Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments & Hearings Of 2023

The year 2023 has witnessed several important judgments delivered by Constitution Benches. Be it the constitutional validity of Article 370, the marriage equality petitions, the challenge to the 2016 demonetisation scheme of the Centre or the political crises in Maharashtra and Delhi, these cases, touched upon different significant issues. There were 18 judgments delivered by the Constitution Benches(17 by 5-judge benches and 1 by 7-judge bench) in 2023, a significantly high number in a given calendar year.Judgment is reserved on 5 Constitution Bench matters (4 heard by 5-judge benches and 1 by 7-judge bench).Statement of Constitution Bench matters of 2023 Here is a detailed explanation of the Constitution Bench matters :1. Centre's 2016 Demonetisation SchemeCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of IndiaArguments Commenced: October 12, 2022 Judgement Reserved: December 7, 2022 Judgement Pronounced: January 2, 2023 Bench Composition: Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice 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).Reports about this judgment can be read here.2. Freedom of Speech and Expression of MPs/MLAsCase Title: Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar PradeshArguments Commenced: October 23, 2019 Judgement Reserved: November 15, 2022 Judgement Pronounced: January 3, 2023Bench Composition: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. NagarathnaThe Supreme Court 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 govt. However, if the statements of the Ministers are stray remarks not consistent with stand of govt then it would be treated as personal remark she clarified.Reports about this judgment can be read here.3. Armed forces can initiate disciplinary action for adulteryCase details : Joseph Shine vs Union of India | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that its 2018 judgment striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code(which criminalised adultery) will not impact court martial proceedings initiated against personnel serving the armed forces for adulterous conduct.The bench observed in the order that the 2018 judgment in the case Joseph Shine vs Union of Indiawas not at all concerned with the provisions of the armed forced Acts. The bench further noted that as per Article 33 of the Constitution, the legislations governing armed forces can provide exemptions from the applicability of fundamental rights.A 5-judge bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar passed the order in an application filed by the Union Government.4. Passive EuthanasiaCase Title: Common Cause v. Union of IndiaArguments Commenced: January 17, 2023Judgment Reserved: January 24, 2023Judgement Pronounced: February 3, 2023Bench Composition: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. RavikumarThe Supreme Court, in this case, modified the slew of directions relating to advance medical directives, or living wills issued in a 2018 judgement that had recognised the right to die with dignity as an inextricable facet of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and had, accordingly, upheld the legal validity of passive euthanasia. Common Cause had argued that the directions had become virtually unenforceable owing to the complexity of the procedure prescribed by the top court and had sought necessary amendments to make the judgement 'workable'. Accordingly, several changes were introduced by the five-judge bench in the guidelines laid down in 2018 with respect to the execution and enforcement of advance...

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments & Hearings Of 2023

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags