2018: The year crisis-hit Indian judiciary redeemed itself to glory

During the months after four SC judges' press meet against CJI Misra, the judiciary went on to deliver some of the historic verdicts in 2018.
Supreme Court  (File | EPS)
Supreme Court (File | EPS)

The year 2018 didn’t start on a positive note for the Indian judiciary. On January 12, four the then senior-most judges Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph first wrote a letter to the 45th Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and then held a press conference saying that the overall administration in the Supreme Court was not in order and for the survival of country’s democracy, the apex court’s integrity should be preserved.

While the whole event sharply divided the judiciary, political fraternity got involved into the blame game against each other.

However, the judiciary went on to deliver some of the historic verdicts in next few months, be it allowing women of menstruating ages to enter Kerala’s Sabarimala shrine or decriminalizing gay sex in country. CJI Misra, before retiring on October 2, pronounced verdicts in most of these cases.

Here are some of the top verdicts of the Supreme Court in 2018:

Allowing women of child-bearing age group to enter Sabarimala shrine: On September 28, the Supreme Court allowed the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 in Kerala’s Sabarimala shrine. The verdict thereby ended the centuries-old tradition of barring menstruating women from visiting the 800-year-old shrine. The only dissenting voice among the five-judge apex court was Justice Indu Malhotra as she said that issues with deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with, in order to maintain the country’s secular fabric.

The verdict created a furore in Kerala. While the ruling Left government decided to abide by the judgment, the opposition parties and religious bodies protested against it. During October 17-19,  the shrine saw massive agitations as Ayyappa worshippers created roadblocks and stopped vehicles with women of menstrual ages from reaching the shrine. More than four women, including journalists and activists, were stopped and heckled, while the priests threatened the sanctum closure. Review petitions against the verdict were submitted in the SC later. 

Upholding Aadhaar’s constitutional validity: On September 26, the Supreme Court declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid and struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also held that Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of Income Tax Returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN). Aadhaar was also exempted from CBSE, NEET and UGC exams. The bench also struck down the National Security Exception clause under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act.

Historic verdict decriminalising Section 377: On September 6, the then CJI Dipak Misra-led five-judge Constituion bench unanimously decriminalised part of the 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that banned consensual unnatural sex between adults. CJI Misra also stressed that the LGBTQ community enjoys equal constitutional rights as other. The court however, upheld the other aspects of the Section 377 dealing with unnatural sex with animals and children.

The earlier provisions of Section 377 said that whoever voluntarily had carnal intercourse against the natural order with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with life or 10-year imprisonment, along with paying a fine. There were a series of petitions filed in the apex court by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath, Keshav Suri, business executive Ayesha Kapur and 20 former and current IIT students against the clause.

Scrapping of the anti-adultery law: The Supreme Court on October 27 struck down a colonial-era anti-adultery law under Section 497 of the IPC and said that in a marriage, husband can not be the master of his wife. The 158-year-old clause said, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery."

While the National Commission for Women welcomed the verdict, activists and experts, including Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chief Swati Maliwal criticised it. Social activist Brinda Adige also asked whether the above verdict would allow men to indulge in polygamy. 

Putting the onus on Parliament to deal with criminalisation of politics: On September 25, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra left it to the Parliament to enact a law to prevent entry of criminal elements into the political stream. The court also observed that the country has seen a steady increase in the criminalisation of politics over the years. While noting down the Attorney General K K Venugopal's submission that the court should not go above its fixed separation of powers from the executive, the judicial bench said that it could only recommend the introduction of a law to keep the politics clean. The apex court also added that during polls, candidates must declare pending criminal cases against them and these must also go online. SC also suggested that the above details must be published thrice for voters after nomination filing.

Settling the 'mosque debate' in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid row: On September 27, the apex court declined to set up a larger bench for a relook of its 1994 Ismail Faruqui case verdict which said a mosque was not an essential part of the Islamic practices. The court also said that though the previous verdict was delivered 24 years back with a limited context of "land acquisition", it was irrelevant in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. The latest order paved the way for a newly-constituted three-member judicial bench to hear the politically sensitive case from October 29. 

The mosque reference cropped up when CJI Misra, who retired on October 2, was hearing appeals filed against the Allahabad HC’s 2010 verdict that the disputed land was be divided into three parts among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The court declined the plea of late M Siddiq, one of the original Ayodhya litigants that the matter be referred to a larger bench. While criticising the 1994 verdict, a Muslim group had approached the apex court again, saying that the ruling had affected the HC decision.

Justice SA Nazeer, the third judge in the panel led by outgoing CJI Misra, dissented with the other two judges' and said the mosque debate could not be decided without a "detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith". He also favoured the issue to be reconsidered by a larger bench.

Live streaming of court proceedings: The apex court allowed the live streaming of its proceedings in a September 26 verdict. Calling it as a pilot project, the court also said that proceedings of cases of constitutional and national importance can be live streamed, with prior permission. The court also added that it had the power to stop the streaming, depending on the situation.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com