Overview | Supreme Court Constitution Bench Decisions Of 2023
1) Demonetization satisfies test of proportionality, is not flawed in law: SC upholds validity by 4:1 majority
The Court upheld the validity of demonetization by 4:1 majority. Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a dissenting judgment.
After hearing the submissions advanced, the Bench framed six key questions and answered them.
Cause Title- Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 2)
Date of Judgment- January 2, 2023
Coram- Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian, and Justice BV Nagarathna.
2) PM Or CM doesn’t have disciplinary control over members of council of ministers
The Court observed that the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers. The bench made this observation while holding that a statement made by a Minister even if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility.
The Court was dealing with the issue of freedom of speech and expression of public functionaries.
Cause Title- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 4)
Date of Judgment- January 3, 2023
Coram- Justice S A Nazeer, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice V Ramasubramanian, and Justice BV Nagarathna.
3) SC removes condition mandating Magistrate's approval for withdrawal of life support in living will process
In a bid to make the guidelines on "living will" more workable and less cumbersome, the Court removed the condition that mandated a magistrate's approval for withdrawal or withholding of life support to a terminally ill person.
Living will is an advance medical directive on end-of-life treatment. The Court's 2018 order on passive euthanasia wherein it recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and an aspect of Article 21 (right to life) notwithstanding, people wanting to get a "living will" registered were facing problems due to cumbersome guidelines, prompting a reconsideration by the apex court.
Cause Title- Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 77)
Date of Judgment- January 24, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
4) Armed Forces can initiate action against their officers for adultery despite striking down of Section 497 IPC
The Court ruled that armed forces can take action against their officers for adulterous acts, as it clarified the landmark 2018 judgment that decriminalized adultery. A five-judge Constitution bench said its 2018 judgment was not concerned with the provisions of the armed forces acts.
The court, on a plea filed by NRI Joseph Shine, in 2018 had struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery, holding it unconstitutional.
Cause Title- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 87)
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
5) BCI has power to prescribe All India Bar Examination: Constitution Bench of SC overrules V. Sudeer judgment
The Constitution Bench of the Court in an appeal held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to prescribe the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) for law graduates. The Court overruled the case of V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176 in which the Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 were struck down by the Apex Court.
In this case, the original dispute between the BCI and Bonnie Foi Law College, i.e., the respondent college, arose on account of the application of the said college for affiliation to carry on a legal study course. During the course of this matter, a larger question of diminishing standards of legal education provided at various law colleges in India came to be noticed which resulted in a Committee being appointed.
Cause Title- Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 116)
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
6) To strengthen democratic processes Election Commission needs to be independent & demonstrate transparency & accountability
The Court observed that in order to strengthen the democratic processes, the Election Commission needs to be independent and demonstrate transparency and accountability.
This observation was made in the case where the five-judge Constitution bench held that the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party in Lok Sabha) and the Chief Justice of India.
Cause Title- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 190)
Date of Judgment- March 2, 2023
Coram- Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice CT Ravikumar.
7) Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Claim for ‘top up’ has no foundations in any known legal principle- SC while dismissing Centre’s curative petition
The Court dismissed the curative petition filed by the Centre regarding compensation to the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case saying that its claim for a ‘top up’ has no foundations in any known legal principle.
The Centre had sought additional funds from Union Carbide Corporation’s (UCC) successor firms to grant higher compensation to the victims of the said 1984 tragedy.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 222)
Date of Judgment- March 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
8) Arbitration agreement in unstamped contract which is exigible to stamp duty is not enforceable in law: SC observes by 3:2 majority
The Court by a three: two majority opinion, ruled that an instrument that is exigible to stamp duty, may contain an arbitration clause, and which is not stamped, cannot be said to be a contract, which is enforceable in law within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under section 2(g) of the said Act.
The Court observed that being unstamped or insufficiently stamped, the agreement would not be available to be ‘admitted in evidence’ and ‘to be acted upon’, till it is validated following the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Stamp Act and till then, it would not exist ‘in law’.
Please note that this judgment has been overruled in Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act.
Cause Title- N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 423)
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
9) In exercise of power under Article 142 court has discretion to dissolve marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown
The Court held that once every effort has been made to save the marriage and there remains no possibility of reunion and cohabitation, the court is not powerless in enabling the parties to avail a better option, which is to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
However, the waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair, added the Court.
Cause Title- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 468)
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K Maheshwari.
10) Could have considered reinstating Uddhav Govt had he not resigned as CM- SC Constitution Bench observes in Shiv Sena case
The Court heard a matter pertaining to the Shiv Sena party split between the Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions, which, in 2022, led to a huge political crisis in Maharashtra, and further led to a change in the State Government.
The Court held that it cannot quash the resignation letter of Thackeray and that the Governor was justified in inviting Eknath Shinde to form the Government.
Cause Title- Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 516)
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha.
11) Delhi Govt v. LG- Constitutionally entrenched & democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration
The Court in its unanimous verdict held that a democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration.
While dealing with the asymmetric federal model of governance in India, involving the contest of power between a Union Territory and the Union Government, and after considering Article 239AA of the Constitution and the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment [(2018) 8 SCC 501], the Court held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) in relation to matters within the legislative scope of NCTD.
Cause Title- Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 517)
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
12) Whether a particular practice or event is the part of culture or tradition has to be determined by legislature- SC in Jallikattu case
The Court upheld the validity of amendment acts of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka which allowed the bull-taming sport 'Jallikattu', bullock-cart races, and buffalo racing sport 'Kambala', saying they are "valid legislations".
In a unanimous verdict, a five-judge constitution bench noted that The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017 were enacted by the respective state legislatures and had received presidential assent.
Cause Title- The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 548)
Date of Judgment- May 18, 2023
Coram- Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice CT Ravikumar.
13) Violated the law for bona fide reason: Apex Court on Kerala HC's ‘manifestly arbitrary’ handling of district judge selection, denies relief citing public interest
The Court held that the process followed by the Kerala High Court and its decision to apply minimum cut-off to viva-voce for the District Judiciary examination in 2017 is contrary to the Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961. The Court found that the decision of the Administrative Committee of the High Court was "manifestly arbitrary" and against the legitimate expectations of the candidates. However, the Court also held that the decision was "actuated by the bona fide reason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicial office".
The Court held this while dealing with a batch of four writ petitions preferred by eleven candidates of the District Judiciary examination against the Kerala High Court. The petitioners were denied relief stating that unseating the candidates selected by the High Court through the "manifestly arbitrary" method, who are still serving the district judiciary, would be "contrary to public interest since they have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of the State of Kerala".
Cause Title- Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 709)
Date of Judgment- July 12, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra.
14) SC leaves decision regarding legal recognition of queer marriages to legislature; asks govt to form committee to determine rights
The Court refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages in India while concluding that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. Further, the Bench concluded that the State shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in a queer union.
In this case, the Court had heard a set of writ petitions filed in a concerted effort to secure legal recognition and validation of same-sex marriages.
Cause Title- Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 920)
Date of Judgment- October 17, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha.
15) Arbitration agreements can bind non-signatories: SC upholds applicability of 'group of companies' doctrine
The Court upheld the applicability of the 'group of companies' doctrine in India.
The Bench observed that it is not necessary that only persons who are signatories to the arbitration agreement will be bound by the arbitration agreement. It also clarified that the principle of "alter ego" or "piercing the corporate veil" cannot be the basis for applying this doctrine.
Cause Title- Cox and Kings Ltd. vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1051)
Date of Judgment- December 6, 2023
Coram- CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
16) "Article 370 Was A Feature Of Asymmetric Federalism & Not Sovereignty": Supreme Court Upholds Abrogation Of Special Status Of J&K
The Court unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India which had bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
By a separate, concurring judgment, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul proposed the establishment of a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." This commission, as per Justice Kaul's recommendation, would be tasked with conducting an in-depth inquiry into human rights violations committed by both State and non-state actors in the Kashmir valley, particularly focusing on incidents dating back to the 1980s.
Cause Title- In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1058)
Date of Judgment- December 11, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant.
17) Unstamped arbitration agreements not void: Supreme Court seven judges bench overrules 'N.N. Global Mercantile' judgment
In a unanimous judgment, a seven-judge bench of the Court observed that unstamped or inadequately unstamped arbitration agreements do not become void or void ab initio or unenforceable.
The bench also answered that Reference in the present matter is maintainable because apart from the curative petition there was an SLP pending in the matter.
Cause Title- In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1066)
Date of Judgment- December 13, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
