A rundown of the outgone year, 2020 shows an assortment of crucial Supreme Court judgments, including a few that changed the landscape of judicial history.
NEET will be the only entrance for medical admissions
The Supreme Court put an end to all speculation and confusion when it ruled in April that the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) would be the only uniform entrance test for medical admissions in the country, and that no institution could hold its separate exam. It held that minority institutions, deemed universities, and private colleges must also abide with the pertinent regulations and that they cannot claim violation of their rights to admit students since NEET is in the larger national interest. The court dismissed a clutch of petitions by religious and linguistic minority institutions, which opposed various notifications and rules made in the Medical Council of India Act and Dentist Act in order to prescribe NEET as the all-India exam for admissions to graduate and post-graduate medical courses.
SC: Vacant Private Medical College seats can be filled as per NEET merit list. Read Order here
Nine-judge bench should decide Faith vs Right to pray
By referring the issue to a bench of nine judges, the apex court kept the issue of entry of women of all ages to Kerala’s Sabrimala temple alive without setting aside the previous ruling allowing such access. It turned down objections by a set of parties, pointing to a bunch of other cases raising the similar issues relating to entry of women in places of worship of various religions, including mosques and fire temples. Holding that no matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the apex court, the nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, noted that the reference was required to “do complete justice” in a pending matter, namely Sabarimala. While the matter was referred to the larger bench in February itself, the reasons behind the decision were released only in May.
Suo motu public interest litigation on migrants’ crisis during Covid-19 lockdown
Initially hesitant, the Supreme Court in May commenced suo motu (on its own) proceedings in a bid to ameliorate the problems faced by migrant workers left stranded in different parts of the country due to the coronavirus-induced lockdown. After hearing the Centre and states, it directed that all migrant workers wishing to go back home must be transported within a fortnight. For those who had already returned, the court ordered states and union territories to ensure registration (of around 10 million migrant workers) at village and block levels to identify their employability and provide them jobs in the home states. This order, however, came at least a month after a different bench in the Supreme Court expressed satisfaction at the steps being taken by the government and said the situation did not seem to be a “crisis” -- a term used in the suo motu order though. The court has since initiated two other suo motu cases with respect to treatment facilities and spread of the infection in the child protection homes.
Daughters’ right in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property
In 2005, a watershed amendment was made in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to give daughters the same rights in the coparcenary (parental) property as the sons. But two judgments by the top court gave conflicting decisions as to whether it was necessary for a man to be alive on the date of the 2005 amendment to give his daughter the right in the parental property. A three-judge bench settled this dispute in August when it ruled that a right of the daughter is secured at the time of her birth. The father being alive or not on the date of the amendment will not affect her rights in any manner. It said: “A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life...The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed on a par with an unmarried daughter (for she must have been once in that state) to claim the benefit...(Otherwise, it would be) unfair, gender-biased and unreasonable.”
CBI probe in actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death case
While the mystery remains to be solved, the Supreme Court in August ordered for a CBI investigation into Sushant Singh Rajput’s death , and directed the Maharashtra government to render all assistance. The court rejected Maharashtra government’s argument that Rajput’s father could not have got an FIR registered at Patna, which later formed the basis for the Bihar government to recommend a CBI probe. The top court delivered the verdict on a plea of actor Rhea Chakraborty who sought transfer of FIR lodged against her at Patna to Mumbai where the 37-year-old Rajput was found dead inside his apartment in suburban Bandra.
Sushant Singh Rajput Death: SC orders CBI probe in case, asks Maharashtra to assist
Public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters
In the context of protests in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the apex court held that occupation of public roads and public spaces in exercise of the right to protest is not permissible under the law. It added that notwithstanding the fact that the right to protest is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, protests have to be in designated areas after due approvals from the authorities concerned. The court also obligated the law enforcement agencies to act, saying the administration must keep public spaces free from obstructions and that they cannot wait either for an order from the court or go on having endless talks with the protesters.
'Occupying Public Place indefinitely for protest not acceptable', Supreme Court on Shaheen Bagh
A woman’s right to a shared household
By a judgment in October, the Supreme Court broke new ground when it ruled that a woman facing domestic violence has a right to reside in a shared household even if it is owned or rented by her in-laws and the husband has no legal right in the property. It said the household may even belong to a joint-family or be rented by the woman’s in-laws but the complainant still has a right to reside in it if she has been living there after her marriage. It would also not matter if she has been compelled to move out after the discord since the house will still be treated as a shared household, entitling her to live in it once she files a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. In a recent judgment, the top court extended this right to hold that an aggrieved woman cannot be evicted summarily even by a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act and that she must be heard when the shared household belongs to her in-laws.
Bail to Arnab Goswami
In November, the Supreme Court protected Republic TV founding editor Arnab Goswami from arrest in connection with a case of abetment to suicide. The charge related to the suicide of an interior designer who was owed money by Goswami’s company. The apex court held that the Bombay High Court – which declined Goswami’s request for interim bail – “abdicated its constitutional duty and function as a protector of liberty” by not conducting a prima facie evaluation of the FIR against Goswami and the other accused in the case. It further underlined that the criminal law should not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens.
Source Link
Picture Source :
