Larger Bench References Made By Supreme Court In 2022

As the year comes to an end, it is time to look at various references made by the Supreme Court of India. As such, this article details important references made by the Supreme Court in the year 2022. 

1.Hijab Ban Case: Is restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka constitutional?

Case Title: Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Coram: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court passed a split verdict on a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka. Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational institutions in the State. Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute. In the light of the divergence of opinion, the matter has been referred to a larger bench.

2.Death Penalty Cases: Is same day sentencing legal?

Case Title: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777

Coram:  Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

The Supreme Court referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. The bench noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him. The court is noted that it was necessary to have clarity in the matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence. Consequently, the court stated that a reference to a larger bench of five Judges was necessary for this purpose.

3.Election Freebies: Should political parties be permitted to promise freebies during election campaigns?

Case Title: Ashwini Upadhyay v Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice CT Ravikumar

The Supreme Court referred the issues pertaining to promises made by political parties and election freebies to a three-judge bench. The development comes in a PIL filed by lawyer and former BJP Delhi Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns. Looking at the complexity of the issues involved, and the prayer to overrule a judgment rendered by a two¬Judge Bench of the Court in Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court directed listing of the set of petitions before a three--Judge Bench.

4.Shiv Sena Dispute: Political Crisis in the State of Maharashtra

Case Title: Subhash Desai versus Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Coram: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli

The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions filed by the rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the political developments in the State of Maharashtra. On a prayer made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Uddhav camp, to restrain the Election Commission of India from deciding Eknath Shinde's claim as the official Shiv Sena party, the court agreed to post the matter before the Constitution Bench. The Court later posted the batch of petitions filed by both the Uddhav Thackeray faction and the Eknath Sindhe faction in relation to the political crisis in the State of Maharashtra, for directions, on 13th January, 2023.

5.Delhi Government v. LG: Who controls administrative services in the national capital?

Case Title: Govt Of NCT Delhi vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Coram: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli

A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital. The bench observed that the main contention related to interpretation of phrases 'any such matter is applicable to UT's' and 'subject to provisions of this constitution' in Article 239AA 3a. However, it noted that all issues except one issue pending consideration has been elaborately dealt with by Constitution Bench in its decision of 2018. Therefore the bench did not deem it necessary to revisit those issues that stand settled by previous constitution benches.

6.Section 23 POCSO: Is there a Need For Court Permission To Investigate Sec.23 POCSO Offence For Disclosure Of Victim's Identity?

Case Title: Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti versus The State of Karnataka | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Coram: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari

Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the issue whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). As per Section 155(2) CrPC, a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Section 23 of POCSO relates to the offence of disclosure of the identity of the victim of the sexual offence. The bench was considering an appeal filed by the Editor of a Kannada newspaper, who was accused of committing the offence under Section 23 of POCSO Act by publishing the identity of a 16 year old girl who was subjected to sexual crime. The appellant had sought for discharge before the Magistrate on the ground that the police registered the FIR without following Section 155(2) CrPC. The Magistrate dismissed his application. He approached the High Court against the Magistrate's order under Section 482 CrPC, which also resulted in no success for him. Thus, the matter reached the Supreme Court.

While Justice Banerjee held that the Magistrate's permission was not needed for the police to investigate the offence under Section 23 POCSO, Justice Maheshwari held otherwise. In view of the split verdict, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to resolve the issue.

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 3]