Good & Bad : 50 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2019

As the year 2019 draws to a close, here is a recap of the major judgments of Supreme Court in 2019 (in order of chronology).1. Alok Verma v Union of India : CBI Director's DivestmentThe case was relating to the legality of the overnight order passed by the Centre stripping Alok Verma of the powers of CBI Director. A three judges bench comprising the then CJI Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph held that approval of the Selection Committee under Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was necessary to divest an incumbent of powers of CBI Director. The top court also noted that the term 'transfer', as used in section 4B of the DSPE Act, cannot be understood in its traditional sense and must be interpreted as including actions which impact the functioning of the CBI Director.A comment on the case may be read here.(Case : Alok Verma v Union of India, WP(c) No.1309/2018, decided on 08.01.2019)2. Blanket ban on Maharashtra dance bars overturnedA two judges bench of Justices A K Sikri (since retired) and Ashok Bhushan held that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting license for dance bars.The Court however upheld several provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The Court approved the definition of 'obscenity' in the Act as not vague, and also the ban on throwing currency notes and money on the performers. The complete prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate. (Case : Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of Maharashtra, WP(c) No.576/2016, decided on 17.01.2019)3. Reservation in teaching posts to be applied subject-wise in UniversitiesThe Supreme Court rejected Centre's challenge against a 2017 judgment of Allahabad High Court which had held that reservations in teaching posts in Universities are to be applied by taking subject/discipline as the unit, instead of university. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee refused leave to appeal to Ministry of Human Resources Department to challenge the High Court judgment delivered in the case Vivekanand Tiwari v Union of India on April 7, 2017.On February 27, the same bench dismissed Centre's review against the decision.In Monsoon Session, Parliament passed a bill -"The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Bill, 2019"- to treat 'University/ College' as the unit of reservation roster for teaching posts instead of 'Department/ Subject', to overturn the effect of this decision.(Case : Union of India v Vivekanand Tiwari, SLP(c) 3525/19, decided on 22.01.2019)4. Will NDPS trial be vitiated if complainant and Investigating Officer is the same? SC doubts earlier decisionA two judge bench of Supreme Court expressed its disagreement with the view taken by a three-judge bench in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab where it held that that the accused is entitled to acquittal if informant and the investigator in NDPS cases is the same person. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice MR Shah made this observation while hearing an SLP (Mukesh Singh vs. State) filed against conviction in an NDPS matter. The counsel for the accused placed reliance on MohanLal vs. State of Punjab to contend that since the investigation in the present case was conducted by the Police Officer who himself was the complainant, the trial was vitiated and as such the petitioner-accused is entitled to acquittal.The matter was therefore referred to larger bench. A Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra is considering the matter at present.(Case : Mukesh Singh v State, SLP(Crl) 39528/18, referred to larger bench on 17.01.2019)5. Constitutionality of IBC upheld A two judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha rejected a bunch of petitions which challenged the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Court held that distinction between operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible differentia. The Court also upheld the validity of Sections 12A (prescribing threshold for CoC approval for withdrawal of resolution application) and 29A (on bar of 'related persons' in participating in resolution bids).(Case : Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr v Union of India, WP(c) 99/2018, decided on 25.01.2019)6. CBI Addl.Director Nageswara Rao held guilty of Contempt of CourtThe Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi held CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of the orders of the Court. The Court sentenced him till the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the transfer orders were passed by him despite knowing that the...

Good & Bad : 50 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2019

Manu Sebastian

Tags