Top Quotes Of The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part I]

Many momentous decisions have been delivered and memorable observations made by the Supreme Court in 2022. Here are the top picks from the year:1. ‘Merit’ is not solely of one’s own making“This is not to say that performance in competitive examination or admission in higher educational institutions does not require a great degree of hard work and dedication, but it is necessary to understand that ―merit is not solely of one's own making. The rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family, schooling, fortune, and a gift of talents that the society currently values aids in one's advancement. Thus, the exclusionary standard of merit serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face barriers in their advancement which are not of their own making. But the idea of merit based on ―scores in an exam requires a deeper scrutiny. While examinations are a necessary and convenient method of distributing educational opportunities, marks may not always be the best gauge of individual merit. Even then marks are often used as a proxy for merit. Individual calibre transcends performance in an examination. Standardized measures such as examination results are not the most accurate assessment of the qualitative difference between candidates.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73]2. State to run an extra mile to facilitate safe working conditions for women“The justification provided by the respondents, to sustain the restriction [imposing gender-based caps in orchestra bars], in so far as they claim to protect the women, in the opinion of this court, lay it open to the charge of entombing their aspirations. In case there were any real concern for the safety of women, the state is under a duty to create situations conducive to their working, to run that extra mile to facilitate their employment, rather than to thwart it, and stifle their choice. Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women’s choice of their avocation...As the authorities of this court have repeatedly emphasized, whenever challenges arise, particularly based on gender, it is the task of the judges to scrutinize closely, whether, if and the extent to which the impugned practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism. Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male “bastions” such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. Similarly, in the present case, this court holds that the gender cap imposed by the impugned condition is void.” [Justice Ravindra Bhat in Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186]3. Repatriated foreign medical students are national resource“No doubt, the pandemic has thrown new challenges to the entire world including the students but granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large...The students were permitted to undergo medical course abroad and that they have completed their curriculum according to the certificate granted by such Foreign Institute. Therefore, such national resource cannot be permitted to be wasted which will affect the life of young students, who had taken admission in the foreign Institutes as part of their career prospects. Therefore, the services of the students should be used to augment health infrastructure in the country. Thus, it would be necessary that the students undergo actual clinical training of such duration.” [Justice Hemant Gupta (retd.) in National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426]4. Sedition law of the colonial regime unsuitable for current social milieu“It is clear that the Union of India agrees wirth the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC [sedition law] is not in tune with the current social milieu and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused...Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments.” [Order by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana (retd.) and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli ...

Top Quotes Of The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part I]

Awstika Das

Our top picks from the memorable observations made by the Supreme Court in 2022.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

Top Quotes Of The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part I]

Awstika Das

Our top picks from the memorable observations made by the Supreme Court in 2022.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers