- LATEST
- WEBSTORY
- TRENDING
INDIA
From Aadhaar to Section 377 – 10 judgements of CJI Misra that cemented his legacy
CJI Misra's legacy.
DNA Web Team | Oct 01, 2018, 06:32 PM IST
1.Aadhaar
The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed apprehension that the Aadhaar scheme violates citizens' Right to Privacy, saying minimal data was collected in the enrolment process.
Justice A K Sikri, writing the judgement for the CJI, himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar, said that minimal biometric data in the form of iris and fingerprints is collected and the authentication process is not exposed to the Internet.
He also refused to agree with the submission of the petitioners that the Aadhaar project violated the Right to Privacy with respect to personal demographic and biometric information collected, stored and shared as there was no law authorising these actions.
2.Sabarimala
2) Sabrimala
The Supreme Court Friday paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala.
The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, said banning the entry of women into the shrine is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu women.
3.Adultery
The Supreme Court struck down the penal law on adultery and said the legislature could have either amended the "retrograde" provision to make it gender-neutral or deleted it from the statute books entirely, as it was "wholly outdated" and had outlived its purpose.
The view was expressed by a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, while striking down section 497 of IPC which made adultery a crime punishable with a maximum jail term of five years, fine or both.
CJI Misra, who along with Justice Khanwilkar penned a separate 58-page verdict, said thinking of adultery from the point of view of criminality would be a "retrograde" step.
4.Ayodhya-linked verdict
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the title suit hearing on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute will not be impacted by a 1994 verdict, which held that a mosque is not an integral part of Islam.
The court said that there was no need for a larger bench to re-examine its 1994 judgment. By this decision, the court has set the stage for an early adjudication on the title suit that has lingered on since 2010. The SC will hear the Ayodhya title suit on October 29, opening possibilities of a verdict ahead of the 2019 General Election.
TRENDING NOW
)
Forget Aabha Paul, check out 5 hot pics, videos of Kangana Sharma
)
After Anil Ambani's Reliance Capital takeover, here's a look at how he still maintains luxurious lifestyle with Rs 5000-crore home, private jet and more
)
XXX show actress Aabha Paul dances to popular Bollywood songs in sexy videos
)
Why was Disha Patani's performance during IPL 2025 Opening Ceremony stopped midway?
)
Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma's stunning Gurgaon home has hanging pool, it costs Rs...
)
10 most handsome men in the World: This BTS member beats Hrithik Roshan, Chris Evans, Brad Pitt
5.Criminalisation in politics
The Supreme Court left it to Parliament to "cure the malignancy" of criminalisation of politics by making a law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter the political arena as the "polluted stream of politics" needs to be cleansed.
Holding that criminalisation of politics is an "extremely disastrous and lamentable situation", the apex court said this "unsettlingly increasing trend" in the country has the propensity to "send shivers down the spine of a constitutional democracy".
It said the nation was "eagerly" waiting for such legislation as the society has legitimate expectation to be governed by proper constitutional governance and citizens in a democracy cannot be compelled to stand as "silent, deaf and mute spectators" to corruption by projecting themselves as helpless.
6.Bhima-Koregaon Verdict
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea for immediate release of the five rights activists, held in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case for alleged Naxal links, saying "it is not a case of arrest because of mere dissenting views or difference in political ideology".
An apex court bench, by a majority verdict of 2:1, also refused to appoint an SIT to probe their arrest, in a shot in the arm for the Maharashtra Police which has maintained that the action against the activists was based on cogent material and evidence.
7.Sec 377
Consensual gay sex is not a crime, the Supreme Court ruled, striking down a British era law that it said violates the right to equality and triggering celebrations among LGBTQ activists who welcomed it as a harbinger of a more inclusive India. Parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised consensual unnatural sex, are "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", the apex court said in its historic ruling that made India the 26th country in the world where homosexuality is legal.
History owes an apology to members of the community for the delay in ensuring their rights," for denying them their rights and compelling them to live a life of fear, said Justice Indu Malhotra, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that delivered the judgement, capping a 17-year legal struggle.
8.Can lawmakers practice as advocates?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that there is no more a bar on a Member of Parliament, State Assembly or Legislative Council, from practicing as an advocate, clearing the way for several eminent lawyers elected to Parliament and Assemblies to continue in the legal profession.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that elected MPs/MLAs/MLCs are not full-time employees, and hence they will not be disqualified under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules that prohibits lawyers from taking up any other profession.
Justice Khanwilkar, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “As regards the legislators (MP/MLA/MLC), they occupy a unique position. They are not appointed, but are elected by the electors from respective territorial constituencies.” The issue came to court in a PIL filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay who wanted legislators to be barred from practicing before courts.
Source: Hemant Padalkar/DNA
9.Cauvery row
The Supreme Court put its seal of approval on the Centre's draft Cauvery Management Scheme for smooth distribution of water among four southern riparian states, saying the scheme should be taken to its "logical end".
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also approved the proposed 'Cauvery Water Management Authority' and asked the Centre to notify it in the Official Gazette and give effect to it with "promptitude before onset of impending monsoon".
"The corrected draft scheme is in consonance with the dictum and directions in the Award as modified by this Court and also in conformity with Section 6A of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. The draft scheme ought to be taken forward to its logical end in accordance with law with utmost dispatch," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.
10.Love Jihad Case
In a major verdict, Supreme Court of India has struck down Kerala High Court's annulment of marriage of Hadiya, an alleged victim of 'love jihad'. It has restored Hadiya's marriage.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue its probe in the Kerala 'love jihad' case without interfering in the marriage of Hadiya. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra gave the ruling after NIA lawyer Maninder Singh told the apex court that probe in the case was almost over.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud heard the matter on the plea filed by Hadiya's husband, challenging a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with her.
