Fundamental rights are a minor part of the Supreme Court’s docket – CLPR’s “Rights in Review 2014”

Aparna Ravi and Jayna Kothari, working at the Centre for Law & Policy Research are the authors of a report analyzing the defence of fundamental rights by the country’s highest court. Titled “Rights in Review 2014”, the report takes into account significant judgments in the last twelve months, and comes out with some rather interesting findings..As the report mentions, there is an increasing amount of information available when it comes to pendency figures. In fact, the Supreme Court itself publishes monthly pendency figures as well as an annual review. However, it was the scarcity of qualitative analysis that pushed CLPR to prepare this report..And the findings, which are many, are certainly interesting starting from the number of judgments itself. Says Aparna,.“There is a perception in the media that Fundamental Right cases are a major part of the docket. We found out that this was simply not the case.”.Expecting at least forty important judgments dealing with fundamental rights, the actual number of cases was almost a third of that figure. The report reviews fifteen judgments delivered from January 1 to December 15 last year that,.“… have developed the law in new directions, confirm an uncertain line of reasoning or apply the law to new factual contexts.”.The report is an interesting mix of judgments that have been widely reported as well as those that have not been given much space in the media. So along with the Right to Education case (Pramati Educational) and review of death penalty cases (Mohd. Arif), there is also mention of the striking down of age-based classification under Article 14 of the Indian constitution (Atul Shukla) and the regulation of labour in the newspaper industry by the Wage Boards (ABP Pvt Ltd)..But apart from an analysis of the judgments themselves, the report also does raise some interesting questions on the functioning of the Supreme Court. For instance, the apparent conflict between NALSA and Koushal – a function of the fact that,.“…co-ordinate benches of 2 judges decide constitutional questions of great importance without reference to a 5 judge bench.”.The report also takes into account the practical consequences of these judgments. After the RTE judgment in Pramati, where minority schools were granted an exemption, more and more schools have sought a minority status..Being the first year such a report has been published, both Aparna and Jayna agree that it is a work in progress. They do plan on making it an annual exercise, perhaps delving into the finer nuances such as bench composition, or even length of the judgments. Apart from this particular report, CLPR is also studying the workings of fast track courts for Section 376 cases, foster care laws, and voters with disabilities..“I think it has been a relatively good year for fundamental rights”, says Jayna, “but we do hope to generate greater awareness about the role of the Supreme Court.”.You can read the entire report below: