17 JUDGEMENTS IN 2020
1.Consider taking away power of disqualification from the Speaker
The Speaker also belongs to a political party, the court emphasised, 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.
2.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.
3.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 judgement 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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.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 coparceny (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-biassed and unreasonable.”
8.SC Upholds Union’s Restrictions to Foreign Donations for NGOs
On April 8th 2022, Justices A.M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar upheld the constitutionality of the The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 through which the Union government further restricted NGO’s strictly regulated access to foreign funds. The NGO sector was hit hardest by the provisions of the Amendment that barred more visible NGOs from sub granting foreign funds to grassroots organisations.
A group of NGOs challenged the Amendment at the Supreme Court, arguing that it was arbitrary and violated their right to foreign funds. The Union stated that the Amendment was necessary to prevent diversion of foreign funds to activities that endanger national security.
The Court stated that the Amendment would allow the Union government to monitor transactions more carefully and ensure that the sovereignty and integrity of the nation is maintained. Further, the SC clarified that there is no ‘right’ to receive foreign donations.
Note : Which is the longest Judgement in India?
However, the case of Kesavanand Bharati v. The State of Kerala continues to hold the top spot for the longest hearing ever to have taken place in the Supreme Court. It was heard for 68 days. Hearing in the Kesavananda Bharati case commenced on October 31, 1972, and concluded on March 23, 1973
