The Supreme Court , once a hive of activity, remains quiet, but since March 23, when the courts started virtual hearings, life has returned to some sort of new normal : the court rooms have been substituted by virtual courts; paper books by computer files; judges conduct hearings through video conferencing; and technology largely determines success of a hearing, if not the outcome. But the year 2020 was as striking as any other year for the Supreme Court of India.
A rundown of the outgoing year shows an assortment of crucial judgments , including a few that changed the landscape of judicial history.
Access to Internet equivalent to a Fundamental Right
The first month of 2020 witnessed a three-judge bench ruling against the telecommunication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir following the scrapping of Article 370. The judgment did not directly order for restoration of the services in the backdrop of the security concerns, but laid down an important principle in law – right to access Internet is a fundamental right by extension. Therefore, it can be demanded as such before a constitutional court. Further, every blackout order must specify reasons and has to be reviewed regularly by the authorities concerned, the court said.
Access to Internet is a basic right, says HC [Read Judgement]
Consider taking away power of disqualification from the Speaker
The Speaker also belongs to a political party, emphasised the court, requesting Parliament to amend the Constitution and strip Legislative Assembly Speakers of their exclusive power to disqualify MLAs. The court was hearing an appeal by a Congress MLA from Manipur, who complained against a delay by the Speaker in deciding a disqualification petition against another MLA who won on a Congress ticket but later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The court maintained that disqualification cases of either MPs or the MLAs should be decided by an independent tribunal, outside Parliament or legislative assemblies. In this case, the court said it was bound by existing laws and thus asked the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition preferably within three months.
Anticipatory bail cannot have a deadline
A five-judge bench cleared the confusion on whether the protection given to a person through anticipatory bail was time-bound, as it ruled that a pre-arrest bail cannot be subject to time constraints and that it can very well continue till the end of trial. The bench added a caveat that if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.
No Fundamental Right to Reservation
In February, the top court ruled that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in public jobs; it added that no court could ask a state government to provide reservation. Explaining the constitutional mandate on providing reservation, the court held that it is within absolute discretion of a state government to decide whether or not to provide for reservation, and that there is no obligation on the states to mandatorily do so. It also clarified that a previous five-judge bench ruling on the necessity to collect data regarding inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government services was confined only to situations when a state wants to provide reservation but not otherwise. The judgment came when the court dealt with a bunch of cases on reservations for people from SCs and STs in promotions in a government department in Uttarakhand.
Permanent Commission for Women in armed forces
The year 2020 also saw the Supreme Court smashing the glass ceiling in services as it granted Permanent Commission (PC) to women officers in army, navy and air force. The deeply entrenched stereotype that men are dominant and women are primarily caretakers must end, said the court in a series of rulings in February when it struck down a 2019 circular that foreclosed the chances of women officers to apply for PCs. It directed the government to give PC to all serving women officers who have completed 14 years of service and to also give pensionary benefits to those who were retired on account of not being granted the commission. It added that service conditions of men and women officers would be the same and that the latter shall also be provided with choices of specialisations. Even for command assignments, there can’t be an absolute exclusion of women officers and they should be considered on a case-by-case basis, the court said.
Supreme Court hails Grant of Permanent Commission to Women Officers of Army
Cloud over Land Acquisition Law cleared
Following a stark difference of opinion between different benches of the apex court and a stalemate across various high courts where land acquisition cases remained pending, a five-judge bench overturned a 2014 ruling that was being followed widely. The bench held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act will not lapse if compensation payable to the landowner has been tendered by depositing it in the treasury, and not in the court or with the landowner. The 2014 ruling held that compensation would be treated as “paid” only if it were deposited in the court, not the treasury. The previous ruling had said that the land acquisition proceedings would have to be initiated again under the new law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and the acquisition process under the old 1894 Act would automatically lapse if the developer had not taken control of the land for five years, or if compensation was not paid to displaced farmers. Acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act gave land owners a chance to demand higher compensation for acquisition of their land by the government.
Political parties must publish criminal records of selected candidates on websites
Pushing for electoral reforms as it always has, the Supreme Court directed political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for assembly and Lok Sabha elections, along with the reasons that prompted them to field suspected criminals . The court held that the information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as on the parties’ social media handles. It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier, the court said.
SC expounds: Election Candidates must advertise their Criminal Record in Media. Read Judgment
Amendments in the SC/ST act upheld
After a smaller bench tweaked some mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) and laid down several requirements before registration of an FIR and arrest of an accused, a three-judge bench affirmed the Central government’s amendments to restore the original provisions of the law. The bench held that a preliminary inquiry is no longer a must when a complaint under this law is made. Also, no prior approval of appointing authority or a senior police officer is required before registration of an FIR. Further, there cannot be anticipatory bail in these cases until a court is satisfied that no case under the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out.
RBI ban on Cryptocurrency set aside
The Supreme Court left the door ajar for cryptocurrency in India as it quashed a 2018 circular by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) putting a complete ban on banking services for the virtual currency. The court held the 2018 circular as unreasonable and disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by RBI, clearing the decks for a regulatory regime of cryptocurrency in India instead of a complete ban. The 2018 circular stated that the entities regulated by RBI are prohibited from providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those related to the transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies.
Supreme Court Lifts RBI Ban On Trading In Cryptocurrency
SC disapproves ex post facto’ Environmental Clearance
The Supreme Court held that the concept of ‘ex post facto’ Environmental Clearance (EC) is against the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence. In its judgment in April, the court said that allowing industrial projects operate without EC would prove detrimental to the environment and lead to irreparable degradation. It further noted that a retrospective or an ex post facto environment clearance is “alien to environmental jurisprudence” because, before the issuance of an EC, the statutory notification (EIA notification 2006) warrants careful application of mind and a study into the likely consequences of a proposed activity on the environment. Significantly, this verdict came at a time when the draft of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020, to replace the EIA notification 2006, was floated. The new law proposed a lifeline for industrial projects that start operating without a valid EC.
Source Link
Look Back 2020: Key Supreme Court judgments that marked in previous year [Part-2]
Picture Source :
