Of the at least 35 judgments that dominated headlines in 2018, ThePrint takes a look at 7 key orders passed by the top court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India had an eventful year in 2018.
From the unprecedented press conference in January by its four senior-most judges to verdicts that were historic in scope, the top court of the country had a lot on its plate.
Just a year after its landmark ‘right to privacy’ judgment, the Supreme Court heard several important cases, including the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and the right to sexual preference (Section 377 of Indian Penal Code).
Apart from the much-discussed Sabarimala verdict, the court also passed judgments upholding women’s equal rights.
Of the at least 35 judgments that dominated headlines in 2018, ThePrint takes a look at 7 key orders passed by the top court.
Also read: A look at what India’s Supreme Court delayed, dismissed and decided in 2018
Aadhaar
On 26 September, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act in a 4:1 majority judgment. While it struck down the contentious clause that allowed private sector to demand Aadhaar details as proof of identification, it held that the Act did not create a surveillance state.
The bench, led by then CJI Dipak Misra, also found nothing wrong in the government taking the Money Bill route to get the law passed in Parliament.
However, to those warning about the dangers of this unique 12-digit biometric identity number, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s lone dissenting opinion was a ray of hope.
In his 480-page judgment, Chandrachud slammed the central government’s move of passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill, and said the technology deployed in the Aadhaar scheme reduced different constitutional identities into a single identity of a 12-digit number and infringed on the right of an individual to identify herself/himself through a chosen means.
Sabarimala
Two days after the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
Passed by a CJI-led Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with a 4:1 majority, the order observed that barring the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years, or when they are in the menstruation age, into the Sabarimala temple was not an essential part of the religion.
Denying Hindu women entry into the temple violated their fundamental right to practice religion, the bench added.
The top court’s judgment came over 12 years after a plea was filed challenging the Kerala High Court’s 1991 order that upheld the practice of banning temple entry to women between the age of 10 and 50.
However, the lone dissenting opinion – penned by Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman on the bench — said it is not for courts to determine which practices of a faith are to be struck down, except if they are oppressive.
Section 377
On 6 September, the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality under the controversial Section 377 of the IPC in one of the most celebrated judgments of the year.
The court called the law “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”.
The judgment, striking down the 157-year-old Colonial-era law, was delivered by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Misra.
“The LGBT community possess equal rights under the Constitution,” Misra said, while pronouncing the verdict.
“We have to vanquish prejudice, embrace inclusion, and ensure equal rights,” he added.
Reservation in promotions
In another important judgment, delivered on 26 September, the Supreme Court ruled that states are free to provide reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) without collecting data of their backwardness.
The bench also said that backwardness will be presumed for SCs and STs, but reiterated that it won’t be mandatory for states to provide this reservation.
The court partially modified its 2006 M. Nagaraj judgment, but declined to refer it to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Revision of anti-dowry law
On 14 September, the Supreme Court retracted one of the ‘guidelines’ it issued last year to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which seeks to curb harassment for dowry and domestic violence.
The court observed that dowry had a “chilling effect” on marriage. It had earlier reserved judgment on a batch of pleas that sought review of its July 2017 order that allegedly diluted the anti-dowry law.
The CJI-led bench, however, retained the contentious guideline that restricts immediate arrest of husband and his family under this law, commonly referred to as the anti-dowry provision.
Another bench of the court had earlier issued 15 guidelines that were criticised for “diluting the law”, which was brought in 1983 to prevent violence against women in their marital homes.
Adultery
In a judgment decriminalising adultery, the Supreme Court on 27 September observed that “a husband is not master of his wife”.
While striking down Section 497 of the IPC, the court called the law “unconstitutional” and “absolutely manifestly arbitrary”.
In doing so, the court struck down a second Colonial-era law in the same month.
Under Section 497 of IPC, a married man could be punished for having sex with the wife of another man but the act would be exempt from punishment if it was done with the consent of the woman’s husband.
Also read: How the Supreme Court took it upon itself to become a daily criminal investigation monitor
No automatic arrest under SC/ST Atrocities Act
On 20 March, the top court passed an order adding “safeguards” to prevent immediate arrests under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit said there could be no immediate arrests without a preliminary investigation and allowed granting of anticipatory bail in certain cases. It also decreed that prior sanction was needed before arresting a government employee.
The apex court observed that a law, primarily enacted to protect the disenfranchised, had now become a tool to “blackmail” innocent people and other public servants. This law was being used to exact “vengeance,” the bench said.
Despite a Central government plea later to reconsider its order, the Supreme Court refused to stay its ruling.