We take a look at 25 important cases dealt with by the apex court in 2023, followed by some honourable mentions and what to look forward to in 2024.
As 2023 draws to a close, we look back at the year the Supreme Court of India has had.
2023 was witness to a fair share of controversy, both on the judicial side and on administrative side of the top court.
While various judicial pronouncements were far from well received, administrative decisions on listing of cases also drew negative attention.
In this piece, we take a look at 25 important cases dealt with by the apex court in 2023, followed by some honourable mentions
We have divided the former into four categories – Constitution Bench judgments, political cases, relief (and denial of relief) to political leaders/activists, and miscellaneous cases.
Constitution Bench judgments
1. Fundamental rights lie not only against the State, but also against non-State actors
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors
A five-judge Bench held that fundamental rights can be enforced not only against the State, but also against non-State actors.
This case originated from two instances of Ministers making controversial remarks against victims of a crime. The victims claimed that these remarks violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In a 4:1 decision, the Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression could only be curtailed by reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that this was an exhaustive list and that new restrictions could not be imposed in addition to these grounds.
2. Validity of unstamped arbitration agreements: Journey from illegality to recognition
Case Title: NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & ors; In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act
A five-judge Bench in April held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable. This was reversed in December by a seven-judge Bench.
The seven-judge Constitution Bench held that while unstamped arbitration agreements are inadmissible, they are not rendered void ab initio (void from the beginning) on account of the fact that they are unstamped.
The effect of not paying duty renders an instrument inadmissible and not void, and the defect of non-payment of stamp duty is curable, the Court held.
It added that the aspect of whether the arbitration agreement has been stamped or not is for the arbitral tribunal, and not the courts, to decide.
3. Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Article 370
Case Title: In Re: Article 370 of the Indian Constitution
A Constitution Bench on December 11 unanimously upheld the 2019 decision of the Central government to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which revoked the special status accorded to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The decision was rendered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant.
The Court held that Article 370 was only intended as a transitory provision and was temporary in character and thus, the President was empowered to abrogate it.
It further said that Jammu and Kashmir ceased to have any internal sovereignty once it acceded to the Union of India.
4. No legal recognition for same-sex marriages, civil unions
Case Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court in October refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, with the majority leaving it to the legislature to provide non-heterosexual couples the right to enter into a legally recognised marriage, a civil union or to adopt a child.
All the judges were unanimous in holding that there is no unqualified right to marriage and that same-sex couples cannot claim this as a fundamental right.
The Court also unanimously turned down a challenge to provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
5. 2014 judgment striking down Section 6A of DSPE Act is retrospective
Case Title: CBI v. RR Kishore
The Supreme Court in September ruled that its 2014 judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Director CBI, which struck down Section 6A of the 1946 Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), would have a retrospective effect.
Section 6A had provided that prior Central government sanction was mandatory before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could conduct investigations in corruption cases against Union government bureaucrats from the rank of Joint-Secretary onwards.
However, in 2014, the apex court struck down Section 6A (1) on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India. It had held that there cannot be a distinction between officials based on their status and rank.
6. Demonetisation move upheld
Case Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India
The year began with a five-judge Constitution Bench judgment upholding the Central government’s demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 bank notes in November 2016, with Justice BV Nagarathna dissenting.
The majority opinion held that hardships faced by the public cannot be grounds to set aside the exercise. The lone dissenting judge stated that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had not independently applied its mind to the case.
Justice Nagarathna said there was no “meaningful application of mind” when it came to withdrawing ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes, which formed 86 per cent of the currency in circulation at the time, causing a severe financial crunch and socio-economic despair.
7. Living will norms for passive euthanasia
Case Title: Common Cause v. Union of India
On January 24, the Court modified its 2018 judgment on passive euthanasia and living wills to do away with the need for a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) to give sanction and validity to a living will or advance directives of a person.
A Constitution Bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar specified that the document expressing a living will or an advance directive would need to be attested only by a notary or a gazetted officer to record their satisfaction that the same was signed willingly.
8. Marriages can be dissolved by apex court on ground of irretrievable breakdown
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
In May, a Constitution Bench said that it can dissolve a marriage in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, in cases where there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari held that the six month cooling-off period prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act can be dispensed with in such cases.
Pertinently, the Court said that divorces can be granted through such a route even when one of the parties opposes such a decree. The Bench, however, upheld a precedent that said that High Courts and the apex court could not be moved directly by parties seeking the dissolution of their marriage.
9. Group of companies doctrine in arbitration
A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in December ruled that the group of companies doctrine will be applicable to arbitration proceedings in India.
The “group of companies” doctrine states that a company that is a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement would be bound by the agreement if such a company is a member of the same group of companies that signed the agreement.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra concluded that non-signatory parties, by virtue of their relationship with the signatory and engagement in commercial activities, cannot be deemed strangers to the dispute under arbitration.
10. Chief Justice of India included in body to select Election Commissioners
Case Title: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors
In March, the apex court held that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (EC) would be selected by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), till a law is made by Parliament.
The Court held that in the absence of the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be on the committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and ECs.
However, before the year drew to a close, Parliament cleared a Bill which excludes the CJI from the selection panel.
Under the new law, the selection panel will comprise the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition.
Political cases
11. The Maharashtra political crisis
Case Title: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and ors
In May, the Court held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to call for a floor test based on the request of thirty-four MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena was incorrect since Koshyari did not have enough objective material before him to conclude that then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the house.
However, the Court held that status quo cannot be restored now since Thackeray did not face the floor test but chose to resign.
The Governor is not entitled to enter the political arena and play a role in intra-party and inter-party disputes, the Court said.
The verdict came on a batch of pleas concerning the change of power in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly after the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena formed the State government with the help of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), ousting Thackeray from the Chief Minister post in the process.
12. Delhi government versus Lieutenant Governor
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
In another judgment that had significant political ramifications, the Supreme Court in May held that the Delhi government (and not the Lieutenant Governor) would have control over all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except those pertaining to land, police and law and order.
The Court observed that while a state or union territory has the power to make laws on subjects under the Concurrent List, the same would be subject to the existing Central law. At the same time, it has to be ensured that the governance of states is not taken over by the Central government, the Court opined.
However, a week after the judgment, the President of India passed an ordinance (that eventually was enacted as a law) to give overriding powers to Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, who is the Central government nominee, to oversee transfers, postings and disciplinary proceedings against civil servants in Delhi.
A challenge to the same filed by the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government is pending adjudication before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
13. Tussles between Governors and elected governments of states
The latter half of 2023 also saw petitions being filed by the elected governments in Punjab, Kerala and Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court against their respective Governors. The grievances of the elected government related to delays by Governors in assenting to Bills passed by the State legislature.
On November 10, while delivering its judgment in Punjab’s case, the Supreme Court made it clear that a Governor cannot use his/her constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills. Days later, the Supreme Court asked Kerala Governor Mohammad Arif Khan to go through the Court’s November 10 verdict, after similar grievances were raised against Khan. The petitions against the Kerala Governor, as well as the Tamil Nadu Governor (RN Ravi) are still pending.
14. Manipur Violence crisis
The outbreak of intense violence in Manipur earlier this year triggered a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court, which also eventually took suo motu cognisance of the issue after a video of two women from the Kuki-Zomi community being paraded naked and molested by a mob of men went viral.
The Manipur Tribal Forum had told the top court that the Central government’s assurances on restoring peace in the State are empty, with BJP-backed communal groups being behind the attacks on tribals.
The Court eventually constituted an all-woman committee headed by retired Justice Gita Mittal to examine various issues concerning the State-wide conflict.
The case is still ongoing. In the last hearing of the matter on December 15, the Court recorded the Manipur government’s assurance that steps would be taken to ensure that persons in relief camps can attend ceremonies and prayers on the occasion of Christmas.
15. The controversy-mired elevation of Justice Victoria Gowri
In February, the top court rejected a plea by lawyers from Tamil Nadu challenging the Collegium recommendation to appoint Justice L Victoria Gowri as a judge of the Madras High Court.
All relevant facts, as well as the political background of Justice Gowri were taken into consideration by the Collegium before recommending her elevation, a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai held.
Justice Gowri had been in the eye of a storm ever since the Collegium recommended her elevation to the Madras High Court on January 17.
The recommendation sparked a discussion in legal circles and on social media about Gowri’s credentials, her alleged affiliation to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and her remarks against Islam and Christianity, which are available on YouTube.
Relief for opposition leaders and activists
16. Regular bail for Teesta Setalvad
Case Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
A three-judge special bench in July granted bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in the conspiracy case lodged against her for allegedly maligning the State of Gujarat and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi for their handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots.
This, after the Supreme Court had on July 1 granted interim protection to Setalvad, who is accused of fabricating documents and tutoring witnesses to implicate higher functionaries of the Gujarat government.
The Court held a special sitting on a Saturday to stay the Gujarat High Court order denying the activist bail.
17. Relief for Rahul Gandhi
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and anr
In August, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction and two-year jail term imposed on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Gujarat court in a criminal defamation case for his remark “All thieves have Modi surname.”
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and PV Sanjay Kumar said that the trial court did not give any specific reasons for imposing the maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment prescribed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of defamation, though the offence is a non-cognizable one.
The apex court further noted that the ramifications of Gandhi’s conviction are wide and affect the rights of electorate of Wayanad, the constituency which Gandhi was representing as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha.
18. Top court clubs FIRs against Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera
Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Assam and ors
The Supreme Court in March ordered that the three cases registered against Congress leader Pawan Khera in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Assam after he botched the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a press conference, should be clubbed and transferred to Lucknow in UP.
Khera was picked up from the Delhi airport on February 23 after he had boarded a plane to Chhattisgarh’s Raipur where he was headed for a meeting of the All India Congress Committee (AICC).
He had moved the top court the very same day, which granted him interim protection, which was later extended.
19. Supreme Court grants 2 Bhima Koregaon accused bail after 5 years in jail
Case Title: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Mere possession of literature through which violent acts may be propagated is not a ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Supreme Court held while granting bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in the Bhima Koregaon case.
Activists Gonsalves and Ferreira, along with 14 others are accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of being responsible for the violence that erupted at the Bhima Koregaon war memorial in Pune in 2017.
While granting bail to the two activists, however, the Court noted that there was no evidence of Gonsalves and Ferreira having committed any terrorist act that would require the Court to invoke the stringent provisions against grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
20. Supreme Court refuses to grant regular bail to Manish Sisodia
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Supreme Court on October 30 denied bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with cases related to the Delhi excise policy scam.
Sisodia has been in custody since February 26 this year. He is being probed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The scam involves allegations that Delhi government officials had connived to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes. The accused officials are alleged to have tweaked the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers.
Other important rulings
21. Why is the right to vote not a fundamental right?
Case title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K Madan Mohan Rao and Others
The Supreme Court in July observed that it was paradoxical that the right to vote has not been recognised as a fundamental right in India, despite democracy being an essential facet of the Constitution.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/top-supreme-court-cases-2023
