Top 30 Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India in 2019

Rafale deal (Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Modi)

The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi went into an arrangement with France to buy a day and a half warrior airplane. After the arrangement was marked various disputants recorded petitions in the Supreme Court guaranteeing that the arrangement made by Mr. Modi was not as per the set up technique. Questions with respect to the dynamic interaction, valuing abnormalities, balance accomplices were made in the petitions. In 2018, the Court in the wake of hearing both the gatherings presumed that there were no abnormalities dependent on the proof obtained and consequently a survey appeal was documented, testing the previous judgment passed. This year the Court excused the survey petitions and held that it had restricted ward under the guard contracts.

Judgment: All the litigants held not liable and the rafale bargain maintained after the Court excuses the survey petitions documented.

Aadhar Card Judgement

The Supreme Court conveyed its judgment on the protected legitimacy of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and whether the Act goes under the meaning of Money Bill as characterized under Article 110 of the Constitution of India. Area 184 of the Act was tested on the grounds that it gave the force of arrangement and administration states of individuals from a Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and different specialists to the Central Government consequently was considered unlawful and self-assertive by the applicants. The Court held that the forces appointed to the Center cannot  be addressed or removed on the remote chance of abuse of such powers. The issue of whether Finance Act can be alluded to as a Money Bill or not was alluded to a bigger seat for additional assessment.

Judgment: The 5 Judges Bench questioned the rightness was referred to the Finance Act as  Money Bill & hence it was suggest to a bigger Bench. Notwithstanding, the Court maintained the legitimate legitimacy of Section 184 of the Finance Act.

Ayodhya – Babri Masjid Case

The Ayodhya-Babri Masjid debate is the longest property question throughout the entire existence of India. The case was at long last closed by the Supreme Court following a long time from the main case recorded on this matter. The Allahabad High Court conveyed a judgment in 2010 wherein the land in question was partitioned into three equivalent parts, the judgment didn’t fulfill any of the gatherings in question and in this manner an allure was recorded in Supreme Court. The Court in the wake of noticing the advancements of the case rejected the High Court decision and held that the land in debate is to be granted to the Hindu Deity ‘Smash’ for the development of the sanctuary. It was seen that the land was not of Islamic beginning and the Masjid was not based on empty land. The Court likewise requested that a reasonable elective place where there is 5 sections of land is to be allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for development of the mosque in Ayodhya itself.

Judgment: The contested land was given to Ram Lalla and the Central Government has been requested to figure a plan and set up a trust inside 3 months for the development of the sanctuary.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat

The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat held that even at the post perception stage a Magistrate can conjure his forces under Section 156(3) of CrPC. A 43-year-old judgment which held that Section 156(3) of CrPC must be conjured at a pre comprehension stage was overruled.

Alok Verma V. Union of India

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), on 23rd October 2018, removed the forces and elements of Mr. Alok Kumar Verma. From there on a writ appeal was documented testing the legitimacy of the said request and the solicitors contended that the request passed by the Central Government was violative of Section 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act and the Supreme Court rules gave in Vineet Narain case. Under Section 4A of the DSPE Act, the endorsement of the Selection Committee is important to strip the forces of the head of CBI.

Judgment: On eighth January 2019, the Supreme Court held that the orders gave by the Central Government were not substantial and in this manner subdued them. Alok Verma was restored with his forces and obligations.

Kantaru Rajeevaru v Indian Young Lawyers Association

In September 2018 the Supreme Court in its decision inspired the age-long boycott forced on the section of ladies in the sanctuary of Sabarimala in Kerala. The Court announced the boycott as illegal and held that ladies of all age gatherings would be allowed the option to enter the sanctuary. The decision prompted fights by the fans of Lord Ayyappa which before long took a vicious turn and hence different petitions to audit the judgment were recorded. The Court held that each resident has the option to rehearse, spread and advance their strict convictions under Article 25 of the Constitution and the privilege of passage into strict spots by ladies isn’t confined to Sabarimala yet in addition incorporates different religions and orders.

Judgment: To decide questions identifying with fundamental strict practices, the Sabarimala case was alluded to a bigger seat.

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v Union of India

Prior to the 2015 Amendment, the then Section a day and a half the Act given that an arbitral honor couldn’t be authorized if there was a forthcoming request and this was named as the programmed stay. This Section was subbed in 2015 and the Act expressed that except if a stay request has been passed the arbitral honor doesn’t become unenforceable and simple recording of an appeal isn’t sufficient to deliver an arbitral honor as not enforceable.

Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 87 of the Act, presented in the 2019 Amendment as it was self-assertive.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal

In November, the Supreme Court in its notable judgment of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal held that the CJI goes under the Right to Information Act and is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. This suggests that the CJI is to be straightforward and is liable to all inquiries raised by the residents of the County. Notwithstanding, the court additionally underscored the significance of keeping up secrecy under specific parts of the legal executive’s working. The RTI will apply to CJI just when it is in light of a legitimate concern for people in general and doesn’t hamper the procedures of the legal executive in any way.

Judgment: CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd anr v Union of India

The sacred legitimacy of the IBC and National Company Law Tribunal has been addressed over and over, and the Supreme Court at last settled the difficulties in the milestone instance of Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. v Union of India. A two seat judge held that the distinction between operational and monetary loan bosses depended on clear differentia and accordingly not violative of Article 14 of lenders the Constitution. 

Judgment: The Supreme Court maintained the established legitimacy of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT.

Reliance Communication Ltd and others v State Bank of India

In the Ericsson case, the dependence organization owed Rs. 550 Crores to its loan bosses, out of which just Rs. 118 Crores had been saved with the Court. Ericsson had documented 3 scorn request against the dependence organization, and in its judgment, the Supreme Court held that Reliance’s director, Mr. Anil Ambani is needed to satisfy his obligations in about a month or he would confront prison time. Further, a fine of Rs one Crore was forced on each of the three dependence organizations, Reliance Telecom, Reliance Infra Fel and RCom as they were additionally held blameworthy of disdain.

Judgment: Anil Ambani and the dependence organizations held blameworthy of hatred for defaulting installment to its bank, Ericsson according to the past endeavor is given to the Court.

 Pattu Rajan and others v State of Tamil Nadu

Rajagopal in 2001, when he was blamed for undermining, kidnapping and killing his previous worker so he could wed the expired’s significant other, Jeevajothi. The High Court of Madras held the blamed liable for homicide under Section 302, IPC, which was requested by Rajagopal. The Supreme Court on 29th April 2019 excused the requests recorded and held P Rajagopal blameworthy for homicide, granting him a lifelong incarceration.

Rajagopal was given time till July to give up and carry out his punishment be that as it may, he experienced a heart failure and died on July 18, 2019.

Judgment: Founder of popular café Sarvana Bhavan, P Rajagopal and five others condemned with life detainment for the homicide of his ex-worker.

 Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v Government of West Bengal and others

Bengali film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was halted from screening by the Bengal Government in the vast majority of the films. The Government fought that the film was politically delicate and it might sting a few feelings and cause issue in the State. The Supreme Court while choosing the case forced a fine.  Public authorities and the State Government are dependent upon law and order and can’t choke free discourse because of dread of savagery. The boycott forced on the Bengali film was upset and remuneration was given to the makers.

 BK Pavitra and others v Union of India

In BK Pavitra vs UoI, Karnataka in 2002, established a law that expressed important position would be material while managing advancements of the SC/ST representatives in government workplaces. This inferred that a held classification worker could be advanced before a senior representative having a place with the overall class. In 2007 the Supreme Court held that the law passed by the Karnataka Government didn’t agree with the rules set up under the Nagraj case and was accordingly unlawful. Consequently, the Karnataka Government set up a Committee to exhibit the measures set down in the Nagraj case has been satisfied. The protected legitimacy of the re-authorized law was addressed. The Supreme Court held that the insufficiency that was noted in the 2002 Act have been satisfied and the Reservation Act 2018 is subsequently substantial under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.

Judgment: The established legitimacy of the Karnataka Act endorsing significant position in advancements for the held class was maintained.

Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of Bihar

The Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016, precludes the belonging, utilization, and offer of liquor inside the domain of the State. The litigant fought that as no jug of alcohol was found on him and as he was going in his private vehicle, the FIR against him should be subdued. The Supreme Court held that the FIR won’t be suppressed and the man is obligated under the Bihar Excise Act, 2016. Utilization of alcohol in a public spot, regardless of whether done in a private vehicle is an offense under the Act. The Court additionally held that according to the Act if an individual goes into the region of Bihar in an intoxicated State in any event, when the utilization of liquor occurred outside the State, he be obligated under the Act.

Judgment: Consumption of alcohol in a private vehicle in a public space, goes under the meaning of ‘public space’, as per the Bihar Excise Act, 2016.

In re Matter of Great Public Importance

On 19 April 2019, an ex-staff of the Supreme Court affirmed that she was explicitly annoyed by the previous Chief Justice of India, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi who denied every one of the charges made against him. A three-judge seat held a request against the previous CJI, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi in the matter of inappropriate behavior claims made against him by an ex-worker of the Court. Afterward, he was given a clean chit.

Bikram Chatterji and others v Union of India and others

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that the group redirected the cash to make individual resources for the heads of Amrapali and neglected to finish the venture on schedule. The Supreme Court requested the scratch-off RERA enrollment of the Amrapali bunch and requested NBCC to finish every one of the forthcoming ventures of the gathering. An activity under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act is taken against the Amrapali chiefs and an occasional report of the equivalent is to be submitted to the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Amrapali bunch was restricted from taking any land project later on as their enlistment under RERA was dropped by the Supreme Court for illegal tax avoidance. The court likewise requested the culmination of in excess of 42,000 pads by NBCC which was recently taken by the Amrapali bunch.

Surinder Singh Desawal v Virender Gandhi

Section 148 was presented in the Negotiable instruments Act, 1181 via alteration in 2018. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the Act ought to have review impact and is in this way material for those grumblings also which were recorded before the correction occurred.

Judgment: Section 148 applies to cases in any event, when the criminal objection under Section 138 was recorded before the correction of the Act.

 Manoharan v State

In 2010, the accused with another, hijacked the people in question, a 10-year-old young lady, and her 7-year-old sibling. The young lady was then assaulted and from that point both the casualties were tossed in a waterway alive, causing their demise. One of the convicts was slaughtered during an experience and the High Court granted capital punishment to the next convict. The judgment of the High Court was requested in the Supreme Court and was heard by a three-seat judge. Most of the adjudicators maintained the conviction of capital punishment in any case, Justice Sanjiv Khanna had a contradicting assessment. He accepted that the convict ought not be given capital punishment as the case doesn’t fall under the classification of ‘most uncommon of uncommon case.

Judgment: Death punishment was given for perpetrating the wrongdoing of assault and murder of minor young ladies.

 Sitaram Yechury v Union of India

In response to the petition of habeous corpus filed by the general secretary of the Communist Party of India, the Supreme Court allowed him to visit the detenu. However, restrictions were imposed on his meet and no justification was given to validate the detention imposed by the Central Government.

 DAV College Trust and Management Society v Director of Public Instruction

Educational institute in Chandigarh with the name “D.A.V” run by the D.A.V college trust claimed that previously they were getting financial aid from Union territory, Chandigarh upto 95% which is now cut down to 45% and they do not fall under “Public Authority” as mentioned under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Supreme court taking into account the Transparency and Accountability held that NGO’s substantially financed by the government directly or indirectly fall within the ambit of public authority under RTI, 2005.

Thus, All these NGO’s comes under RTI are answerable to the public, and every citizen has the right to seek any information from them.   

India Hotel and Restaurant and Association vs The State Of Maharashtra

A Writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the Association of hotel and restaurant in India, challenging the validity of certain provisions of the “Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotel, restaurant and Bar room and protection of dignity of Women Act, 2016”.

Maharashtra Government Imposed a Complete Ban on the activities carried out in the Bar, hotels and Restaurants within the territory of Maharashtra.

Things Ban by the Government:

• Obscene dance in the Bar, hotels and restaurants.
• Selling and serving of liquor.
• Intense restriction was imposed in the issuing of license.
• Installation of CCTV was made mandatory.
• Dance bar should be at least 1 k.m. away from educational institute and religious place.
• Throwing of Currency notes was restricted.

The Supreme Court on 17 January 2019 held that complete ban is the violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(a),19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India.

Everyone is free to legally carryout any business anywhere in the country and is guaranteed by constitution if India. The Apex Court held that complete ban on the above-mentioned points no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is unconstitutional and therefore is nullified.

But an admirable decision given by the court is that throwing of currency notes is illegal and therefore shall be remain ban.  

Wildlife First vs Ministry Of Forest and Environment and Others

In 2008, the wildlife trust of India, Wildlife first moved to supreme court to seek constitutional validity of the rights of Schedule tribes and forest Dwellers under The forest right Act, 2006.

Petitioner urges that tribes and forest dwellers residing in the forests for their living cannot be ignored for the sake of development. The court in 2019, ordered the state of Eviction of all the forest resident whose claim has been rejected under FRA, 2006. This decision of the court created confusion as many states was yet to set process of claims and appeals of eviction. After its order the supreme court stayed its own eviction order and asked the state to present data regarding claims under FRA.

The Kerela State Costal Zone Management Authority  vs  The State of Kerala Maradu Municipality and ors

In this Environmental related case the supreme court if India delivered an incredibly delightful judgement.

In the costal city of Kochi in Kerala, four high rise apartments were illegally constructed in the violation of Costal Regulation Zone norms.

The supreme court of India ordered to demolish those apartments and ordered the state of Kerala to Compensate the Flat owners.

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.

An ancient land dispute in the history of Indian Judiciary popularly known as Babri Masjid- Ayoddha land dispute which  got settled in 2019.

This century old dispute was in Allahabad High Court, currently known as (Prayagraj), Prayagraj High Court gave is judgement in the year 2010, dividing the land in three equal part, but both the party was unhappy of the decision and the matter went to Supreme Court.

In 2019 a  bench of 5 judges passed a landmark judgement citing as the Muslim party failed to provide sufficient proof, the land measuring 2.77 acres goes to the Hindu party for the construction of the Ram Temple. The Supreme Court of India exercising its power under Article 142, asked to provide 5 acres of land to Muslim party either by Central government or UP government within the city of Ajodhya. Eighteen review petition was filed to review the judgement but the Court rejected them all, closing the matter entirely.

Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors.

In 2017 the central Government enacted a law called finance Act, 2017. Section 184 of the Act was Challenged in the supreme court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act under Article 110 of the Constitution, and also if the Act comes under the definition of money bill is questioned.

The Supreme court in Rojer Mathew case held that the power given under section 184 cannot be questioned merely on the ground that it can be misused. thus, the court upheld the validity of section 184 of finance Act, 2017 and the question whether this Act comes under the definition of Money bill is yet to be considered by the larger bench. 

Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs  Honble Speaker Karnataka

The honourable speaker of Karnataka disqualified 17 MLA’s on the ground of Anti defection law for switching sites of the party after the election.

The Supreme Court held that the decision of disqualifying on the ground of defection was right, upholding the decision. The court also said that those MLA’s need not to wait till the term end of the assembly. The supreme gave some partial relief to the MLA’s by allowing them to fight by-pols elections. The Supreme Court also held that legislator’s resignations will not affect disqualifications under anti defection law if defection occurs before resignation.

Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra  Modi

In 2018, a Public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Apex court by Advocate Manohar lal Sharma. The PIL was regarding a Rafale deal by the central Government of buying 36 Rafale fighter aircraft from the France government.

The petitioner Mr. ML Sharma argued that the process in inter-governmental Rafale deal was not with the established process, it’s a violation of process which leads to the corruption.

The Court asked the government to submit the file of Rafale deal process in a sealed envelope, and after studying the file and hearing both the parties the court concluded that the deal of Rafale is with the established process and gave a clean cheat to the central government. A review petition was filed in 2019, but the court upheld the decision.

Shiv Sena vs Union of India

In 2019 election of Maharashtra, the BJP party came into forming the government by combining several other minor parties. An immediate floor test was ordered by the Supreme court to evade unlawful activities like Horse Trading.

The Supreme Court said that in this kind of situation if floor test is delayed, there is a possibility of horse trading and it becomes incumbent upon the court to act and to protect democratic values. The court held an immediate floor test is an effective mechanism to do, and to avoid criminalization of politics and to protect democratic values.

Author Details: Abul Bashar Dafadar (Rizvi Law College) and Ronak Batra (SRM University)