SC Leading Judgment of 2024, Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India

SC Leading Judgment of 2024, Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India

Validity of Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders

High Court Bar Association Allahabad v The State of Uttar Pradesh

Validity of Unstamped Arbitration Agreement

In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899

Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution

Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration Proceedings

Cox and Kings Ltd. v SAP India Pvt. Ltd.

Plea for Marriage Equality

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India

Rights of Personal Guarantors in Insolvency Proceedings

Anil Dhirajlal Ambani v Union of India

Disqualification Proceedings Against Maharashtra MLAs

Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra

Revising Fee Scale For Arbitrators

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v Afcons Gunanusa JV

One Rank One Pension

Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v Union of India

Rakesh Asthana’s Appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India

Ayodhya Title Dispute

M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das

Sabarimala Temple Entry

Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala

Bhima Koregaon Arrests Under UAPA

Romila Thapar v Union of India

Constitutionality of Section 377 IPC

Navtej Singh Johar v UOI; Akkai Padmashali v UOI

Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India

Fundamental Right to Privacy

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India

Cow Vigilantism

Tehseen Poonawalla v UOI

Special Status of Delhi

Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India

Judicial Relevance of Parliamentary Report

Kalpana Mehta v Union of India

RTI and Judicial Independence

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Electoral Appeals Case

Abhiram Singh v C. D. Commachen

Re-promulgation of Ordinances

Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar

The Lieutenant Governor and the NCT Delhi

Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India

Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme

Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India

Hadiya Marriage Case

Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M.

Uniform Marriage Age

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

Framing of Criminal Charges & Electoral Disqualification

Public Interest Foundation v Union of India

Legislative Immunity for Lawmakers Facing Bribery Charges

Sita Soren v Union of India

Aadhaar Review

Beghar Foundation v Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Ret’d)

SC Leading Judgment of 2024, Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India

In Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen (2017) the majority in the 7-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that electoral candidates cannot seek votes on the grounds of religion. Justice Chandrachud delivered the dissenting opinion in the case. He differentiated between blanket communal appeals and grievance-based communal appeals to rule that only the former is prohibited under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to privacy. Justice Chandrachud authored the majority decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India speaking for himself and Khehar J, RK Agarwal J and Abdul Nazeer J. He recognised the right to privacy and dignity as an intrinsic part of the right to life.

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud wrote a concurring opinion in Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M. (2018) upholding Hadiya’s choice of religion and marriage partner. Hadiya had converted to Islam and married the petitioner Shafin Jahan, at which point her parents alleged that she had been brainwashed. Justice Chandrachud reiterated that an adult’s right to make decisions in marriage or religion falls within her zone of privacy.

Justice Chandrachud dismissed the demand for an enquiry into the circumstances of Judge Loya’s death in Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India. Judge Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

In his concurring opinion in Government of NCT of Delhi v Union of India (2018), Justice Chandrachud held that the Lieutenant Governor is not the executive head of Delhi. Since representative democracy is an essential feature of the executive, it must be led by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. He held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the Chief Minister’s advice and has no independent power under the Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud dissented in Romila Thapar v Union of India (2018) regarding the arrest of 5 human rights activists for allegedly instigating violence at Bhima Koregaon and participating in a criminal conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He stated that the issue was whether the arrests violated the accused of their fundamental rights to free expression and personal liberty guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He suggested that a Special Investigation Team probe the arrest of the activists.

Justice Chandrachud wrote a separate concurring opinion in Navtej Johar v Union of India (2018) as well, decriminalising section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and made same-sex intercourse legal. He held section 377 to be an ‘anachronistic colonial law,’ which violated the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of expression, life and privacy. He added that this could only be seen as a first step in guaranteeing LGBT individuals their constitutional rights.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2018) Justice Chandrachud, as a sole dissenter, held that the Aadhaar was unconstitutionally passed as a Money Bill. He also reviewed arguments on specific provisions of the Act which affected an individual’s privacy, dignity and autonomy.

In Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018), Justice Chandrachud concurred with the majority opinion in decriminalising adultery. He found that section 497 IPC violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. He read down section 198(2) CrPC. He opined that decriminalising adultery was rooted in patriarchal notions and had resulted in centuries of female subjugation.

In the Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, (2019) Justice Chandrachud held that the exclusion of women between the ages of 10-50 years from Sabarimala Temple violated constitutional morality. He further added that it subverted their autonomy, liberty, and dignity. Uniquely, he held that the custom also violated Article 17, which prohibits untouchability, as it assigns a notion of impurity to women.

Justice Chandrachud was also a member of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench in the Ayodhya Title Dispute (2019). The bench unanimously decided to grant the title over the disputed land, where the demolished Babri Masjid once stood, to the deity Shri Ram Virajman and allowed them to construct a separate temple at the site. The Sunni Waqf Board in charge of the Babri Masjid’s administration was granted 5-acres of land in a separate site to build a mosque.