100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2, Judgments 53-75]

This is the second part of the article. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from January to June. This part includes judgments(53-75) delivered from July to October. The third part will cover judgments (76-100) from October to December. Read the first part here and the third part here.53. 'Delhi Can Ill-Afford Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into': Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Assembly Summons[Case: Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 288]The Supreme Court refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi Assembly Committee seeking his appearance in an enquiry related to Delhi Riots. A Bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that the Delhi Assembly's enquiry cannot encroach into "prohibited domains" of law and order and criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union Government. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the petitioner can deny answering any question by the committee if it falls within the prohibited domains. The judgment has detailed discussions on the responsibility of social media platforms, jurisdictional contours of legislative assemblies and the scope of judicial review over legislative committees.Also Read: Facebook Can't Disrupt India's 'Unity In Diversity' Claiming Ignorance Or Lack Of Pivotal Role : Supreme Court54. Tribunals Reforms Ordinance : Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Fixing Term Of Members As 4 Years[Case: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 296]The Supreme Court by 2 :1 majority set aside the provisions in the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as four years. The majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that this term violated the express direction given in the earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases that the term of tribunal members should be 5 years. Accordingly, the bench set aside those provisions. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented saying that a law cannot be struck down merely for the reason of being contrary to judgments. The Madras Bar Association had filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021, to the extent it amends Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017. Delivering its judgment in the writ petition filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging the Ordinance, the majority stated that its provisions will not apply to appointments made prior to February 4, 2021( the date when the Ordinance was notified).Also Read: Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary & Discriminatory' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Minimum Age Limit Of 50 Years For Appointment As Tribunal MembersAlso Read: 'Law Can't Be Struck Down Merely For Being Contrary To Court's Guidelines': Justice Hemant Gupta's Dissent In Tribunals CaseAlso Read: Judicial Independence Can Be Sustained Only When Incumbents Are Assured Fair Service Conditions, Security Of Tenure : Supreme CourtAlso Read: Fill Up Vacancies In Tribunals Without Delay: Supreme Court Directs Centre55. Religious Sentiments Subservient To Right To Health & Life : Case Against Kanwar Yatra [Case: In Re : Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 300]The Supreme Court has observed that religious sentiments are subservient to the fundamental right to life and health while adjudicating in the suo motu case taken against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to allow the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot go ahead with the Kanwar Yatra, especially so when the Union Government has taken a stand against holding the same. "We are of the view that this is a matter which concerns everyone of us as citizens of India, and goes to the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has a pride of place in the fundamental rights Chapter of our Constitution. The health of the citizenry of India and their right to "life" are paramount .All other sentiments, al beit religious, are subservient to this most basic fundamental right", the Bench observed in the order.The Court also made similar observations in the case regarding the lockdown relaxations announced by the Kerala Government ahead of the Bakrid festival. If the relaxations announced by the Kerala Government lead to any "untoward spread of COVID-19 disease", action will be taken against those responsible, warned the Supreme Court. 56. Supreme Court Strikes Down 97th Constitutional Amendment To The Extent It Relates To Co-operative...

100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2, Judgments 53-75]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags