10 Remarkable Judgements by the Supreme Court in India -2015
10 Remarkable Judgments of 2015 by the Supreme Court in India
After a couple of High Courts allowed
mediation to take place between the Rape Victim and the Accused, the Supreme
Court in a strong worded judgment held that in a case of rape or attempt of
rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought
of. The Supreme Court accordingly ruled out mediation in such cases. Apex Court
bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant observed “any kind of liberal
approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely
sans legal permissibility.”
The
year 2015 witnessed a rare event of the Apex Court opening its gates for
hearing an urgent Writ petition. Yakub Memon’s final plea before the Apex Court
was heard in Court Room 4 which was opened for an unprecedented 90-minute
hearing that started at 3.20 AM and ended a little before dawn. The Bench
comprising Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice P.C. Pant
agreed and observed that granting further time was not necessary in the present
case. The bench said the execution was “inevitable” after rejection of the
mercy petitions. Yakub was executed the very next day on his birthday. Read
more about that eventful night at Supreme Court here.
Netizens also had a good year with Supreme
Court striking down Section 66A of Information Technology which was viewed as
‘draconian’ by many. The Apex court bench comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar
and R.F. Nariman held that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and
disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance
between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such
right.”
Singh vs. Union of India]:
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by a death row
convict, and held that Section 364A awarding death penalty as a possible
punishment, for kidnapping any person threatening to cause death in order to
compel Government or any other person, to pay ransom, is not unconstitutional.
Three Judge Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and Adarsh Kumar Goel
examined the background of the Section 364A and held that it was enacted for
the safety and security of the citizens and the unity, sovereignty and
integrity of the country.
5. Acid Attack Victims in disability list [Parivartan Kendra vs.Union of India] :
The Supreme Court has directed all the States and Union
Territories to consider the plight of Acid Attack victims and take appropriate
steps with regard to inclusion of their names under the disability list. Apex
court bench of Justices M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan said that State shall upon
itself take full responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of the
victims of acid attack as per the Guidelines provided in Laxmi vs. Union of
India.
6. Age determination of rape victim clarified [State of M.P. vs Anoop Singh]:
Answering with the
central question as to the criteria to be adopted and applied to resolve the
controversy over the age of a rape victim in the event of a discrepancy in the
birth certificate and the school certificate, the Supreme Court of India has
held that Rule 12(3) of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007, is applicable in determining the age of the victim of rape, and
that medial opinion can be relied on only in the absence of the documents
prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules.
7. NJAC held unconstitutional (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India):
Within a year of both
houses of Union Legislature passed much awaited National Judicial Appointments
Commission Bill, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act by 4:1. Justices J
S Khehar, MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel declared the 99th
Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while lone minority, Justice
Chelameswar upheld it. The judgement rendered by five judges runs over 1000
pages.
8. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal [Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P]:
Two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in held that the father of the deceased has locus standi to
prefer an appeal before the High Court under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
as he falls within the definition of victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of
Cr.P.C. to question the correctness of the Judgment and order of acquittal of
Accused in the Case.
9. Law giving ual right to daughters prospectiveqe [Prakash vs. Phulavati ] :
Apex Court clarified that the law, which gave equal right to
daughters in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, is
prospectively enforceable and not with retrospective effect (as held by some
High Courts in the country).
10. No politician photos in Govt Ads [Common cause vs. Union of India]:
A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice
Ranjan Gogoi and Justice P.C. Ghose has restrained ruling parties from
publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in
government-funded advertisements.
BY ~ Shayan Sachin Basu & Ritesh Kanodia
Comments
Post a Comment