Popular Judgements & Opinions delivered by Supreme Court in 2023

Namaste, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Lawmates. We at Lawmates bring to you the list of the most popular judgments & opinions delivered by the Supreme Court in 2023.

This is your author, Arpit Sethi, get ready and open your mind as we explore these landmark rulings and uncover the profound impact they have on our legal Fraternity. Let’s begin this journey: –

PART-I

1. The case of Vivek Narayan Sharma versus Union of India, where a five-judge constitution bench upheld by a four is to one majority the decision taken by the Union government six years ago to demonetize the currency notes of 500 and 1000 denominations. The majority held that the centre’s notification, dated November 8, 2016, is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagratna, in her dissenting view, held that though demonetization was, well, intentional and well thought of, it has to be declared unlawful on legal grounds and not based on objects.
2. In the case of Kaushal Kishore versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench held that additional restrictions not found in Article 19 (2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right to free speech under Article 19 (1) (a) of ministers, MPs and MLAs. It held that the grounds mentioned in Article 19 (2), for restricting free speech are exhaustive. The quote by four is to one majority added that statements made by minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the government, even applying the principle of collective responsibility. In her dissenting opinion, Justice BV Nagratna agreed that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech in addition to grounds under Article 19 (2). However, she observed that in case a minister makes disparaging statements in his official capacity, then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government.
3. In the case Rohan Dungat v. State of Goa and others, the bench of Justice Mr. Shah and Justice C T. Ravi Kumar held that the parole period has to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa prison Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of imprisonment for premature release. The bench held that if the parole period is included as part of the sentence period, then any prisoner who is influential enough may get parole several times.
4. In the case of association of old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India. The bench of Justices Mr. Shah and B. V Nagratna held that excluding a Sikkim woman merely because she married a non-Sikkim after 1st April 2008 from exemption provisions under section 10, clause 26 AA Income Tax Act is totally discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. The court also held that the exclusion of old Indian settlers who had permanently settled in Sikkim before the merger of Sikkim with India on 26 April 1975 from the definition of Sikham is in section ten, subclause 26 AA of the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional
5. In the case state through CBI versus Gangi Reddy. The bench of Justice Mr. Shah and Justice Ct. Ravikumar held that there is no bar in cancelling default bail on merits after the presentation of the charge sheet. The question that arose in the case was whether default bail could be cancelled after the presentation of the charge sheet when it was granted for not filing it within 90 days as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The next important case is Sorab Das versus Union of India. The quorum was Justices Mr. Shah and Ct. Ravikumar. It was held that police and investigating agencies like CB, ED, etc. Cannot be directed to upload the charge sheets filed in cases in a public platform for easy access by the general public.
7. In Manobhai, Sandabhai Bharvad and another versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others. The bench of Justices Mr Shah and M. M. Sondresh held that to continue with the temporary acquisition for some years would be arbitrary and can be said to infringe the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period, can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with or use of the land.
8. The bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai and B. V. Nagratna in the matter Baharul Islam and others versus Indian Medical Association struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act of 2004 which permitted diploma holders in medicine and rural healthcare to treat certain common diseases, perform minor procedures and prescribe certain drugs. The court said that any variation in the standards of the qualifications required of medical practitioners who render services in rural areas, that is, those rendering services in urban and metropolitan areas, is violative of the constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination.
9. The bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and Bella Mthravedi in the case titled Nayam Ahmed versus state, disapproved of the practice of trial judges recording the deposition of a witness only in the English language form as translated by the judge when the witness testifies in a different language. It was held that the evidence of the witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or the language of the witness as may be practicable, and then get it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record.
10. Next is the case of KL Sonaja and others versus Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga, where the bench of Justices Shah and S. Ravindra Bhatt issued an important direction that all courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines to ensure that amounts deposited with the office or registry of the courts or tribunals are mandatorily deposited in a bank or financial institution. This direction was issued to ensure that litigants do not face any future loss of interest on the amount deposited before the courts.
11. In reference policy strategy for grant of bail SMW, the Supreme Court’s bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishankal and Justice Abhay S. Oak issued guidelines on the issue of under-trial prisoners who continue to be in custody despite having been granted the benefit of bail on account of their inability to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the bail order or otherwise.
12. Moving on to the case titled Common Cause versus Union of India, the Constitution bench, comprising Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Rishikesh Roy and Ct. Ravi Kumar modified the slew of directions relating to advanced medical directives or living wills issued in a 2018 judgment that had recognized the right to die with dignity as an inextricable facet of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Anne had accordingly upheld the legal validity of passive euthanasia in the case of the Bar Council of India versus Bonnie Foy Law College and others.
13. Another constitution bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, Abhay S. Oak, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari upheld the power of the Bar Council of India to require law graduates to qualify for the All-India Bar examination as an eligibility criterion to practice law in India.
14. Aparna Ajinkya Firodhya versus Ajinkya Arun Firodhya. The bench comprised Justices v. Ram Subramaniam and BV Nagratna, observed that DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed only when there is sufficient prima facie material to dislodge the presumption under section 112 of the Indian Evidence act.
15. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement versus M Gopal Reddy, the bench of Justice Mr. Shah and C. T. Ravi Kumar reiterated that the conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for grant of bail are applicable to anticipatory bail applications under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.