1. Navtej Johar v.

Union of India (Constitutionality of Section 377)

(https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf)

In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today scrapped the controversial Section 377– a
158-year-old colonial law on consensual gay sex. The Supreme Court reversed its own decision
and said Sectuion 377 is irrational and arbitary. “LGBT Community has same rights as of any
ordinary citizen. Respect for individual choice is the essence of liberty; LGBT community
possesses equal rights under the constitution. Criminalising gay sex is irrational and
indefensible,” said Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who headed the five judge bench hearing the case.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices
Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

CJI Misra and Justices Nariman, Chandrachud and Malhotra delivered separate, concurring
judgments.

2. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (Decriminalisation of Adultery)

(https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/32550/32550_2017_Judgement_27-Sep-
2018.pdf)

In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court scrapped the 150-year old adultery law. Reading
out the judgement, CJI Dipak Misra clearly stated that equality is the need of the hour. He also
added that time has come when the husband should not be considered the master.

“Adultery cannot and should not be a crime. It can be a ground for a civil offence, a ground for
divorce,”

-Justice Dipak Misra

The Court struck down Sec 497 as unconstitutional being violative of Art 14, 15 and 21 of the
constitution and held that Sec 198(2) of CrPC shall be unconstitutional to the extent that it is
applicable to Sec 497 IPC.
The autonomy of an individual to make his or her choices with respect to his/her sexuality is the
most intimate choice of life and should be protected from public censure through criminal
sanction.

3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act)

(https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Jud
gement_26-Sep-2018.pdf)

It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one, but
being unique makes you the only one.”

In a 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court has declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as
constitutionally valid, but with conditions. The majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution
Bench has ruled that there is no need to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones, but
held that Aadhaar could be passed as a money bill. The court further says that schools cannot
insist on Aadhaar and read down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, barring sharing of information
with corporate bodies.

Just months after India’s Supreme Court prohibited private companies from asking customers
their Aadhaar data for authentication, the Indian government approved changes in laws that will
make legal the voluntary submission of Aadhaar. The Indian government is amending the
Telegraph Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that will allow people to
link their Aadhaar with their bank account and mobile number voluntarily.

4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Entry)

(https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28
-Sep-2018.pdf)
The Supreme Court considered whether the Sabarimala Temple’s customary religious practice,
which prohibits the entry of women, violates fundamental rights guaranteed to women by the
Indian Constitution.

In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation petition before the
Supreme Court challenging the Sabrimala Temple’s custom of excluding women. The
Association argued that the custom violates the rights to equality under Article 14 and freedom
of religion under Article 25 of female worshipers.

In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that Sabarimala’s exclusion of women violated the fundamental
rights of women between the ages of 10-50 years and Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules was
unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra delivering a dissenting opinion observed that in a secular
polity, it was not for the Courts to interfere in matters of religion and the same must be left to
those practicing the religion.

The 5-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled
thatwomencannowenterKerala’s Sabarimala temple, irrespective of their age. The judgement
wasn’t a unanimous decision with Justice Indu Malhotra voting against the petition.Since
judgement was passed, Sabarimala has been a point of contention with the local police and
tribalsopposing the entry of women and blocking off roads.

5. Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta (Reservation in Promotion)

<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/34614/34614_2011_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf>

As the Supreme Court has upheld reservation in promotion for the SC/ST communities, the
court’s position on the idea of a creamy layer has put the political class in a dilemma.

So far creamy layer is applicable only for OBCs seeking reservation. Last year, the creamy layer
ceiling for OBC reservation was raised to Rs 8 lakh per year — families with income above this
were not eligible.

How will a creamy layer apply to SC/STs is uncharted territory. While the government says it is
still “examining” the judgment, SC/ST groups are restive in a poll year that has seen caste
protests nationwide.

The Supreme Court has made it easier tograntcaste-basedreservationsto members of the Dalit
community (Scheduled Castes) and Adivasi(Scheduled Tribes) during job promotions. But, the
apex court has also potentially made it harder for economically advanced SCs and STs to reap
reservation benefits by extending the 'creamy layer' exclusion to those members

6. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (Electoral Disqualification)

 The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that candidates cannot be
disqualified merely because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case.
The bench urged the legislature to consider framing law to ensure decriminalisation of
politics.The judgment came on petitions filed by BJP Leader AshwiniUpdhyaya, former
CEC JM Lyngdoh& NGO, Public Interest Foundation by a bench comprising Chief
Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY
Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra

8. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (Special Status of Delhi)

https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/29357.pdf

In this landmark verdict that came as a shot in the arm for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP
government in its tussle with Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal for control of Delhi, a five-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the elected government of Delhi
do not require the concurrence of the Lt Governor who only needs to be informed.

Calling for Constitutional pragmatism and underlining the clear separation of powers, the bench
of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y
Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, in three separate yet concurring orders, made it clear that “the
status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains
an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.

9. Triple Talaq case (shayara Bano v. Union of India)

WP (C) 118/2016
India banned the practice of‘instantdivorce’by Muslimmen. The government decision came after
it failed to get approval of Parliament a year after the court ruled that the practice of triple
"talaq" violated the constitutional rights of Muslim women.
Under Article 25 of the Constitution the state cannot take away the essential religious
practice of a person. Therefore, if a practice which is arbitrary and not an essential
religious practice it will be hit by the exception laid down u/a 25
 10. Euthanasia case ([Common Cause (A Regd. Society) V. Union of India & Anr])

(Sci.gov.in, 2018) https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2005/9123/9123_2005_Judgement_09-

Mar-2018.pdf

Supreme Court of India has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Bench
also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally valid.

The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. “The right to life and liberty as envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere
individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21
to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty”.

The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the
process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in Persistent vegetative state with
no hope of recovery.

The Supreme Court of India established that the right to die with dignity isthe fundamental right
of every citizen. If a person if in the process of dying, as is the case of terminally ill patients or
person who are in a persistent vegetative state, then passive euthanasia and a living will should
be considered legally valid.

8.The live stream of SC proceedings [Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India]

[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2018]

In the interest of transparency and larger public interest, the Supreme Court has allowed the live
streaming of court proceedings saying that, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Soon to be
implemented, the rules for live streaming will be framed under Article 145 of the Indian
constitution.