TOP LEADING JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT IN 2019-20
The Constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code upheld
The constitutional validity of the IBC and National Company Law Tribunal has been
questioned again and again, and the Supreme Court finally settled the challenges in
the landmark case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. v Union of India. A two bench judge held
that the difference between operational creditors and financial creditors were based
on intelligible differentia and thus not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
petition also challenged Section 12A and Section 29A of the code. Section 12A of the
code prescribed threshold of 90% of the Committee of Creditors for allowing
withdrawal of resolution application. However, the Supreme Court did not see any
difficulty with such a high threshold and upheld the validity of the said Section.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT.
(Case name: Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd anr v Union of India, decided on 25.01.2019)
Cinema ban in West Bengal overturned
Bengali film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was stopped from screening by the Bengal
Government in most of the cinemas. The Government contended that the movie was
politically sensitive and it may hurt some sentiments and cause disorder in the State.
Thereafter, a plea was filed by the producers of the film claiming their fundamental
right to speech and expression has been violated. The Supreme Court while deciding
the case imposed a fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs on the West Bengal government as
compensation to the producers for the loss they suffered due to the virtual ban
imposed. Further, the Court held that the right to free speech and expression cannot
be taken by public officials because they fear mob violence.
CLUSTERcareer
Judgment: Public officials and the State Government are subject to the rule of law
and cannot gag free speech due to fear of violence. The ban imposed on the Bengali
film was overturned and compensation was provided to the producers.
(Case name: Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v Government of West Bengal and
others, decided on 11.04.2019)
Reservation in promotions under Karnataka Act upheld
Karnataka in 2002, enacted a law that stated consequential seniority would be
applicable while dealing with promotions of the SC/ST employees in government
offices. This implied that a reserved category employee could be promoted before a
senior employee belonging to the general category. In 2007 the Supreme Court held
that the law passed by the Karnataka Government did not comply with the guidelines
established under the Nagraj case and was thus unconstitutional. Subsequently, the
Karnataka Government set up a Committee to demonstrate the criteria laid down in
the Nagraj case has been fulfilled, i.e. (1) current backwardness of SC/ST (2)
inadequate representation and (3) and impact on administrative efficiency and
thereafter re-enacted the earlier law. The constitutional validity of the re-enacted law
was questioned. The Supreme Court held that the deficiency that was noted in the
2002 Act have been fulfilled and the Reservation Act 2018 is thereby valid under
Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.
Judgment: The constitutional validity of the Karnataka Act approving consequential
seniority in promotions for the reserved category was upheld.
(Case name: BK Pavitra and others v Union of India, decided on 10.05.2019)
Death penalty awarded for rape and murder of a minor girl
CLUSTERcareer
In 2010, the accused with another, kidnapped the victims, a 10-year-old girl, and her
7-year-old brother. The girl was then raped and thereafter both the victims were
thrown in a canal alive, causing their death. One of the convicts was killed during an
encounter and the High Court awarded the death penalty to the other convict. The
judgment of the High Court was appealed in the Supreme Court and was heard by a
three bench judge. The majority of the judges upheld the conviction of the death
penalty however, Justice Sanjiv Khanna had a dissenting opinion. He believed that
the convict should not be given the death penalty as the case does not fall under the
category of ‘rarest of rare’ case, but the appellant should be given the punishment to
suffer for life in imprisonment as the case would fall under a special category.
In another case, Ravi v State of Maharashtra, a man was awarded the death penalty
for committing rape and murder of a 2-year-old.
Habeas corpus petitions filed against the detention of
Kashmiri MLA
A state-wise ban was imposed on the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the
Parliament abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution. A virtual lockdown was imposed
and various political leaders and non-political persons were detained since August 5,
2019, when the Centre passed an Act taking away the special status that was granted
to the State. On 19th August 2019, general secretary of the Communist Party of
India, Sitaram Yechury filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court
challenging the illegality and constitutional validity of the detention imposed leader
of his party Mohammed Yousuf Tarigiami. The Supreme court allowed the petitioner
to visit the detenu however, the judgment passed was highly criticized as the bench
did not question the grounds on which detention was placed by the Central
Government. Moreover, the petitioner was permitted to only meet his leader and was
not allowed to carry out any other political activities. He was also required to submit
a report on his return to the Apex Court.
CLUSTERcareer
Judgment: In response to the habeas corpus petition filed by the general secretary
of the Communist Party of India, the Supreme Court allowed him to visit the detenu.
However, restrictions were imposed on his meet and no justification was given to
validate the detention imposed by the Central Government.
(Case name: Sitaram Yechury v Union of India, decided on 28.08.2019)
43-year-old precedent overruled by the Supreme Court
The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that even at the post cognizance stage
a Magistrate can invoke his powers under Section 156(3) of CrPC. A 43-year-old
judgment which held that Section 156(3) of CrPC can only be invoked at a pre
cognizance stage was overruled.
(Case name: Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat and
others, decided on 16.10.2019)
Supreme Court verdict passed in Ayodhya- Babri Masjid case
The Ayodhya- Babri Masjid dispute is the longest property dispute in the history of
India. The case was finally concluded by the Supreme Court after 134 years from the
first case filed on this matter. The Allahabad High Court delivered a judgment in 2010
wherein the land in dispute was divided into three equal parts, the judgment did not
satisfy any of the parties involved and thus an appeal was filed in Supreme Court.
After 9 years and 40 days of continuous hearing, the Court gave one of the most
crucial judgments. The Court after observing the developments of the case scrapped
the High Court verdict and held that the land in dispute is to be awarded to the Hindu
Deity ‘Ram’ for the construction of the temple. It was observed that the land was not
of Islamic origin and the Masjid was not built on vacant land. The Court also ordered
that a suitable alternative land of 5 acres is to be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board
for construction of the mosque in Ayodhya itself.
CLUSTERcareer
Judgment: The disputed land was given to Ram Lalla and the Central Government
has been ordered to formulate a scheme and set up a trust within 3 months for the
construction of the temple.
(Case name: M Siddiq through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others, decided on
08.11.2019)
Chief Justice of India comes under RTI
In November, the Supreme Court in its historic judgment held that the CJI comes
under the Right to Information Act and is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the
Act. This implies that the CJI is to be transparent and is answerable to all questions
raised by the citizens of the County. However, the court also emphasized the
importance of maintaining confidentiality under certain aspects of the judiciary’s
working. The RTI will apply to CJI only when it is in the interest of the public and
does not hamper the proceedings of the judiciary in any manner.
Judgment: CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.
(Case name: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra
Agarwal, decided on 13.11.2019)
Aadhar Card Judgment referred to a larger bench and Section
184 of Finance Act upheld
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the constitutional validity of Section
184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and whether the Act comes under the definition of
Money Bill as defined under Article 110 of the Constitution of India. Section 184 of
the Act was challenged because it gave the power of appointment and service
conditions of members of a Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other authorities to the
Central Government and thus was considered unconstitutional and arbitrary by the
CLUSTERcareer
petitioners. The Court held that the powers delegated to the Center cannot be
questioned and taken away on the mere possibility of misuse of such powers. The
issue of whether Finance Act can be referred to as a Money Bill or not was referred
to a larger bench for further examination.
Judgment: The 5 Judges Bench doubted the correctness of referring to the Finance
Act as a Money Bill and thus it was referred to a larger Bench. However, the Court
upheld the legal validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017.
(Case name: Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, decided on 13.11.2019)
CLUSTERcareer
