Prithviraj Chauhan Vs.
Union of India (2020)
The constitutional validity of SC/ST Act, 1989.
Bench– Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
Facts:
upheld the Constitutional validity of provision mentioned under section 18-A of “The SC & STs
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018” and had nullified the effect of Kashinath
Mahajan case.
The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an Act to prevent the commission
of offences of atrocities in opposition to the participants of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes. Special Courts was enacted on 11th September 1989 for the trial of such
offences and for the relaxation and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Act does
not have anticipatory bail provision for offences registered beneath it.
Judgment:
The SC in this case observed that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail,
High Court had to balance two interests: i.e. that power was not so used as to convert
jurisdiction into that under Section 438 Code. No anticipatory bail to be given for offences
under SC/ST Amendment Act.
7. Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Babita Puniya (2020)
Permanent Commission for Women in Navy and Army.
Bench: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
Facts:
The provisions of section 12 of The Army Act, 1950, prohibited the recruitment of females into
Army except and to extent that central government allows. The central issue of this case was,
weather women should be granted a permanent commission in Indian Army?
Judgement:
The bench observed that, It was a clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 14 of Indian constitution. Also keeping in mind restrictions of Fundamental Rights in
Army, through Article 33, was to be restricted only to an extent which was necessary to ensure
proper discharge of duty and discipline. The bench duly granted for a permanent commission
for women in the Indian Army.
8. Internet and Mobile Association Vs. RBI (2020)
RBI’s band on trading in crypto-currency quashed.
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose V. Ramasubramanian
Facts:
RBI first issued ban on its banks dealing with crypto currency banking business, and later
proposed a bill on banning of crypto currency and regulation of official digital currency bill.
The petitioner contended that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdictions to disallow the trade
of virtual currency and cryptocurrencies are not a kind of currency note or coin but a medium of
exchange or a store of value.
Judgement: The Supreme court while hearing this matter has decided that; banning of digital
currency is unconstitutional as it violates the right of freedom to practise any trade and
profession guaranteed under article 19(1) (g) of Indian constitution.
The court also observed that although, RBI had power to take note of and deal with virtual
currencies but, prohibiting the same is to be considered as excessive measure as it cut off the
life time of Virtual currencies which can otherwise be a legitimate trade.
9. Shri Chand Construction and Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Capital Housing Finance
Ltd. (2020)
Bench: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Subramonium Prasad
Facts:
In this case, the plaintiff had brought an action against the defendant for recovery of damages.
The defendant however, failed to file its written statement within the prescribed time period
and, therefore, the court held that the right of the defendant to file written statement was
closed.
However, upon appeal, the Division Bench granted the defendant further time to file its written
statement.
Judgment:
The Court held that the use of words "all or certain disputes" in Section 7 of the Act allows
classification of disputes but do not permit classification of claims.
It was further ruled that once the time for filing written statement has been extended then the
time for filing the application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act also stands extended.
10. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2020)
Reservation not a fundamental right.
Bench- L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Facts-
In this case the apex court was deciding a group of appeals whether states are obligated to
make reservations on appointments and promotions.
Judgment-
The court held that there is no fundamental right to claim reservations in promotions in public
spots and the states are not bound to make reservation and can use their discretion in
providing reservations.The judgment highlighted that Article 16(4) & Article 16(4-A) of the
Constitution are enabling provisions and the state governments are not bound to make
reservations, also the courts have no such authority to compel the state government to do so.
"The direction given by the HC that the State Government should first collect data relating to
the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes i.e.
SC's and ST's in Government services on the basis of which the State Government must take
a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down
by this Court and is accordingly set aside." In simple words, there is no fundamental right that
inherits an individual to claim reservations in promotions.
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.
Citation: MANU/SC/0194/2020
The Supreme Court marked 17 February, 2020 as an important date in the
calendar of Indian Armed Forces. For the first time since independence, the
females belonging to the Indian Armed Forces will be granted permanent
commission to serve in the army. The females had been struggling to attain this
right for more than a decade. Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering the
judgment, stated that: ‘At the stage of opting for the grant of PC, all the choices for
specialization shall be available to women officers on the same terms as for the male SSC
officers. Women SSC officers shall be entitled to exercise their options for being
considered for the grant of PCs on the same terms as their male counterparts’.
The judgment upheld the directive principle of equality by providing access to
permanent commission to the female populace.
2. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
Citation: MANU/SC/0022/2020
Another important judgment that upheld the rights of the citizens declares right
to internet as a part and parcel of the right to freedom of speech and expression,
a fundamental right granted to the citizens of India under Article 19 (1)(a) of the
Constitution. The hon’ble court thus concluded that the ban on the internet
services in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is unreasonable and violative of the
above-mentioned article. Justice NV Ramana ordered the relevant authorities to
‘review forthwith the need for continuance of any existing orders passed under Section
144, Cr.P.C in accordance with law laid down above’. The court believed that
suspending telecom services (be it internet or any other services of this kind) is
a drastic measure and that passing an order that suspends the
internet indefinitely is highly impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services) Rules of 2017.
3. Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
This case posed a typical question in front of the judiciary about whether
anticipatory bail granted under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code should
be limited to a fixed period of time or not and that whether such anticipatory bail
is trimmed when the court summons the accused. The 5-judge bench
unanimously agreed that anticipatory bail shall not be limited to a fixed period of
time and in certain peculiar cases, can be extended till the end of the trial upon
the order of the hon’ble court. Two separate judgments were pronounced by J.
Shah and J. Bhat; however, both the judgments were synchronous with each
other and were agreed upon by J. Mishra, J. Banerjee and J. Saran.
The court further overruled the following judgments: Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors[1], Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State
of Maharashtra[2] and other subsequent decisions.
4. Mukesh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
a state is not bound to make reservations to SCs and STs guaranteeing
promotions in government jobs. The court further stated that it is not a
fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution thereby barring the courts
from issuing a mandamus for the same. The hon’ble bench believed that
collection of quantifiable data reflecting the representation of SCs and STs is not,
mandatory for states if they seek to abstain from providing such reservations.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution grants such discretionary power to the states.
The bench thus stated that: ‘As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate
representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, is a pre-
requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government
decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in
promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable
data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedules Tribes in State services’.
5. Prathvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India
upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2018. This amendment was brought forth to reverse the SC judgment of
March 2018[3] that introduced safeguards that prevented the misuse of the
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also
known as the PoA Act. However, this decision gave rise to massive protests
among the SC, ST community, as a result of which the Parliamentary amendment
was introduced.
The court thus settled its views in consonance with the Parliamentary
amendment that aimed at nullifying the effects of the Kashinath Mahajan
judgment of the SC which had diluted the provisions of the Act. Hon’ble judges
held that the ‘Kashinath Mahajan directions placed an undue burden on SC/STs
persons who had suffered a caste-based atrocity’. Whereas, J. Bhat delivered a
concurring opinion warning that ‘a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail
would defeat the intention of Parliament’.
6. Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora & Ors.
Citation: MANU/SC/0172/2020
The court in the given case mandated political parties to follow certain directions laid
down by the Supreme Court to ensure that criminalization of politics doesn’t take place.
These directions include:
1. mandatorily updating their websites with the details of candidates that
have pending criminal cases
2. grounds for the selection of such candidates (on the basis of merit and
qualifications rather than ‘their ability to gather votes’)
3. such information to be published in a local vernacular newspaper as well
as a national newspaper
4. the time limit for such publication to be within 48 hours of selection of
the candidate
5. submission of a report of compliance of these directions to the Election
Commission (EC) within 72 hours
6. failure in following these guidelines must enable the EC to bring a non-
compliance notice against the party to the Supreme Court of India.
7. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner (Arnab Goswami) alleged that a vindictive and malicious
campaign was launched against him through social media by the states which
owed their allegiance to Indian National Congress. Multiple FIRs were lodged
against the petitioner alleging that he was responsible for propagating views of
communal nature. The Supreme Court defended the rights of a journalist by
disallowing multiple complaints against him stating that it would hinder his
freedom thereby quashing all identical FIRs except for the one lodged in
Maharashtra.
However, the Supreme Court took a step back by refusing to interfere with the
case by disallowing the plea to seek transfer to CBI probe by stating that,
‘Nothing contained in the present judgment shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the allegations contained in the FIRs’ and that ‘the transfer of
an investigation to the CBI is not a matter of routine. The precedents of this Court
emphasise that this is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional
circumstances’. The court also stated that the accused has no right to determine
the mode of investigation.
7. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
hon’ble bench concluded that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will not lapse in a
case where compensation has been deposited in the treasury. A 5-judge
bench led by J. Arun Mishra provided clarifications for the ambiguities
about the lapse of acquisition proceedings. It was held that the landowners
cannot insist the deposition of amount in court in order to sustain the
proceedings under the old act. Therefore, even if the state fails in
depositing the compensation in a landowner’s account, it cannot account
for a valid reason to lapse the proceedings going on under Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013. The court re-affirmed the views of 2018 Indore
Development Authority Case and over-ruled the judgment of Pune
Municipality Corporation case of 2014.
9. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India
Famously known as the cryptocurrency judgment, it is known for the Supreme
Court’s decision to lift the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on
regulated entities dealing with virtual currencies.
The court validated the ‘ground of proportionality’ by setting aside the circular issued by
RBI preventing regulated entities from providing banking services to those engaged in
the trading or facilitating the trading in Virtual Currencies. The court observed that,
‘when the consistent stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs and when the
Government of India is unable to take a call despite several committees coming up with
several proposals including two draft bills, both of which advocated exactly opposite
positions, it is not possible for us to hold that the impugned measure is proportionate’.
The court also believed that the ‘lukewarm’ response of RBI in this regard was
totally unjustified.
10. Union of India & Ors. v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills & Ors.
The given case holds vital significance in the presidential history of judgments.
The case has been divided into 14 parts and contains a highly detailed judgment
that analysis every minute detail. It revolves around a notification issued by the
Union Government under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 that
introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from
Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200% in the aftermath of
the Pulwama attack. The issue at hand was whether a notification issued by the
Union Government (upon which the legislative power was delegated) can issue a
retrospective order or not.
The court held that rate of duty which was applicable was crystallized at the time
and on the date of the presentation of the bills of entry in terms of the provisions
of Section 15 read with Regulation 4(2) of Regulations of 2018. Therefore, it
cannot be altered at a later stage. The court examined section 15 (1)(a) which
clarifies that ‘once the goods are entered for home consumption under section 46, the
rate of duty is supposed to be the rate of duty in force on the date on which the Bill of
Entry in respect of such goods is presented’.
Hence, in the scheme of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the 2018
Regulations, the time at which the notification under Section 8A is published
would indeed have relevance.
11. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh
A very unique and Avant Garde judgment mandated installation of CCTV
cameras in all police stations as well as other investigating agencies like NIA,
CBI, NCB, etc. The hon’ble court ordered that in any circumstance that reflect
human rights violations, the victim has a right to obtain a copy of CCTV footage
of the interrogation and can approach the National/State Human Rights
Commission for the same. The installation of CCTV has been mandated in any
office that has the power to arrest and interrogate an individual.
