100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 [Part 1]

As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our dear readers.The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence, the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case description.The list of 100 judgments will be published in four parts and this is the first part. Part 2 can be found here. Part 3 can be found here. Part 4 can be found here.1. Demonetisation Decision Making Process Lawful, Supreme Court Holds By 4:1 Majority; Justice Nagarathna DissentsCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India [WP (C) No. 906/2016] and other connected mattersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1Coram: Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV NagarathnaThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations. The majority held that Centre's notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagarathna in her dissenting view held that though demonetization was well-intentioned and well thought of, it has to be declared unlawful on legal grounds (and not on the basis of objects).Other reports on the judgement can be found here.2. Additional Restrictions Not Found In Article 19(2) Cannot Be Imposed On Right To Free Speech: Supreme CourtCase Title: Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP | WP (Crl) No. 113/2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. NagarathnaThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench has held that additional restrictions, not found in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Ministers, MPs and MLAs. It held that the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive. The Court by 4:1 majority added that statements made by Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the govt, cannot be attributed vicariously to the govt even applying the principle of collective responsibility. In her dissenting opinion, Justice B.V. Nagarathna agreed that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, in addition to grounds under Article 19(2). However, she observed that in case a Minister makes disparaging statements in his "official capacity", then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government.Other reports on the judgement can be found here.3. Parole Period Can't Be Included In Period Of Actual Imprisonment : Supreme CourtCase Title: Rohan Dhungat vs State of Goa and Ors | Diary No. 29535 - 2022Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10Coram: Justice MR Shah and Justice CT RavikumarSupreme Court held that the Parole period has to be excluded from the period of sentence under the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 while considering 14 years of imprisonment for premature release. The bench held that if the parole period is included as part of the sentence period, then any prisoner who is influential enough may get parole several times.4. 'Woman Not A Chattel, Has Identity Of Her Own; Marriage Won't Take Away Her Identity' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Income Tax ProvisionCase Title: Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs Union of India | WP(C) 59 OF 2013 | 13 January 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28Coram: Justices M R Shah and B V NagarathnaThe Supreme Court held that excluding Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 from exemption provision under Section 10(26AAA) Income Tax Act is is totally discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. The Court also held that the exclusion of old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) of Income Tax Act is unconstitutional.5. Default Bail Can Be Cancelled On Merits After Presentation Of Chargesheet : Supreme CourtCase Title: State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy | SLP (Crl) No. 9573/2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37Coram: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. RavikumarThe Supreme Court has held that there is no bar in cancelling default bail on merits after the presentation of chargesheet. The question that...

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 [Part 1]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2023 [Part 1]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers