Pune: The lives of millions of people in the country got changed by several landmark judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in 2018. The apex court expanded the ambit of fundamental rights. It also struck down laws which inferred that India was far behind other countries in recognising individual’s rights.
Here are some of this year’s landmark judgements.
Aadhaar constitutional with conditions
The Supreme Court declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. A five-judge constitution bench headed by (the then) Chief Justice Dipak Misra held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of IT returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking for mobile connections. It said Aadhaar is meant to help the benefits reach the marginalised sections of society and takes into account the dignity of people not only from personal but also community point of view.
Consensual unnatural sex, not a crime
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decriminalised part of the 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, saying it violated the rights to equality.
The bench said the other aspects of Section 377 of the IPC dealing with unnatural sex with animals and children remain in force. Dealing with a clutch of petitions, the court held that Section 377 was used as a weapon to harass members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community, resulting in discrimination.
Section 377 referred to ‘unnatural offences’ and stated whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
Adultery law
A five-judge constitution bench was unanimous in holding Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with the offence of adultery, as unconstitutional and struck down the penal provision.
Section 497 of the 158-year-old Indian Penal Code (IPC) says, “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery.”
This law had prohibited women from filing cases against their husbands for adultery. Only men could file the cases. The court said any provision treating women with inequality is not constitutional and it’s time to say that the husband is not the master of a woman.
Entry of women of all ages to Sabarimala temple
On September 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in 4:1 verdict had paved the way for the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.
The court struck down a rule that disallowed girls and women in the age group of 10 years to 50 years group from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
Though there is huge opposition to the implementation of this verdict, the apex court has refused to stay the judgement.
Live streaming of court proceedings
The Supreme Court agreed to live-streaming and video recording of court proceedings, saying ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’.
Live-streaming of court proceedings will effectuate ‘public right to know’ and bring in more transparency in judicial proceedings. It will soon make the necessary rules for balancing the rights of public and protecting dignity of litigants.
