted that the plea did not mention any complaint whatsoever of violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner or any group of persons represented by the petitioner and therefore, it ought to be disposed of.
It said a mandamus cannot be issued to direct the respondents to either enact a law or frame rules even under the wider powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Navjot Singh Sidhu road rage case
On May 19, the Supreme Court brought down curtains on the 34-year-old road rage case involving criter-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu, directing the Congress leader to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The order was delivered by the Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, which awarded maximum possible punishment under Section 323 of IPC to Sidhu.
The Congress leader was earlier acquitted by the top court of the country in connection with a homicide charge, but was convicted for voluntarily causing hurt. He was fined Rs 1,000 in the case. The Apex Court had also acquitted his associate Rupinder Singh Sandhu in the case, stating that there was no evidence, which pointed towards him being a part of the accident.
The case dates back to December 27, 1988, when Sidhu had beaten one Gurnam Singh on head, leading to his death. Family of the victim requested the Supreme Court to review its order and consider tougher charges. Sidhu had opposed the plea and said there was no evidence to prove that the victim’s death was caused by a single blow on head.