All You Want To Know About 8 Cases Listed For Hearing By Constitution Bench From Wednesday (Jan 17) [Read Notice]

The Constitution bench of Supreme Court will commence hearing from January 17, 2018, on eight important cases referred to it. Petitions relating to the constitutionality of Aadhaar, entry of women in Sabarimala and change of religious identity of Parsi woman after marriage are in the list put up by the Supreme Court registry, on Friday. The list also contains the cases in which the constitution bench will reconsider earlier judgments which had upheld IPC sections penalising adultery and homosexuality.Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union Of India [Aadhaar Or No Aadhaar]Whether Aadhaar violates an individual’s right to privacy is the most-awaited question which will be answered by the Constitution bench hopefully soon.The five-judge bench specially constituted for hearing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, in the meanwhile, had referred the limited question ‘whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not’ for the consideration of a nine-judge bench, which recently held that it indeed is a fundamental right.Recently, the bench had extended the deadline for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar number with all services and schemes, including bank accounts and mobile numbers, to March 31, 2018.Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anand Byrareddy had filed an impleadment application before the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The original Aadhaar case was initiated by another former Karnataka High Court judge, Justice K Puttaswamy.Joseph Shine vs Union Of India [Adultery Law Outdated?]The Constitution bench will look into whether the earlier judgments, which had upheld the IPC provisions penalising adultery, are to be reconsidered, regard being had to the social progression, perceptual shift, gender equality and gender sensitivity.In Sowmithri Vishnu case, a three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice YV Chandrachud had held that no constitutional provision is infringed, in defining the offence of adultery so as to restrict the class of offenders to men.Three decades later, his son, who is now a Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud opined during the admission of the case that the wife cannot be treated as a commodity by leaving her at the discretion of her husband to give consent to the act.Observing that these judgments require reconsideration, the bench headed by CJI observed that the provision seems quite archaic and especially, when there is a societal progress.Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State Of Kerala [Sabarimala Women Entry]A sensitive issue relating to the entry of women to Sabarimala Temple is also before the Constitution bench. The following questions are referred to the Constitution Bench by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra: Whether the exclusionary practice which is based upon a biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to "discrimination" and thereby violates the very core of Articles 14, 15 and 17 and not protected by ‘morality’ as used in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution? Whether the practice of excluding such women constitutes an "essential religious practice" under Article 25 and whether a religious institution can assert a claim in that regard under the umbrella of right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion? Whether Ayyappa Temple has a denominational character and, if so, is it permissible on the part of a 'religious denomination' managed by a statutory board and financed under Article 290-A of the Constitution of India out of Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil Nadu can indulge in such practices violating constitutional principles/ morality embedded in Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a) and 51-A(e)? Whether Rule 3 of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules permits 'religious denomination' to ban entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 years? And if so, would it not play foul of Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution by restricting entry of women on the ground of sex? Whether Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965 is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and , if treated to be intra vires, whether it will be violative of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution? Navtej Singh Johar v Union Of India [Revisiting Criminalisation Of Homosexuality]The constitution bench will re-consider the two-judge bench judgment in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v Naz Foundation which upheld the constitutional validity of S.377 of the Indian Penal Code.A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India had referred the petition filed by five LGBT citizens for the consideration of the constitution bench, observing that the matter involves substantial constitutional issues.The bench headed by the Chief Justice, while referring the matter to the constitution bench,...

All You Want To Know About 8 Cases Listed For Hearing By Constitution Bench From Wednesday (Jan 17) [Read Notice]

Ashok K.M

Tags