In 2022, the Supreme Court has rendered 1,264 judgements, including critical decisions on women’s rights, equality, reservations, religious freedom, and personal liberty. Lex WITNESS brings to you some of the historic judgements delivered in 2022.
Case of Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, also known as the Reservation in Promotion Case. According to the Supreme Court, it is essential to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs to collect quantifiable data. Furthermore, as states are in a better position to understand the local conditions, they should determine what constitutes inadequate representation.
According to the apex court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union, the 103rd Amendment, which ushered in reservations for the economically weaker section (EWS), was upheld. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among upper castes may be promoted through several affirmative actions. These include providing scholarships instead of 10 percent quotas for government jobs and educational institutions and acknowledging poverty is not permanent.
Satender Kumar Antil vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation. In this case, the top Court ruled that bail applications should be decided within two weeks and recommended that a bail act be passed. To streamline the bail process, the Union government was directed to consider introducing a separate bail act.
The Supreme Court outlined guidelines for what should be done when additional accused are summoned during a trial in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. the State of Punjab. The five-judge constitution bench held that a criminal trial is not complete until the accused’s sentence is announced.
In Manoj vs. State, the Supreme Court laid out guidelines and steps, including psychiatric evaluation, which should be considered before imposing the death penalty. Based on the Court’s decision, conducting this form of psychological and psychiatric assessment will provide a baseline for comparing and evaluating the accused’s progress toward reformation during their incarceration.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arunachala Gounder vs. Ponnuswamy, self-acquired property of Hindu males who die intestate will be inherited and not passed on to their descendants. The daughter will be entitled to inherit such property and any other property obtained through the partition of family property. As the top Court ruled, Hindu daughters were entitled to inherit their father’s property in the absence of other legal heirs, and even if the father did not leave behind a will, they would receive preference in inheriting the property.
The case is X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT Delhi. According to the Supreme Court, the High Court took a narrow view in this case and failed to consider the Amendment of 2021 to the MTP Act. According to the Court, the phrase ‘married woman’ has been replaced with ‘any woman’, and the word ‘husband’ has been replaced with ‘partner under Section 3 of the MTP Act.’ Although Section 3 goes beyond conventional relationships based on marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not consider unmarried women but does recognize other categories of women, including divorcees, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women, and sexual assault survivors.
It’s Aishat Sifha vs. Karnataka. The High Court took a wrong turn. In the end, it comes down to a matter of choice and the provisions of Article 19(1) (a) and 25(1). The choice is yours, nothing more, nothing less,” Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. In this case, six students at the Government PreUniversity College in Karnatala were barred from attending classes wearing their hijabs due to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and its 1995 Rules prohibiting students from wearing hijabs in college. In response to this order, the Karnataka High Court upheld the ban, stating that wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice for Muslims. All India Muslim Personal Law Board challenged this judgements in the Supreme Court. The matter was heard by a Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on 13th October 2022, and a split verdict was delivered.
Union of India vs. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The Court upheld all the challenged provisions of the PMLA. As a result, the ED did not have police powers and was not required to follow police procedures when investigating. Furthermore, the Court observed that reversed burdens of proof were justified to combat the ‘heinous’ crime of money laundering.
Varvara Rao, Siddiqui Kappan, and Teesta Setalvad were all granted bail by the Supreme Court in different judgements, which ruled that an individual’s liberty is sacrosanct. Based on individual circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that bail should be granted to each of them because an individual’s liberty is of utmost importance, and investigative agencies cannot keep people in prison indefinitely.
Neeraj Datta vs. State of NCT Delhi – according to the Supreme Court, circumstantial evidence can be used to convict public officials for bribery. As a result of the five-judge constitution bench’s ruling, government employees will not be able to escape prosecution without direct evidence, even if their witnesses turn hostile.
Perivalan and other accused in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case were released by the apex court in Perarivalan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that a governor must follow the recommendations of a state cabinet. In its order, the Court mirrored its earlier decision on the relief request by AG Perarivalan, a 31-year-old prisoner in the case.
As for the question of reservations for ‘Economically Weaker Sections’ (EWS) in PG NEET, the Supreme Court decided to hear the issue later because a larger Constitution Bench case was pending regarding the validity of economic-based reservations. In November 2022, the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit upheld the EWS reservations. At this point, the central question is whether the income limit of Rs. 8 lakh is based on reliable sources.
Indian Ex Servicemen Movement vs. Union of India was dismissed by a Bench consisting of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath on March 16th, 2022. According to them, OROP is applied equally to all retirees regardless of their retirement date, so the policy is not discriminatory. The Koshyari Committee Report (2011) was also held to be unreliable and not binding on the Union. Whether it is implemented or not is a matter of policy, and it is up to the Union to decide how it should be handled.
The Act and the reservations were declared unconstitutional on March 31st, 2022, when Justices L.N. Rao and B.R. Gavai ruled in Pattali Matkal Katchi vs. Mayileruperimal. State officials agreed with them that seats weren’t re-allocated, but merely classified within the MBC reservations to identify a new class. The Tamil Nadu government, however, failed to provide reliable data for this sub-classification. Rather than comparing the backwardness of Vanniyars to other MBC groups, the Bench refused to recognize reservations based on relative population alone.
In Noel Harper vs. Union of India, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar upheld the 2020 FCRA Amendment on April 8th, 2022. According to the SC, the restrictions ensure foreign funds are used solely for permitted purposes. The NGOs that will be hardest hit by this decision are likely to be smaller, grassroots organizations reliant on funding from larger organizations.
In May 2022, the Supreme Court began hearing S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India. A 7-Judge Bench was briefly considered by the Bench comprising CJI Ramana and Justices, but the Union government placated the Bench. According to Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, as part of Aazadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, India will shed its ‘colonial baggage’ by reexamining the law. Nevertheless, the Bench ruled on May 11th that no new cases can be filed under Section124A. Instead, all pending trials with charges under the provisions can proceed under other charges not related to sedition.
Budhadev Karmaskar vs. the State of West Bengal. According to the Supreme Court, sex work is a profession, and consenting practitioners of sex work have a right to dignity and equal protection under the law. Therefore, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed UIDAI to issue Adhar Cards to the Sex Workers based on a proforma certificate.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
