From rescuing elected state governments from President’s rule, allowing women into religious shrines and permitting them to terminate pregnancy well past 20 weeks, to stepping in to clean up Delhi NCR’s air and reigning in the BCCI , the judiciary demonstrated its proactive approach in the year gone by
By Mary Mitzy
Constitution of India
Union of India vs Sh Harish Chandra Singh Rawat & anr
Date of Decision 6.05.2016
This year, the central government imposed President’s Rule in two states—Uttarakhand and Arunachal—and the Supreme Court intervened in both the cases to uphold the constitution. In the case of Uttarakhand, the apex court heavily relied upon the Principles laid down in the SR Bommai Case and ordered a “Floor Test” for the Congress Government led by Harish Rawat (right). Earlier, the Uttarakhand High Court had quashed the proclamation of President’s Rule, following which the matter had reached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition against the High Court Judgement.
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker & ors
Date of Decision: 13.07.2016
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court restored the Nabam Tuki government. The Court made it clear that powers of the Governor to decide the manner of conducting Assembly proceedings violated constitutional provisions and that he could not have acted without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Freedom of Speech
Subhramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law & ors
Date of Decision: 13.05.2016
Rejecting a clutch of petitions against certain provisions of criminal defamation, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Criminal Defamation and held that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The Court observed that some of the most important rights of a person which the Court protects from injury are rights to the security of his person, domestic relations, and his property and reputation. It held that provisions of section 499 CrPC. along with its explanations and exceptions are neither unreasonable nor disproportionate or excessive. The provision was enacted in collective social interest.
Contempt
Suo Motu Contempt Petition on a Blog published by Justice Markandey Katju, Titled “Soumya Murder Case” in September 2016
Date of Decision: 11.11.2016
In an unprecedented move, a former Supreme Court judge was summoned to the Court and a contempt notice was slapped on him. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued suo motu contempt notice against former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju (right) and asked him to show cause, why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. Justice Katju had on September 17, 2016, published in his blog, statements against the judgment in Soumya murder case and had stated that the judges had relied on hearsay evidence.
States
State of Karnataka & ors vs State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Decision: 12.9.2016 (interim)
With the Karnataka government repeatedly failing to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, the then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa filed an interlocutory petition in the Supreme Court in August, seeking release of water as per the guidelines of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. Delivering its verdict in the case, the Supreme Court, on September 5, directed the Karnataka government to release 15,000 cusecs of water to its neighbouring state for 10 days. The Supreme Court later modified its order and asked Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water every day until September 20. Karnataka erupted in flames protesting against the order. There was extensive damage to public property. The government defied the order with Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah saying there was no water in the state’s reservoirs.
Religion and Faith
Dr Noorjehan Safia Niaz and ors vs State of Maharashtra & ors
Date of Decision: 26.08.2016
The Bombay High Court allowed women devotees to enter the sanctum sanctorum (mazaar) at Haji Ali Dargah lifting the restriction imposed by the Haji Ali Dargah trust. Women devotees were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum (mazaar) at Haji Ali Dargah prior to 2011-2012. However, restriction on entry of female devotees was imposed by the trustees of the Dargah. The division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the trustees cannot impose a restriction on the entry of women since the same is contrary to Part III of the constitution.
Nazeer vs Shemeema
Date of Decision: 16.12.2016
The Kerala High Court, disposing a clutch of petitions relating to Muslim Personal Law, observed that triple talaq was a common legal question that came up for consideration and held that the State is constitutionally bound and committed to respect the dignity and equality before law and it cannot shirk its responsibility by remaining a mute spectator of the malady suffered by Muslim women. It held that any gender-based discrimination within a community amounts to denial of equality before law.
Family
Sachin & anr vs Jhabbu Lal & anr (Delhi High Court)
Date of Decision: 24.11.2016
The Delhi High Court held that a son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in a self-acquired house of his parents. He can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents till the time the parents permit. Merely because parents have allowed him to live in the house for so long as his relations with his parents were cordial, does not mean that parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.
Women and child
Ms X vs Union of India & ors
Date of Decision: 25.07.2016
While law provides for medical termination of pregnancy till 20 weeks, the Supreme Court allowed a petitioner to abort the foetus at 24 weeks, relying on the report of the Medical Board which showed severe multiple congenital anomalies causing risk to the physical and mental health of the mother.
Sabu Mathew George vs Union of India
Date of Decision: 16.11.2016
The case is related to search engines publishing pre-natal sex determination advertisements. The Supreme Court directed that internet search engines Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! are under obligation to ensure that the “doctrine of autoblock” is applied within a reasonable period of time to prohibit any attempt to search any keyword pertaining to pre-natal sex determination. The Court further directed the Union of India to constitute a nodal agency and give due advertisements in television, newspapers and radio to inform that it has been created in pursuance of the order of the Court and anyone who comes across anything “that has the nature of an advertisement or any impact in identifying a boy or a girl in any method, manner or mode by any search engine” shall be brought to its notice.
Hiral P Harsora and ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and ors
Date of Decision: 06.10.2016
The Supreme Court held that women can also be tried for domestic violence and harassment and amended the Domestic Violence Act. It struck down the words “adult male” from proviso of Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Now, relief is possible even against women and minors. The Court held that complaints of domestic violence can be filed against any person, irrespective of gender.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India & ors
Date of Decision: 14.12.2016
Acting on a PIL pointing to the alarming increase in the use of drugs and alcohol among children in India, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to: (i) Complete a national survey and generate a national database within a period of six months; (ii) formulate and adopt a comprehensive national plan within four months, which will, among other things, also address the areas of immediate concern; and (iii) adopt specific content in the school curriculum.
Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Ajit Seth
Date of Decision 06.05.2016
An Ex-RAW official had approached the Supreme Court praying for a copy of an enquiry report pertaining to her allegations of sexual harassment against her superiors. The Union of India claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act from revealing the same on the ground of security that disclosure of the contents of the report would be against national interest and would compromise national security. The Court rejected the Union’s claim and held that contents of reports alleging sexual harassment can hardly relate to affairs of the state or anything concerning national security and allowed the appeal.
Social Reform
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept & ors vs K Balu & ors
Date of Decision: 15.12.2016
The Supreme Court passed the following directions with regard to sale of liquor along national and state highways. All states and Union Territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways; all signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed both on national and state highways; no shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.
Karma Dorjee & ors vs Union of India & ors
Date of Decision: 14.12.2016
The apex court in this PIL ordered the setting up of a committee for monitoring the redressal of issues faced by citizens from the North-east. The Court noted that the committee will monitor the initiatives taken by the government to curb and monitor action in respect of incidents of racial discrimination/racial atrocities/racial violence and suggest measures and ensure strict action. It will receive and entertain complaints from individuals and groups of individuals who claim to be victims of racial violence or discrimination and forward the same to the National Human Rights Commission and/or the State Human Rights Commissions and/or to the jurisdictional Police Station as the case may be for enquiry and necessary action.
Jamshed Ansari vs UPSC & anr
Date of Decision: 22.08.2016
The Delhi High Court directed the Union Public Service Commission to take necessary steps to include “transgender/third gender” as a gender option in the application form for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination. The Bench disposed of the writ petition with a direction to UPSC to take necessary steps expeditiously in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India & Ors.
Education
Medical Council of India vs Christian Medical College Vellore & ors
Date of decision: 11.04.2016
The Supreme Court clarified that private colleges would not be allowed to conduct separate exams for medical admissions and rejected pleas of state governments and minority institutions to allow them to hold separate entrance exams for MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-17 saying only NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) provides for conducting such test for admission to these courses
Environment
Arjun Gopal & ors vs Union of India & ors
Date of decision: 11.11.2016
The Supreme Court banned firecrackers due to heavy pollution caused by fireworks in the Delhi NCR. The Court directed the central government to suspend all such licenses permitting sale of fireworks, both wholesale and retail, within the NCR. It held that the suspension shall remain in force till further orders of the Court and that no such licenses shall be granted or renewed till further orders. It also directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to study and prepare a report on the harmful effects of the materials which are currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks.
Samir Mehta vs Union of India & ors
Date of Decision: 23.08.2016
The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, imposed exemplary fine of Rs 105 crore for polluting water bodies. A ship carrying 290 tonnes of fuel oil and 50 tonnes of diesel for and behalf of Adani Enterprises Limited sank approximately 20 Nautical Miles from the coast of South Mumbai. The Court was of the view that the ship owner company, Adani Enterprises Limited and its subsidiaries completely ignored “Precautionary Principle” and did not take timely precautions.
Animal Rights
Compassion Unlimited Plus Action vs Union of India & ors
Date of order 12.01.2016
In an interim order, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre’s notification lifting the ban on traditional bull-taming sport Jallikattu and restrained the sport which is part of the harvest festival of South India, especially Tamil Nadu. Later, in July, it held that just because the festival is old doesn’t mean it can be justified.
Civil Rights
Savelife Foundation & anr vs Union of India & anr
Date of decision: 30.03.2016
The Supreme Court of India approved the Centre’s guidelines to protect Good Samaritans, who help road accident victims, from being hassled or harassed in hospitals, police stations or courts. The Court can issue such directions under Article 32 read with Article 142 to implement and enforce the guidelines which are necessary for protection of rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aim is to provide immediate help to the victims of the accident and at the same time to provide protection to Good Samaritans.
Sarla & ors vs Union of India
Date of Decision: 06.10.2016
The Delhi High Court held that an inadvertent fall while boarding a running train is not a criminal act or self-inflicted injury and the victim can’t be denied compensation. The deceased, while trying to board an overcrowded compartment of the train, fell down on the railways tracks under the platform and sustained injuries, which proved fatal.
Sports
Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar & ors
Date of Decision: The case is ongoing
The Supreme Court had set up a Committee comprising Justice RM Lodha, former Chief Justice of India, as Chairman, along with Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice RV Raveendran, former Judges of the Supreme Court, to look into the functioning of the BCCI.
The Committee addressed the following areas of concern in cricket administration:
(a) Organization, structure and relationship, (b) Source and extent of jurisdiction, (c) Offices, committees and elections, (d) Commercial engagements, contracts and services, (e) Audit, accounts and finances, (f) Player welfare and dispute resolution, (g) Conflict of interest, and (h) Oversight and transparency. The Supreme Court accepted the report submitted by the Committee and directed that the recommendations of the committee shall be implemented.
Nationalism
Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India
Date of Decision: 30.11.2016 & 09.12.2016
The Supreme Court in an interim order directed that every cinema hall must play the National Anthem before a movie starts and directed that everyone in the theatre must stand up to show respect towards it. It said that this will inculcate a sense of “Nationalism” and “Patriotism”
By another order on 09.12.2016 it was clarified that differently-abled persons need not stand while the National Anthem is played and that the doors of the theatre will not be bolted. It also directed that there shall be no commercial exploitation of the National Anthem to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit.
Telecom
Cellular Operators Association of India & ors vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & ors
Date of Decision: 11.05.2016
The Supreme Court reversed the Judgment of the Delhi High Court which had upheld the notification by TRAI regarding refund of Rs 1 for every call drop. The Apex Court held that the notification was not immune to Article 19 (1) (G) of the constitution. It was observed that compensation could be levied for actual loss suffered due to default by the service provider and it could not be established that every call drop was accountable to the service provider since there were many external factors affecting the same. It was pointed out that 36.9 percent call drops were due to the consumer’s fault and the benchmark set for call drops was 2 percent and that only 3 out of the 12 licencees were not adhering to the said benchmark.
Service Law
State of Uttar Pradesh & ors vs Dhirendra Pal Singh and ors
Date of Decision: 15.11.2016
The Supreme Court held that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on retirement, but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest.
Criminal Law
KV Prakash vs State of Karnataka
Date of Decision: 22.11.2016
The Supreme Court held that an extramarital affair of the husband cannot invite the conviction of the alleged person under section 306 (abetment) but it can only be a ground for divorce or for other reliefs under a matrimonial dispute under other enactments. Hence the court in this case held that husband of the deceased Deepa cannot be held liable for her committing suicide due to humiliation caused to her by his extramarital affair.
Judicial
Govt of Bihar and ors vs Dayanand Singh
Date of Decision: 29.09.2016
The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court judgment, which had quashed Rules 4A and 3A introduced by amending the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951, and Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1965, respectively, providing for reservation of posts in the judicial services in favour of various backward classes of citizens. The Court further held that there was a need for providing appropriate reservations to various backward classes even in the judicial services of Bihar. But it held that the executive is not the only authority to formulate such policy, and it is under a constitutional obligation to consult the high court both for framing and giving effect to such policy.
Union of India vs Rajasthan High Court & ors
Date of Decision: 14.12. 2016
The Supreme Court set aside the direction of the High Court of Rajasthan to the Union government and to its secretaries in the ministries of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs to include the chief justices and the judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks at airports and to amend an earlier circular of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).
The Court held that the view of the Union government is based on an assessment of security perceptions and should not be interfered with.