Read Time: 19 minutes

A quick look at Court developments that hit national headlines in 2021 - Top 10

---

 

1. Char Dham Road Widening Project:
 Citizens for green doon Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Coram - Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath 

While deciding a highly contentious and hotly debated issue, the Top Court has put to rest the issue of whether Char Dham Project construction for road widening can move forward. Top Court said that the Army and the Ministry of Defence is the specialised body to decide policy matters concerning nation's security and thus allowed the Centre to construct double lane paved shoulder (DLPS) for Chardham road project. Court was referring to the litigious chain that surrounded the Char Dham Project construction, an ambitious project aiming at widening the roads of nearly 900 kms of the national highways in the State of Uttarakhand which shall act as vital arteries to reach establishments of the Armed forces apart from connecting Hindu shrines located in an area called "Kedarkhand", today, largely known as Garhwal. The Bench noted that the Top Court cannot intervene in a policy decision of the establishment as neither can it second-guess the infrastructural needs of the Armed Forces, nor can the Court override the modalities decided upon by the Army and the MoD to safeguard the security of the nation’s borders.

2. Pegasus Controversy:
ML Sharma v. PM | N. Ram v. UOI | Editors Guild of India v. UOI

Coram - CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court has reasoned the need for appointment of an independent experts committee to probe into the Pegasus spyware snooping allegations. The court has also discussed certain nuances of the right to privacy in India­- its facets and importance. The plea filed by Advocate ML Sharma and others had sought court-monitored probe by Special Investigation Team into the reports of alleged snooping using Israeli spyware Pegasus.
“Technology is a useful tool for improving the lives of the people it can also be used to breach that sacred private space of an individual,” noted the Bench

3. "Skin-to-Skin" Judgment:
Attorney General For India V Satish And Another

Coram - Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi

The Supreme Court while setting aside the Bombay High Court judgment in a rape matter of a minor where it declared the accused innocent noted that, “restricting the interpretation of the words “touch” or “physical contact” to “skin to skin contact” is not only a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision contained in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but it would lead to an absurd interpretation of the said provision.” The Court further found that the interpretation of Section 7 at the instance of the High Court on the premise of the principle of “ejusdem generis” was also thoroughly misconceived. “It may be noted that the principle of “ejusdem generis” should be applied only as an aid to the construction of the statute. It should not be applied where it would defeat the very legislative intent”, said the bench.

3. "Murderer" Comments against Election Commission of India:
The Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar & Ors

Coram - Justices DY Chandrachud & MR Shah

While observing that no substance lies in the prayer of the Election Commission for restraining media from reporting Court proceedings, the Top Court emphasised the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. The court said this in a plea by the ECI against a Madras High Court order in which Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee had orally remarked that Election Commission was singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID 19 and that the EC Officials should be booked on murder charges. However, the order sheet did not record these oral observations made by the bench.

4. "Rakhi for Bail" Order:
 Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh 

Coram - Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice S.Ravindra Bhat

The Top Court in its judgment today, while setting aside the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court directing tying of rakhi to the perpetrator of sexual assault, noted, “Judges play – at all levels – a vital role as teachers and thought leaders. It is their role to be impartial in words and action, at all times. If they falter, especially in gender related crimes, they imperil fairness and inflict great cruelty in the casual blindness to the despair of the survivors.” Various directions were issued by Court for imposing conditions for bail in cases of sexual crimes.
Court said that Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. 

5. Sedition Law against Journalists:
Vinod Dua v. Union of India

Coram - Justices UU Lalit and Vineet

Supreme Court allowed Senior Journalist Vinod Dua’s plea seeking quashing of FIR against Sedition charges, while rejecting the second prayer of constituting a committee to approve registration of FIR for media persons with a standing of 10 years or more. For the second prayer of issuing direction to each State for constituting a committee to monitor registration of FIR against Senior Media Persons, Court said that this would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature. The Bench observed that, “Nothing defamatory said by the petitioner and neither was it a case of public nuisance, not made out any prosecution”. Court further noted that every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh.

6. Central Vista Project:
Rajeev Suri Vs. Union of India

Coram - Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar

The Supreme Court on dismissed a petition filed against the Central Vista Project alleging that it will affect the public recreational zones. The bench said, "This cannot be the scope of judicial review, the change effected in the development plan is a matter of policy." Earlier in June, the Top Court had refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court decision of refusing to stop the construction work at the Central Vista Redevelopment Project during Covid19 pandemic. The Court further agreed with the Delhi High Court’s view that the petitioners had “selectively challenged one project without doing any honest research with regards to the other ongoing projects of similar nature in the city”.

7. Kerala Assembly Vandalism:
State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith

Coram - Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

Supreme Court while rejecting Kerala Government’s plea seeking permission to withdraw cases against prominent leaders of CPM, for Vandalism in State Assembly, observed that Sanction of Speaker is not a prerequisite for initiating prosecution against members of the House. The bench added that Privileges and Immunities cannot be a gateway from escaping prosecution under general law of the land. The Court said, “No member of an elected legislature can claim either a privilege or an immunity to stand above the sanctions of the criminal law, which applies equally to all citizens.” 

8. INC "Toolkit":
Shashank Shekhar Jha Vs. Indian National Congress

Coram - Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah

In a plea filed by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, seeking investigation of Toolkit by NIA and suspension of registration of Respondent 1, Indian National Congress if found implicated in doing anti-national acts, Supreme Court said denied to intervene. “If you don't like the Toolkit, Ignore it. It is a part of the political party”, the Court had famously remarked. 

9. Women in Army: 
Nilima Gorwade & Ors Vs Manoj Mukund Narwane & Ors

Coram - Justices DY Chandrachud & AS Bopanna

After the Supreme Court warned the Indian Army of contempt action against Army Chief of Staff MM Naravane over the alleged delay in grant of permanent commission to women officers in army, ASG Sanjay Jain on behalf of the army submitted that the contempt petitioners will be granted Permanent Commission (PC). "The army might be supreme in its own right but the constitutional court is equally supreme," the Court said.
 

10. Right to not be deported without following due process:
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India

Coram - (Former) Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian

The Top Court turned down the plea seeking direction to the Union of India, not to deport the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in the sub-jail in Jammu.  The bench added that no deportation shall take place without compliance with due procedure. The bench, while disposing the present plea, noted, “It is also true that the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons who may or may not be citizens. But the Right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the Right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e).”