As 2023 draws to a close, we look back at the year the Supreme Court of India has had.
2023 was witness to a fair share of controversy, both on the judicial side and on administrative side of the top court.
While various judicial pronouncements were far from well received, administrative decisions on listing of cases also drew negative attention.
In this piece, we take a look at 25 important cases dealt with by the apex court in 2023, followed by some honourable mentions
We have divided the former into four categories - Constitution Bench judgments, political cases, relief (and denial of relief) to political leaders/activists, and miscellaneous cases.
1. Fundamental rights lie not only against the State, but also against non-State actors
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors
A five-judge Bench held that fundamental rights can be enforced not only against the State, but also against non-State actors.
This case originated from two instances of Ministers making controversial remarks against victims of a crime. The victims claimed that these remarks violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In a 4:1 decision, the Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression could only be curtailed by reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that this was an exhaustive list and that new restrictions could not be imposed in addition to these grounds.
2. Validity of unstamped arbitration agreements: Journey from illegality to recognition
Case Title: NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & ors; In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act
A five-judge Bench in April held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable. This was reversed in December by a seven-judge Bench.
The seven-judge Constitution Bench held that while unstamped arbitration agreements are inadmissible, they are not rendered void ab initio (void from the beginning) on account of the fact that they are unstamped.
The effect of not paying duty renders an instrument inadmissible and not void, and the defect of non-payment of stamp duty is curable, the Court held.
It added that the aspect of whether the arbitration agreement has been stamped or not is for the arbitral tribunal, and not the courts, to decide.
3. Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Article 370
Case Title: In Re: Article 370 of the Indian Constitution
A Constitution Bench on December 11 unanimously upheld the 2019 decision of the Central government to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which revoked the special status accorded to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The decision was rendered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant.
The Court held that Article 370 was only intended as a transitory provision and was temporary in character and thus, the President was empowered to abrogate it.
It further said that Jammu and Kashmir ceased to have any internal sovereignty once it acceded to the Union of India.
4. No legal recognition for same-sex marriages, civil unions
Case Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court in October refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, with the majority leaving it to the legislature to provide non-heterosexual couples the right to enter into a legally recognised marriage, a civil union or to adopt a child.
All the judges were unanimous in holding that there is no unqualified right to marriage and that same-sex couples cannot claim this as a fundamental right.
The Court also unanimously turned down a challenge to provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
5. 2014 judgment striking down Section 6A of DSPE Act is retrospective
Case Title: CBI v. RR Kishore
The Supreme Court in September ruled that its 2014 judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Director CBI, which struck down Section 6A of the 1946 Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), would have a retrospective effect.
Section 6A had provided that prior Central government sanction was mandatory before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could conduct investigations in corruption cases against Union government bureaucrats from the rank of Joint-Secretary onwards.
However, in 2014, the apex court struck down Section 6A (1) on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India. It had held that there cannot be a distinction between officials based on their status and rank.
6. Demonetisation move upheld
Case Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India
The year began with a five-judge Constitution Bench judgment upholding the Central government's demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 bank notes in November 2016, with Justice BV Nagarathna dissenting.
The majority opinion held that hardships faced by the public cannot be grounds to set aside the exercise. The lone dissenting judge stated that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had not independently applied its mind to the case.
Justice Nagarathna said there was no “meaningful application of mind” when it came to withdrawing ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes, which formed 86 per cent of the currency in circulation at the time, causing a severe financial crunch and socio-economic despair.
7. Living will norms for passive euthanasia
Case Title: Common Cause v. Union of India
On January 24, the Court modified its 2018 judgment on passive euthanasia and living wills to do away with the need for a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) to give sanction and validity to a living will or advance directives of a person.
A Constitution Bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar specified that the document expressing a living will or an advance directive would need to be attested only by a notary or a gazetted officer to record their satisfaction that the same was signed willingly.
8. Marriages can be dissolved by apex court on ground of irretrievable breakdown
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
In May, a Constitution Bench said that it can dissolve a marriage in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, in cases where there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari held that the six month cooling-off period prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act can be dispensed with in such cases.
Pertinently, the Court said that divorces can be granted through such a route even when one of the parties opposes such a decree. The Bench, however, upheld a precedent that said that High Courts and the apex court could not be moved directly by parties seeking the dissolution of their marriage.
9. Group of companies doctrine in arbitration
A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in December ruled that the group of companies doctrine will be applicable to arbitration proceedings in India.
The "group of companies" doctrine states that a company that is a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement would be bound by the agreement if such a company is a member of the same group of companies that signed the agreement.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra concluded that non-signatory parties, by virtue of their relationship with the signatory and engagement in commercial activities, cannot be deemed strangers to the dispute under arbitration.
10. Chief Justice of India included in body to select Election Commissioners
Case Title: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors
In March, the apex court held that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (EC) would be selected by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), till a law is made by Parliament.
The Court held that in the absence of the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be on the committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and ECs.
However, before the year drew to a close, Parliament cleared a Bill which excludes the CJI from the selection panel.
Under the new law, the selection panel will comprise the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
11. The Maharashtra political crisis
Case Title: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and ors
In May, the Court held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to call for a floor test based on the request of thirty-four MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena was incorrect since Koshyari did not have enough objective material before him to conclude that then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the house.
However, the Court held that status quo cannot be restored now since Thackeray did not face the floor test but chose to resign.
The Governor is not entitled to enter the political arena and play a role in intra-party and inter-party disputes, the Court said.
The verdict came on a batch of pleas concerning the change of power in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly after the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena formed the State government with the help of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), ousting Thackeray from the Chief Minister post in the process.
12. Delhi government versus Lieutenant Governor
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
In another judgment that had significant political ramifications, the Supreme Court in May held that the Delhi government (and not the Lieutenant Governor) would have control over all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except those pertaining to land, police and law and order.
The Court observed that while a state or union territory has the power to make laws on subjects under the Concurrent List, the same would be subject to the existing Central law. At the same time, it has to be ensured that the governance of states is not taken over by the Central government, the Court opined.
However, a week after the judgment, the President of India passed an ordinance (that eventually was enacted as a law) to give overriding powers to Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, who is the Central government nominee, to oversee transfers, postings and disciplinary proceedings against civil servants in Delhi.
A challenge to the same filed by the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government is pending adjudication before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
13. Tussles between Governors and elected governments of states
The latter half of 2023 also saw petitions being filed by the elected governments in Punjab, Kerala and Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court against their respective Governors. The grievances of the elected government related to delays by Governors in assenting to Bills passed by the State legislature.
On November 10, while delivering its judgment in Punjab's case, the Supreme Court made it clear that a Governor cannot use his/her constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills. Days later, the Supreme Court asked Kerala Governor Mohammad Arif Khan to go through the Court's November 10 verdict, after similar grievances were raised against Khan. The petitions against the Kerala Governor, as well as the Tamil Nadu Governor (RN Ravi) are still pending.
14. Manipur Violence crisis
The outbreak of intense violence in Manipur earlier this year triggered a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court, which also eventually took suo motu cognisance of the issue after a video of two women from the Kuki-Zomi community being paraded naked and molested by a mob of men went viral.
The Manipur Tribal Forum had told the top court that the Central government's assurances on restoring peace in the State are empty, with BJP-backed communal groups being behind the attacks on tribals.
The Court eventually constituted an all-woman committee headed by retired Justice Gita Mittal to examine various issues concerning the State-wide conflict.
The case is still ongoing. In the last hearing of the matter on December 15, the Court recorded the Manipur government's assurance that steps would be taken to ensure that persons in relief camps can attend ceremonies and prayers on the occasion of Christmas.
15. The controversy-mired elevation of Justice Victoria Gowri
In February, the top court rejected a plea by lawyers from Tamil Nadu challenging the Collegium recommendation to appoint Justice L Victoria Gowri as a judge of the Madras High Court.
All relevant facts, as well as the political background of Justice Gowri were taken into consideration by the Collegium before recommending her elevation, a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai held.
Justice Gowri had been in the eye of a storm ever since the Collegium recommended her elevation to the Madras High Court on January 17.
The recommendation sparked a discussion in legal circles and on social media about Gowri's credentials, her alleged affiliation to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and her remarks against Islam and Christianity, which are available on YouTube.
16. Regular bail for Teesta Setalvad
Case Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
A three-judge special bench in July granted bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in the conspiracy case lodged against her for allegedly maligning the State of Gujarat and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi for their handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots.
This, after the Supreme Court had on July 1 granted interim protection to Setalvad, who is accused of fabricating documents and tutoring witnesses to implicate higher functionaries of the Gujarat government.
The Court held a special sitting on a Saturday to stay the Gujarat High Court order denying the activist bail.
17. Relief for Rahul Gandhi
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and anr
In August, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction and two-year jail term imposed on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Gujarat court in a criminal defamation case for his remark "All thieves have Modi surname."
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and PV Sanjay Kumar said that the trial court did not give any specific reasons for imposing the maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment prescribed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of defamation, though the offence is a non-cognizable one.
The apex court further noted that the ramifications of Gandhi's conviction are wide and affect the rights of electorate of Wayanad, the constituency which Gandhi was representing as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha.
18. Top court clubs FIRs against Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera
Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam and ors
The Supreme Court in March ordered that the three cases registered against Congress leader Pawan Khera in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Assam after he botched the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a press conference, should be clubbed and transferred to Lucknow in UP.
Khera was picked up from the Delhi airport on February 23 after he had boarded a plane to Chhattisgarh's Raipur where he was headed for a meeting of the All India Congress Committee (AICC).
He had moved the top court the very same day, which granted him interim protection, which was later extended.
19. Supreme Court grants 2 Bhima Koregaon accused bail after 5 years in jail
Case Title: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Mere possession of literature through which violent acts may be propagated is not a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Supreme Court held while granting bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in the Bhima Koregaon case.
Activists Gonsalves and Ferreira, along with 14 others are accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of being responsible for the violence that erupted at the Bhima Koregaon war memorial in Pune in 2017.
While granting bail to the two activists, however, the Court noted that there was no evidence of Gonsalves and Ferreira having committed any terrorist act that would require the Court to invoke the stringent provisions against grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
20. Supreme Court refuses to grant regular bail to Manish Sisodia
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Supreme Court on October 30 denied bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with cases related to the Delhi excise policy scam.
Sisodia has been in custody since February 26 this year. He is being probed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The scam involves allegations that Delhi government officials had connived to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes. The accused officials are alleged to have tweaked the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers.
21. Why is the right to vote not a fundamental right?
Case title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K Madan Mohan Rao and Others
The Supreme Court in July observed that it was paradoxical that the right to vote has not been recognised as a fundamental right in India, despite democracy being an essential facet of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar stressed that an elector's right to know the detailed background of a candidate is part of constitutional jurisprudence.
The observations came in a judgment that upheld the lodging of an election petition by Congress leader K Madan Mohan Rao, who lost the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from Zahirabad to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader Bhim Rao Patil by 6,299 votes.
22. B.Ed graduates cannot teach at primary school level
Case Title: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India and ors
The Supreme Court in August ruled that Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) candidates are ineligible to hold primary school teacher posts.
The Court made it clear that B.Ed is in no terms a qualification to teach at the primary level (classes I to V). The Court noted that as per NCTE norms, the necessary qualification for primary teacher posts was a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.).
It also emphasised that elementary education is a fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution.
23. Poor implementation of POSH Act
Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others
In May, the Court took strong exception to the fact that even a decade after the enactment of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 (POSH Act), there remained serious lapses in its effective enforcement.
Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli said that the lack of internal complaints committees in several bodies reflected a sorry state of affairs.
The Court underlined that all state functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organizations and institutions are duty bound to implement the POSH Act in letter and spirit.
24. Adani Group-Hindenburg Research report saga
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Others
The Supreme Court in November reserved its verdict in a a batch of petitions seeking an examination of allegations of fraud made against the Adani Group of companies in the Hindenburg Research report.
The bench had remarked that the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) cannot be expected to follow newspaper reports while deciding on the conglomerate's alleged conduct.
The case before the Court is tied to allegations that Adani had inflated its share prices. After these allegations were published as part of a report by short-seller Hindenberg Research), it led to a sharp fall in the share value of various Adani companies, reportedly to the tune of $100 billion.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court asked SEBI to independently investigate the matter, apart from constituting an expert committee headed by retired Justice AM Sapre to also look into the matter.
The expert committee in its report released in May, found no prima facie lapse on the part of the SEBI in the matter.
25. No reopening of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case
Case Title: Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation
In March, a five-judge Bench refused to order a revision of the settlement amount in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, noting that it was important to bring a closure to proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected a curative petition filed by the Central government seeking additional compensation to be paid by American chemical company Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) to victims of the 1984 incident.
The Court said that imposing greater liability on Union Carbide Corporation is not warranted and that reopening the issue would only open a Pandora's Box and be detrimental to the claimants.
Judges should not preach
Case Title: Probhat Purkait @ Provat vs State of West Bengal
On December 7, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Calcutta High Court order passed in October, where the High Court advised young girls and boys to rein in their sexual urges. Adolescent girls must control their sexual urges instead of "giving in to two minutes of pleasure," the High Court had added.
On December 8, the Supreme Court took a dim view of such comments by the High Court, and orally observed that judges are not expected to "preach" in this manner.
Whether ED must furnish grounds of arrest
Case Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others
The Supreme Court in October ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply, in writing, the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar said that the accused has a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
However, this ruling was diluted by another bench later in the year.
Accused can seek interim bail from courts outside State where FIR lodged
Case Title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Others
The Supreme Court in November ruled that High Courts and Sessions Courts can grant anticipatory bail to an accused even if the first information report (FIR) is registered in another State.
Standalone offence of conspiracy does not attract PMLA
Case Title: Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement
In November, the Supreme Court ruled that for a money-laundering case to be initiated on allegations of a criminal conspiracy, the conspiracy has to be linked with a money-laundering offence.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal held that allowing criminal conspiracy to be a scheduled offence by itself, without any link to any money laundering offence, would render the PMLA meaningless and redundant.
Not open for High Court to comment on merits of a case when conviction is confirmed by Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Lodha
The Bench of Justices MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat held that High Courts are not allowed to make any comment on the merits of a case once the Supreme Court confirms a conviction.
Child of void/voidable marriage has right to parents' ancestral property in Hindu joint family
Case Title: Revanasiddappa and Another v. Mallikarjun and Others
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ruled that children born out of void or voidable marriages can claim a right in their parents' ancestral property in joint Hindu families following the Mitakshara system of law.
Refusal to entertain PIL for audit of EVMs
Case Title: Sunil Ahya v. Election Commission Of India
A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an audit of the software used in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the source code of the software cannot be put in public domain, as it will make the EVMs susceptible to hacking.
Supreme Court lays down factors necessary to decide on remission
Case Title: Rajo v. State of Bihar and Others
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Prashant Kumar Mishra highlighted the importance of holistically considering applications for premature release or remission of eligible convicts and laid down factors to guide such decisions.
Response sought from Central government, States on plea seeking reservation for Transgender persons
Case Title: Subi KV v. Union of India and Others
A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra sought responses of the Central government and all States and Union Territories on a plea seeking reservation for transgender persons in education and employment.
IBC overrides Electricity Act; Creditors should be repaid before settling government dues
Case Title: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Raman Ispat Private Limited and Others
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta ruled that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (IBC) overrides the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003, in view of Section 238 of the IBC.
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that creditors under the IBC, both secured and unsecured, are entitled to have their debts repaid first before dues payable to the State or the Central governments are settled.
Direction to High Courts, State DGPs to ensure compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines to avoid unnecessary arrests
Case Title: Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand and Another
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar ordered the issue of circulars, notifications and instructions to ensure that police authorities and criminal courts strictly adhere to the guidelines on arrest laid down in the 2014 Arnesh Kumar case.
Rape on promise of marriage: Stay on Allahabad High Court order seeking woman's kundali to ascertain her mangalik status
Case Title: In re order dated 23.05.2023 in Monu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In a special sitting, a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that had directed the astrology department of Lucknow University to study a woman's kundali (horoscope or birth chart) to find out whether she is a mangalik.
The Supreme Court said that a court of law, when deciding a bail plea, cannot enter into the realm of astrology, which are private matters of an individual.
Senior Designations: Interview criteria upheld but points reduced for publications
Case Title: Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar upheld the interview criteria followed by High Courts and the Supreme Court for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates but reduced the points given for the number of publication as a criterion.
The Court also ruled that voting by judges for conferring the gown should not be by secret ballot except in exceptional circumstances.
Not everything said by a judge while pronouncing judgment constitutes precedent
Case Title: Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh observed that not everything said by a Judge when pronouncing a judgment constitutes a precedent.
Irretrievably broken down marriage can be dissolved on ground of cruelty
Case Title: Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt Kavita
A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala held that an irretrievably broken down marriage spells cruelty in itself, and can be a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
High Courts to ensure all criminal trial, civil suit records are digitised by district courts
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Rode vs Union of India
A Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol issued directions to all High Courts towards ensuring digitisation of lower court records.
Late evening hearing to stay Calcutta High Court judge Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's direction to apex court Secretary General
Case Title: In Re: Suo Motu proceedings in WPA No. 10634 of 2023 by single-judge of the Calcutta High Court
A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli stayed the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of Calcutta High Court directing the Supreme Court Secretary General to produce the report and official transcript of an interview Justice Gangopadhyay had given to a news channel.
In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the order by the High Court was improper and against judicial discipline.
Hate Speech: Earlier order to police for suo motu action irrespective of religion is applicable to all states, UTs
Case Title: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India
A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna extended the scope of a previous order directing police to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without looking at the religion of the offenders to all states and union territories across the country.
In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of an interim order which was earlier only limited to the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police.
Do not approve of reasoning of Delhi HC judgment that RTI Act applies to ED for human rights, corruption issues
Case Title: Union of India v. Central Information Commission and Another
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said that it did not approve of the reasoning behind a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act apply to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
Implementation of uniform policy in all states for ensuring menstrual hygiene, free sanitary pads for students
Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India
A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala directed the Central government to implement a uniform national policy on menstrual hygiene, including distribution of free menstrual pads to students.
In this case, the Supreme Court also asked states and union territories to submit details on availability of girls toilets in schools and the supply of menstrual products/sanitary pads in schools.
Corruption has become a way of life; botched investigations in these cases are more distressing
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta in a strongly-worded judgment that lamented the pervasive corruption which is preventing equal distribution of wealth in India, and has regrettably become a way of life.
When can DNA test be ordered to ascertain paternity of child?
Case Title: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and V Ramasubramanian held that DNA test in children to ascertain their paternity in matrimonial disputes, should be done only in exceptional cases when it becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy.
Courts, tribunals should not rely on Wikipedia
Case Title: HP India Sales Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath cautioned courts and adjudicating authorities against reliance on free online sources like Wikipedia.
The Supreme Court has also reserved judgments in at least five important matters that could have large ramifications.
This includes a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, which concerns the grant of citizenship to immigrants who are covered by the Assam Accord.
Also pending is the verdict in the batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the electoral bonds scheme that allows anonymous donations to political parties.
A CJI-led seven judge Bench is also set to deliver its verdict on whether the legal immunity enjoyed by legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them from prosecution for taking bribes.
Another important verdict expected in 2024 concerns the Court's decision to have a relook at the correctness of the Asian Resurfacing judgment. The matter concerns the question of whether interim stay orders granted by courts in civil and criminal cases should operate only for six months unless specifically extended.
The judgment in the case concerning remission granted to convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape, which happened during the Gujarat riots of 2002, is also awaited.
Notably, a question of whether the Supreme Court's judgment in the Vijay Madanlal case, concerning the validity of PMLA provisions, is also pending before the top court.