New Delhi: Whether it’s deciding on the legal challenge to the Centre’s 2019 decision of abrogating Articles 370 and 35 of the Constitution, or settling the question of whether migrants and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) have a right to cast vote from where they are, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, and A.S. Bopanna have much to do.
The three judges of the Supreme Court are all set to retire over the next few months — Justice Kaul on 25 December and the other two in May. But before they demit office, the judges have to decide on at least 29 important cases pending before them, court records accessed by ThePrint show.
These cases include, among others, the legal challenge to sections of the Special Marriage Act — which governs interfaith marriages in India — and whether there should be sub-quotas under the reserved Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories.
Rulings on a large number of these cases are pending, and it’s unclear if they will be pronounced before their retirement.
Here’s a breakdown of the cases each of these judges is hearing.
Also Read: Not just a ‘lower court problem’: New book says 40% cases pending in Supreme Court for over 5 yrs
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice Kaul, who earlier headed the high courts of Punjab and Haryana, and Madras, was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2017.
He is part of a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y.Chandrachud hearing the legal challenge against the August 2019 decision to abrogate Articles 370 and 35 — both of which gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The petition, dating back to 2019, urges the court to decide if the decision of the Narendra Modi government was legally tenable.
He is also a member of a seven-judge bench called to decide whether immunities that legislators enjoy under Article 194 of the Constitution concerning statements made in the legislatures will override the fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19.
The case, which dates back to 2003, involves an editorial published in The Hindu criticising the AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) government in Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Assembly took cognizance of the editorial and passed resolutions claiming a breach of privilege of the House under Article 194.
In 2003, a five-judge bench referred the case to a seven-judge bench.
On 7 October 2023, the matter was listed before CJI Chandrachud. That same month, a bench led by CJI Chandrachud and comprising Justices Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra decided to hear the matter in March 2024.
Apart from these cases, Justice Kaul is part of a seven-judge constitutional bench that will decide if sub-quotas should be given within reserved SC and ST categories. He’s also part of another seven-judge bench that will decide on the validity of an unstamped arbitration agreement. The judgment for the last case was reserved on 12 October.
The rulings in all of these cases, as well as a variety of others that Justice Kaul is part of, are currently pending, and it’s unclear how many of these cases will see their conclusion before Justice Kaul retires this month.
Justice Aniruddha Bose
Justice Aniruddha Bose, the former chief justice of Jharkhand HC who was elevated to SC in September 2019, has five important cases pending. Among the most significant is the legal challenge to the Tripura government’s decision to book 102 people, inluding lawyers and journalists, under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for criticising the administration’s handling of the October 2021 communal violence in the state.
Justice Bose is also part of a five-judge bench hearing a petition challenging WhatsApp’s data-sharing policy. According to the petition, the policy allows the platform to share user data with its parent company, Meta, violating the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Apart from these, he is part of a bench that will decide whether to transfer to itself all cases involving the mandatory linking of the Aadhaar with social media accounts. He’s also part of a bench framing comprehensive guidelines for the delivery of justice for victims of sexual abuse.
He’s also hearing a case to decide if the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry can be called the ‘administrative head’ of the union territory.
Justice A.S. Bopanna
Elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019, Justice Bopanna previously served as chief justice of the Gauhati High Court. He currently has a total of 18 pending cases, including JMM MLA Sita Soren’s petition challenging bribery charges against her.
In this case, a seven-judge SC bench will decide whether a legislator can claim immunity from prosecution under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution in cases allegedly involving bribes taken to vote a certain way.
“No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings,” Article 194 (2) reads.
Judgment in this case was reserved on 4 October.
He’s also a five-judge Constitution bench that’s hearing a case challenging Article 334 of the Constitution, which provides reservations in the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies. In this case, the bench will decide if the reservation under the Article — initially provided for 10 years but extended subsequently — violates the Right to Equality.
The case was last heard on 21 November.
Besides these, Justice Bopanna is also part of benches deciding other important issues. For instance, he’s part of the bench that will decide on whether migrants and NRIs should be allowed to vote via postal ballots and e-voting, the legal challenge to the Special Marriage Act, the deportation of Rohingya refugees, and the constitutionality of the now repealed central farm laws.
He’s also hearing a petition asking for uniform laws for divorce, maintenance, and alimony in India. The decision is expected to have a significant bearing on the raging debate concerning the need for a uniform civil code (UCC).
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)