Top Quotes Of The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part I]

“This is not to say that performance in competitive examination or admission in higher educational institutions does not require a great degree of hard work and dedication, but it is necessary to understand that ―merit is not solely of one's own making. The rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family, schooling, fortune, and a gift of talents that the society currently values aids in one's advancement. Thus, the exclusionary standard of merit serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face barriers in their advancement which are not of their own making. But the idea of merit based on ―scores in an exam requires a deeper scrutiny. While examinations are a necessary and convenient method of distributing educational opportunities, marks may not always be the best gauge of individual merit. Even then marks are often used as a proxy for merit. Individual calibre transcends performance in an examination. Standardized measures such as examination results are not the most accurate assessment of the qualitative difference between candidates.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73]

2. State to run an extra mile to facilitate safe working conditions for women

“The justification provided by the respondents, to sustain the restriction [imposing gender-based caps in orchestra bars], in so far as they claim to protect the women, in the opinion of this court, lay it open to the charge of entombing their aspirations. In case there were any real concern for the safety of women, the state is under a duty to create situations conducive to their working, to run that extra mile to facilitate their employment, rather than to thwart it, and stifle their choice. Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women’s choice of their avocation...As the authorities of this court have repeatedly emphasized, whenever challenges arise, particularly based on gender, it is the task of the judges to scrutinize closely, whether, if and the extent to which the impugned practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism. Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male “bastions” such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. Similarly, in the present case, this court holds that the gender cap imposed by the impugned condition is void.” [Justice Ravindra Bhat in Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186]

3. Repatriated foreign medical students are national resource

“No doubt, the pandemic has thrown new challenges to the entire world including the students but granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large...The students were permitted to undergo medical course abroad and that they have completed their curriculum according to the certificate granted by such Foreign Institute. Therefore, such national resource cannot be permitted to be wasted which will affect the life of young students, who had taken admission in the foreign Institutes as part of their career prospects. Therefore, the services of the students should be used to augment health infrastructure in the country. Thus, it would be necessary that the students undergo actual clinical training of such duration.” [Justice Hemant Gupta (retd.) in National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426]

4. Sedition law of the colonial regime unsuitable for current social milieu

“It is clear that the Union of India agrees wirth the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC [sedition law] is not in tune with the current social milieu and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused...Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments.” [Order by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana (retd.) and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470]

5. Women in domestic relationships have the right to reside in shared households

“A woman in a domestic relationship who is not aggrieved, in the sense that who has not been subjected to an act of domestic violence by the respondent, has a right to reside in a shared household. Thus, a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law or such other categories of women in a domestic relationship have the right to reside in a shared household dehors a right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Therefore, the right of residence of the aforesaid categories of women and such other categories of women in a domestic relationship is guaranteed under the Act and she cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence…Thus, the expression ‘right to reside in a shared household’ has to be given an expansive interpretation, in respect of the aforesaid categories of women including a mother-in-law of a daughter-in-law and other categories of women referred to above who have the right to reside in a shared household…In the Indian societal context, the right of a woman to reside in the shared household is of unique importance. In India, most women are not educated nor are they earning; neither do they have financial independence so as to live singly. She may be dependent for residence in a domestic relationship not only for emotional support but for the aforesaid reasons. The said relationship may be by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or is a part of or is living together in a joint family. A majority of women in India do not have independent income or financial capacity and are totally dependent vis-à-vis their residence on their male or other female relations who may have a domestic relationship with her.” [Justice B.V. Nagarathna in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474]

6. Domestic Violence Act applicable to women irrespective of religion

“In our view, the Domestic Violence Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship. Therefore, the expression ‘joint family’ cannot mean as understood in Hindu Law. Thus, the expression ‘family members living together as a joint family’, means the members living jointly as a family. In such an interpretation, even a girl child/children who is/are cared for as foster children also have a right to live in a shared household and are conferred with the right under the Act. When such a girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the protection of the Act comes into play.” [Justice B.V. Nagarathna in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474]

7. Sex workers entitled to live with dignity and under equal protection of law

“The constitutional regard for human decency and dignity has been explicitly incorporated into Article 21 by this Court. While expounding on the scope of the right to life under Article 21, this Court extended the meaning of the right to life beyond the protection of limb or faculty to include the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self. Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children…Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action. There have been concerns that the police view sex workers differently from others. When a sex worker makes a complaint of criminal/sexual/any other type of offence, the police must take it seriously and act in accordance with law. Any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance. Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised. The police and other law enforcement agencies should be sensitised to the rights of sex workers who also enjoy all basic human rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens. Police should treat all sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, both verbally and physically, subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity.” [Order by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525]

8. Criminal courts are guardian angels of liberty and other constitutional values

“The rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice. Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the Criminal Courts. Any conscious failure by the Criminal Courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the Criminal Court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court must uphold the constitutional thrust with responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a high priest.” [Justice M.M. Sundresh in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577]

9. Democracy can never be a police state

“Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offense, being charged with offenses punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offense being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the Investigating Agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” [Justice M.M. Sundresh in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577]

10. Arrest not a punitive tool to be used by the mighty state against lone individuals

“The machinery of criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against the petitioner. Despite the fact that the same tweets allegedly gave rise to similar offences in the diverse FIRs mentioned above, the petitioner was subjected to multiple investigations across the country. Consequently, he would be required to hire multiple advocates across districts, file multiple applications for bail, travel to multiple districts spanning two states for the purposes of investigation, and defend himself before multiple courts, all with respect to substantially the same alleged cause of action. Resultantly, he is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment. It also appears that certain dormant FIRs from 2021 were activated as certain new FIRs were registered, thereby compounding the difficulties faced by the petitioner. Police officers are vested with the power to arrest individuals at various stages of the criminal justice process, including during the course of investigation. However, this power is not unbridled…Police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) are met before they conduct an arrest. This Court has time and again, reiterated the importance of doing so…Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law, it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment. Section 41 of the CrPC as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Mohammed Zubair v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629]

11. Gag orders have a chilling effect on freedom of speech

“The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed…Merely because the complaints filed against the petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion - an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen - would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. According to the petitioner, he is a journalist who is the co-founder of a fact checking website and he uses Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false news and misinformation in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos. Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Mohammed Zubair v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629]

12. Domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships are also family

“The predominant understanding of the concept of a "family" both in the law and in society is that it consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father (who remain constant over time) and their children. This assumption ignores both, the many circumstances which may lead to a change in one’s familial structure, and the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation to begin with. Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718]

13. Rape may occur even in the context of marriage

“Married women may also form part of the class of survivors of sexual assault or rape. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘rape’ is sexual intercourse with a person, without their consent or against their will, regardless of whether such forced intercourse occurs in the context of matrimony. A woman may become pregnant as a result of non-consensual sexual intercourse performed upon her by her husband. We would be remiss in not recognizing that intimate partner violence is a reality and can take the form of rape. The misconception that strangers are exclusively or almost exclusively responsible for sex- and gender-based violence is a deeply regrettable one. Sex- and gender-based violence (in all its forms) within the context of the family has long formed a part of the lived experiences of scores of women…Marital assault merely forms a part of a long list of deeds that amount to violence in the context of the family. It is not inconceivable that married women become pregnant as a result of their husbands having “raped” them. The nature of sexual violence and the contours of consent do not undergo a transformation when one decides to marry. The institution of marriage does not influence the answer to the question of whether a woman has consented to sexual relations.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809]

14. Women do not require consent from a third party for abortion

“The ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children. It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare. Women must also have the autonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence. [Reproductive] decisions [are] intimately linked to wider political, social, and economic structures. A woman’s role and status in family, and society generally, is often tied to childbearing and ensuring the continuation of successive generations. A woman is often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste. Such external societal factors affect the way a woman exercises autonomy and control over her body, particularly in matters relating to reproductive decisions. Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of legal barriers restricting a woman’s right to access abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only the woman can choose on her own terms without external interference or influence. Reproductive autonomy requires that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any consent or authorization from a third party…It is a common yet lamentable practice to insist on compliance with extra-legal conditions such as consent from the woman’s family, documentary proofs, or judicial authorisation. If the woman fails to comply with these additional requirements, registered medical practitioners frequently decline to provide their services in conducting legal abortions. These extra-legal requirements have no basis in law. It is only the woman’s consent (or her guardian’s consent if she is a minor or mentally ill) which is material.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809]

15. Unmarried women have the same abortion rights as married women

“The social stigma that women face for engaging in pre-marital sexual relations prevents them from realizing their right to reproductive health in a variety of ways. They have insufficient or no access to knowledge about their own bodies due to a lack of sexual health education, their access to contraceptives is limited, and they are frequently unable to approach healthcare providers and consult them with respect to their reproductive health. Consequently, unmarried and single women face additional obstacles. The social stigma surrounding single women who are pregnant is even greater and they often lack support from their family or partner. This leads to the proliferation of persons not qualified / certified to practice medicine. Such persons offer the possibility of a discreet abortion, and many women may feel compelled by their circumstances to engage the services of such persons instead of opting for a medically safe abortion. This often leads to disastrous consequences for the woman…In the evolution of the law towards a gender equal society, the interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and MTP Rules must consider the social realities of today and not be restricted by societal norms of an age which has passed into the archives of history. As society changes and evolves, so must our mores and conventions. A changed social context demands a readjustment of our laws. Law must not remain static, and its interpretation should keep in mind the changing social context and advance the cause of social justice…Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14. The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes “permissible sex”, which create invidious classifications and excludes groups based on their personal circumstances. The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the right of choice on whether or not to bear a child, on a similar footing of a married woman.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809]

16. Child carries her dignity and her privacy even when she is inside the school gates

“One of the best sights in India today, is of a girl child leaving for her school in the morning, with her school bag on her back. She is our hope, our future. But it is also a fact, that it is much more difficult for a girl child to get education, as compared to her brother. In villages and semi urban areas in India, it is commonplace for a girl child to help her mother in her daily chores of cleaning and washing, before she can grab her school bag. The hurdles and hardships a girl child undergoes in gaining education are many times more than a male child. This case therefore has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school. The question this Court would therefore put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education, merely because she wears a hijab…A girl child has the right to wear hijab in her house or outside her house, and that right does not stop at her school gate. The child carries her dignity and her privacy even when she is inside the school gates, in her classroom. She retains her fundamental rights. To say that these rights become derivative rights inside a classroom, is wholly incorrect.” [Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in his opinion in Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842]

17. School education is when our children realise diversity is our strength

“The question of diversity and our rich plural culture is, however, important in [this] context. Our schools, in particular our Pre-University colleges are the perfect institutions where our children, who are now at an impressionable age, and are just waking up to the rich diversity of this nation, need to be counselled and guided, so that they imbibe our constitutional values of tolerance and accommodation, towards those who may speak a different language, eat different food, or even wear different clothes or apparels! This is the time to foster in them sensitivity, empathy and understanding towards different religions, languages and cultures. This is the time when they should learn not to be alarmed by our diversity but to rejoice and celebrate this diversity. This is the time when they must realise that in diversity is our strength…Fraternity, which is our Constitutional value, would therefore require us to be tolerant, and as some of the learned Counsels would argue to be, reasonably accommodating, towards the belief and religious practices of others. We should remember the appeal made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Bijoe Emmanuel, “Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”” [Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in his opinion in Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842]

18. Fraternity requires members of different communities to live in harmony

"The complaint which has been raised in the instant writ petition appears to be very serious. It relates to the growing climate of hate in the country. This is attributable, according to the petitioner, to an unending flow of what is described as hate speeches being made by various persons against the Muslim community. The complaint of the petitioner is one of despondency and angst arising from the perception that despite suitable provisions in penal law being available, there is inaction or rather total inaction. The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony.” [Order by Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872]

19. Equality is intertwined with fraternity  

“This court has, for the first time in the seven decades of the Republic, sanctioned an exclusionary and discriminatory principle. Our Constitution does not speak the language of exclusion. In my considered opinion the amendment is the language of exclusion and violates the principle of justice, and thereby the basic structure…Destitution and economic poverty are markers of intelligible differentia forming the basis of the classification of which the impugned amendment is premised, on which ground the constitutional amendment is indefeasible. However, by excluding a large number of equally poor and destitute individuals based on social backwardness on legally acknowledged class stigmatisation, the amendment practises constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination…Such exclusion strikes at the heart of the equality code, specifically the non-discriminatory facet…The specific provisions which form part of the equality code are inextricably intertwined with fraternity as well. It is fraternity and no other idea which says that ultimately all individuals are human beings, all go through the same natural process, subject to the same physical limitations, and finally will leave this world. The idea of fraternity is to awaken to the consciousness of each member of society that the institution which are created, the ideas we develop, and the progress we want cannot be without cooperation and harmony.” [Justice Ravindra Bhat (on behalf of himself and former Chief Justice, U.U. Lalit) in a dissenting opinion in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922]

20. Sealed covers make process of adjudication vague and opaque

“The elementary principle of law is that all material which is relied upon by either party in the course of a judicial proceeding must be disclosed. Even if the adjudicating authority does not rely on the material while arriving at a finding, information that is relevant to the dispute, which would with 'reasonable probability' influence the decision of the authority must be disclosed. A one-sided submission of material which forms the subject matter of adjudication to the exclusion of the other party causes a serious violation of natural justice. In the present case, this has resulted in grave prejudice to officers whose careers are directly affected as a consequence. The non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed cover to the adjudicating authority sets a dangerous precedent. The disclosure of relevant material to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover makes the process of adjudication vague and opaque. However, this is not to say that all information must be disclosed in the public. Illustratively, sensitive information affecting the privacy of individuals such as the identity of a sexual harassment victim cannot be disclosed. The measure of nondisclosure of sensitive information in exceptional circumstances must be proportionate to the purpose that the non-disclosure seeks to serve. The exceptions should not, however, become the norm.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951]

The second part can be read here.