LANDMARK JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 2019

DIVESTMENT OF CBI’S DIRECTOR

• What was the case?
  • The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), in October 2018, took away the powers and functions of Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Thereafter a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the said order and the petitioners argued that the order passed by the Central Government was violative of Section 4 of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act and the Supreme Court guidelines issued in Vineet Narain case.
  • Under Section 4A of the DSPE Act, the approval of the Selection Committee is necessary to divest the powers of the director of CBI.
• Court ruling:
  • In January 2019, the Supreme Court held that the orders issued by the Central Government were not valid and thus quashed them.
  • Alok Verma was reinstated with his powers and duties.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE UPHELD

• What was the case?
  • The constitutional validity of the IBC and National Company Law Tribunal has been questioned
  • Petitioners argued that difference between operational creditors and financial creditors were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
• Court ruling:
  • Supreme Court, in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. v Union of India, held that the difference between operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible differentia and thus not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT.

CINEMA BAN IN WEST BENGAL OVERTURNED:

• What was the case?
  • Bengali film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was stopped from screening by the Bengal Government in most of the cinemas.
  • The Government contended that the movie was politically sensitive and it may hurt some sentiments and cause disorder in the State
  • A plea was filed by the producers of the film claiming their fundamental right to speech and expression has been violated
• Court ruling:
  • Supreme Court held that Public officials and the State Government are subject to the rule of law and cannot gag free speech due to fear of violence.
  • The ban imposed on the Bengali film was overturned and compensation was provided to the producers.

RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS UNDER KARNATAKA ACT UPHELD

• What was the case?

• •  Karnataka in 2002, enacted a law that stated consequential seniority would be applicable while dealing with promotions of the SC/ST employees in government offices.
  • This implied that a reserved category employee could be promoted before a senior employee belonging to the general category.
  • In 2007 the Supreme Court held that the law passed by the Karnataka Government did not comply with the guidelines established under the Nagraj case and was thus unconstitutional.
  • Subsequently, the Karnataka Government set up a Committee to demonstrate the criteria laid down in the Nagraj case has been fulfilled, i.e.
    • (1) current backwardness of SC/ST
    • (2) inadequate representation and
    • (3) and impact on administrative efficiency
  • And thereafter re-enacted the earlier law.
  • The constitutional validity of the re-enacted law was questioned.
  • The Supreme Court held that the deficiency that was noted in the 2002 Act have been fulfilled and the Reservation Act 2018 is thereby valid under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.
• Court ruling:
  • The constitutional validity of the Karnataka Act approving consequential seniority in promotions for the reserved category was upheld.

GOVERNMENT-FUNDED NGOS COME UNDER RTI:

• What was the case?
  • While deciding an appeal filed by the DAV management wherein they contended that they are not public authorities and thus do not come under Right to Information Act, the Court held that public authorities defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 would include all such institutions which are ‘substantially’ financed by the Government.
  • Substantially financing does not mean that the government should finance 50% or more, but it means that a large portion is financed by the government and the finance can be either direct or indirect.
  • This means that authorities that are financed by the government including the NGOs will have to maintain records as prescribed in the Act and vital information has to be presented to every citizen who asks for the same.
  • The Supreme Court added that every citizen has a right to know where the money is being spent by their government, thus NGOs financed by the government should be transparent in its proceedings and records.
• Court ruling:
  • NGOs which are directly or indirectly, substantially financed by the government come under the RTI Act and thus every citizen has the right to ask for information from them.

VERDICT ON AYODHYA- BABRI MASJID CASE:

• What was the case?
  • The Ayodhya- Babri Masjid dispute is the longest property dispute in the history of India.
  • The case was finally concluded by the Supreme Court after 134 years from the first case filed on this matter.
  • The Allahabad High Court delivered a judgment in 2010 wherein the land in dispute was divided into three equal parts, the judgment did not satisfy any of the parties involved and thus an appeal was filed in Supreme Court.
  • After 9 years and 40 days of continuous hearing, the Court gave one of the most crucial judgments.
  • The Court after observing the developments of the case scrapped the High Court verdict and held that the land in dispute is to be awarded to the Hindu Deity ‘Ram’ for the construction of the temple.
  • It was observed that the land was not of Islamic origin and the Masjid was not built on vacant land.
  • The Court also ordered that a suitable alternative land of 5 acres is to be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of the mosque in Ayodhya itself.
• Court ruling:
  • The disputed land was given to Ram Lalla and the Central Government has been ordered to formulate a scheme and set up a trust within 3 months for the construction of the temple.

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA COMES UNDER RTI:

• What was the case?
  • In November 2019, the Supreme Court in its historic judgment held that the CJI comes under the Right to Information Act and is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act.
  • This implies that the CJI is to be transparent and is answerable to all questions raised by the citizens of the County.
  • However, the court also emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality under certain aspects of the judiciary’s working.
  • The RTI will apply to CJI only when it is in the interest of the public and does not hamper the proceedings of the judiciary in any manner.
• Court ruling:
  • CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Judiciary has played an important role in expanding the scope of Right to Information Act (RTI).Elucidate?