The Most Important Judgements Of 2020 - Part 3

Below mentioned are few of the most important judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2020. Despite the major controversies, the Apex Court’s stand of moving towards progress is evident through these judgments. From allowing daughters to have an equal share in property and giving this a retrospective effect, to giving a clear message that it cares about the rights of the workers as much as it does for rights of any other sector, the Court has ensured that it does delivers justice to all ends, and lays noble precedents for other courts to follow.

PLEA TO TRANSFER PM-CARES FUNDS TO NDRF DISMISSED

The Supreme Court of India had dismissed a petition which sought the transfer of funds collected in the PM-CARES fund to the National Disaster Relief Fund (NDRF). While the NDRF was constituted under the Disaster Management Act and serves as a pot of funds during any disaster (disaster as defined in the Disaster Management Act), the PM-CARES for constituted during the Coronavirus Pandemic and is primarily to be used for providing relief to the battered sections of society in this time. The main contention of the plea was that the PM-CARES fund does not have the necessary transparency with the funds collected thereunder, and that its constitution was not required when the NDRF is already in existence.

VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had held that a daughter will enjoy a share in the ancestral property by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, irrespective of the fact whether the father was alive or not at the time of passing of this amendment act. By giving the amendment act a retrospective effect, the Supreme Court has aimed at increasing the role and interest of women, especially daughters, in the ancestral property. Prior to the 2005 amendment, the Hindu Succession Act was severely castigated for being male-centric and curtailing daughters’ rights. However, vide the 2005 amendment act, the Parliament had provided for equal share of daughters in the ancestral property.

GUJARATI MAZDOOR SABHA V. STATE OF GUJARAT

Vide this judgment, the Supreme Court had struck down a Notification issued by the State of Gujarat suspending certain provisions of the Factories Act during the nationwide lockdown imposed by the Center. While suspending the provisions of the Factory Act, the State of Gujarat argued that the purpose of the Act is to ensure proper production for the Company and at the same time ensuring that the workers get their rightful compensation. However, when the lockdown had battered several factories, it was necessary to balance out the some provisions of the Act to make it even for the Factory and the workers. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this contention and gave a clear message that a State Government cannot thrive towards curtailing the bolsters made to ensure workers’ rights.

TOFAN SINGH V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had held that interpreted the term “officers” as used in section 53 of the NDPS officer to include Police officers. This interpretation is aimed at curbing the misuse of the NDPS act by the State authorities. Prior, to this the Police officers could take confessional statements from the persons in custody to use it against them. However, after this judgment, such statements are now barred from being used as evidence under the Evidence Act and can no more be used to convict a person under the NDPS Act.

TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court held that the Medical Council of India does not have any power to make reservation for in-service candidates in Post-Graduation Medical Courses. The Judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench consisting of five Judges. The Petition herein was filed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association challenging certain provisions of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, framed by the Medical Council of India. The Supreme Court, while upholding the Petitioner’s contention that the Medical Education falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, also observed that States have the power to make regulations providing for reservation for in-service doctors in PG Medical Courses.

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020, (“Tribunal 2020 Rules”) rolled by the Center. The Petitioners had prayed to the Apex Court to declare the said rules as unconstitutional, for the Search-cum-Selection Committees provided in thereunder was not conforming to the principles of judicial dominance, and that the appointment of persons without judicial experience to the posts of Judicial Members/ Presiding Officer/ Chairpersons was in contravention to the existing laws laid by the Court;. However, the Court, other than upholding the validity, also directed the Union of India to constitute a National Tribunals Commission to supervise the appointments made to the tribunals and their functioning.

AMISH DEVGAN V. UNION OF INDIA

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court rightly distinguished between “free speech” and “hate speech”, and emphasized on the importance of criminalizing “hate speeches” for they repudiate the ‘Right to Equality’ in a polity committed to pluralism. The judgment observed that while a “free speech” is primarily concerned with political, social and economic issues and policy matters, a “hate speech”, on the other hand, would not primarily focus on the subject matter but on the substance of the message which is to cause humiliation and alienation of a targeted group. The Court emphasized upon the necessity to criminalize the latter in order to protect the dignity of an individual and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups. Ultimately, the Court refused to quash FIR against TV anchor Amish Devgan for allegedly giving out hate remarks against Sufi Saint Moinuddin Chishti.

M RAVINDRAN V. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court laid explanations regarding the right of an accused person to a default bail. The Court had explained in detail as to when this right accrues, till when it is enforceable and when does it finally extinguish.

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT V. PV KRISHNAMOORTHY

In this case, the Supreme Court had given its nod to Central Government’s project, ad allowed it to carry forward the land acquisition process in relation to the 1000 crore 8-lane Chennai-Salem-Highway “Green Field Corridor”. The project is based in Tamil Nadu. It Court had ruled that the declaration under Section 3D of the National Highways Act can be made only if the environment clearance has been granted. Sections 3A to 3J of the Act provides the procedure for acquisition of the land for the purpose of building a national highway. As per Section 3A, the Central Government can acquire a land for public purposes if it is satisfied that such land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof.

SATISH CHANDRA AHUJA V. SNEHA AHUJA

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a wife is also entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband. Vide this judgment, the Court overruled its 2006 judgment in SR Batra vs Smt Taruna Batra and has made it clear that a wife has right to residence even if house not owned by spouse. This progressive judgment was passed in a case involving the Domestic Violence Act.

AMIT SAHNI V. UNION OF INDIA

This case had come up before the Supreme Court at the time of Coronavirus lockdown imposed by the Center. The Petition sought direction for the Central Government and State Governments to release all prisoners on parole, who are either above 50 years of age, or those suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, respiratory problem and other life threatening diseases, so as to protect them from the spread of the Coronavirus inside the prison. Refusing to issue any blanket direction, the Supreme Court held that it was up to the Governments to decide the best course of action, and that the release of prisoners on parole has to vary from case to case.

MOHAN LAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB

The judgment of this case was passed in 2018 wherein the Supreme Court had held that where the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court again clarified that appeals prior to the law laid down in this case, shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case, and observed that, “ajudgment cannot be allowed to become a spring board by an accused   for   being   catapulted   to   acquittal,   irrespective   of   all   other considerations pursuant to an investigation and prosecution when the law in that regard was nebulous.”