As the Supreme Court is set to reopen on July 8 after its summer vacation period, here is a brief recollection of the major verdicts and hearings anticipated for the coming half of the year.
Key Pronouncements Which Are Awaited :
1. Constitutional Validity Of Section 6A Of Citizenship Act
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 allows foreign migrants of Indian origin, who came to Assam after the 1st January 1966 but before the 25th March 1971, to seek Indian citizenship. The challenge to its constitutionality was heard by the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra and subsequently the judgement was reserved on December 12, 2023.
S.6A was challenged by certain indigenous groups of Assam contending that it legalised illegal infiltration of foreign migrants from Bangladesh.
2. Issue Of Granting Minority Status To Aligarh Muslim University
The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma in February reserved its judgement on the issue of granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
The bench was hearing a reference arising out of the 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which held that AMU was not a minority institution. In 2019, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a 7-judge bench. The main issues which arise in the case is whether a University, established and governed by a statute (AMU Act 1920), can claim minority status; the correctness of the 1976 decision in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India (5-judge bench) which rejected the minority status of AMU and the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the University.
3. CM Kejriwal's Challenge To Arrest By ED In Liquor Policy Case
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had reserved Chief Minister Kejriwal's challenge to his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on May 17. The arrest was made in relation to the ongoing Liquor Policy Controversy.
The Enforcement Directorate arrested Kejriwal on March 21, after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him interim protection earlier in the day. He remained in custody thereafter, until he was granted the benefit of interim release by the Supreme Court on May 10. The same expired on June 2 and is subject to other conditions, including that he shall not attend the CM office and/or sign official files (unless necessitated by LG).
It may be noted that on July 5 the Delhi High Court issued notice in the plea moved by Kejriwal seeking bail and sought a response from CBI. The High Court will now hear the bail plea on July 17.
4. Centre v. State Powers Over Taxing Of Mineral Rights & Mining Leases
The issue of whether royalties on mining leases be considered as tax and whether the States have the power to levy royalty/tax on mineral rights was considered by a 9-judge Constitution Bench.
The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud comprises Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih reserved its judgement on March 14. The main issue before the Court was to examine the nature and scope of royalty as prescribed under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and whether it could be termed as tax.
5. Interpretation Of Article 39(b) Of The Constitution In Context of Private Resources
A 9-judge Constitution bench considered the issue of whether private resources form part of the 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The key aspects raised included questions revolving around what constitutes a community, the subjective tones of 'material resource' as well and the fate of Article 31C post the decision in Minerva Mills v. Union of India.
The 9-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih reserved its decision on May 1.
6. Validity Of Subclassification Within The Scheduled Castes(SCs) And Scheduled Tribes(STs) For Reservations
The issue of the validity of Subclassification with the reserved categories was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, and required to be reconsidered.
A Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma reserved its decision on February 9.
7. Challenge To The Penal Provisions Of CGST/SGST Act & Customs Act
The Supreme Court on May 16 reserved its decision in a batch of 281 petitions challenging the penal provisions of various laws such as the Customs Act, Excise Act and GST Act as non-compatible with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Constitution.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi during the hearing made the following key observations: (i) there can be no private complaint under the GST Act (ii) arrest should not be made on mere suspicion, (iii) GST/Customs Officer must have certifiable material prior to arresting, which can be verified by a Magistrate, (iv) by recent amendments, Parliament whittled down the ratio of Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011), but did not completely do away with it (v) citizens should not be harassed merely because there is ambiguity in arrest provisions.
8. Regulatory Powers Over The Subject Of 'Industrial Alcohol' Under IDR Act 1951
A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on March 14 reserved its verdict on the issue of whether 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol' can be brought within the meaning of 'intoxicating liquor' under State legislation's law-making powers. Reference to a nine-judge bench was made in 2007. The issue refers to the interpretation of Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951(IDR Act).
Section 18G allows the Central Government to ensure that certain products related to scheduled industries are distributed fairly and are available at reasonable prices. They can do this by issuing an official notification to control the supply, distribution, and trade of these products. However, as per Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State legislature has the power to regulate trade, production, and distribution of products from industries under Union control and similar imported goods.
The reference arose when in Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. vs. State of U.P., a seven-judge bench had failed to address Section 18G's interference with the concurrent powers of the State.
9. Contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved and Baba Ramdev
On May 14, a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah reserved orders on the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna over publishing misleading medical advertisements. They had tendered apology to the Court for publishing the ads in violation of the Court's injunctions.
Important Hearings On Recent Legal Developments To Look Forward To :
1. Challenge To The NEET-UG 2024 Examination
The Supreme Court bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is set to hear the batch of petitions challenging the alleged malpractices and irregularities in the NEET-UG 2024 Examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on July 8.
The batch of petitions challenges various aspects of the conduct of the examination by the National Testing Agency (NTA). These include - the issue of paper leaks, recall of the NEET Results and demand for fresh exams, plea for CBI investigation into the malpractices and also directions for restraining NTA from conducting NEET-UG afresh.
The Top Court on June 21 refused to stay counselling process for medical admissions and clarified that any such admissions will be subject to the outcome of the pending petitions. On July 5, the NTA and the Centre informed the Court that they were not in favour of cancelling the exam in its entirety.
2. Issue Of Election Freebies Promised By Political Parties
A long pending matter over the validity of political parties promising election freebies out of public funds is anticipated to be heard on merits by the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud. The PIL seeks directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns.
It may noted that on March 20, the bench of CJI Chandrchud agreed to consider the petitioner's request for an early hearing and termed the case to be an 'important matter'.
3. Review Of The 'Marriage Equality Case'
The Supreme Court on July 10 is set to review its earlier decision in Supriyo v. Union of India where the Top Court refused to recognize same-sex marriages as valid in law.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BV Nagarathna replace the retired members of the bench. The other judges are Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha. The review petitions are listed in chambers(meaning that there is no open court hearing).
4. Reconsideration Of The PMLA Judgement
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi is scheduled to hear the pleas calling for reconsideration of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The hearing will begin on July 23.
It may be recalled that on November 23, 2023, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Bela M Trivedi which was earlier hearing the instant pleas was dissolved, as the union government sought more time to prepare and Justice Kaul was set to retire in a month. Considering the circumstances, a request was made to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to constitute another Bench, and it led to the replacement of Justice Kaul by Justice Sundresh.
5. Contempt Case Against DDA Vice Chairman For Illegally Felling Trees In Delhi's Ridge Forest
During the Court vacations, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda for the felling of trees in violation of the orders of the Court. During the proceedings, the Court pulled up the Delhi Government also for permitting the tree felling and issued notice to it. The Court observed that the Delhi Government "usurped" the powers of the Tree Officer under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act 1994 while allowing the DDA to cut around 443 trees.
The Court also placed reliance on the email records of DDA officials which stated that the felling of timber was to be done on the apparent directions of Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena in the capacity of DDA Chairman during a site visit. The bench has directed a compliance report to be filed by July 11 disclosing records of what transpired in the visit by the Delhi Governor.
6. Plea For Expert Committee Assessment Of Three New Criminal Laws
A petition seeking the issuance of specific directions to immediately constitute an expert committee for assessing and identifying the viability of the three new criminal laws has been filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioner has additionally prayed for a stay on the implementation of the 3 criminal laws - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita (BSS).
The three laws came into effect on July 1. It may be noted that previously several legal and political dignitaries and organisations wrote to the Centre requesting to defer the implementation of these laws until they are reconsidered before the newly composed Parliament. These include Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee as well as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).