Good & Bad : 65 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2020

Judgments of Supreme Court 2020:In the COVID-19 infected year of 2020, the Supreme Court went through unprecedented experiences, with video conferencing and e-filing substituting physical hearings and filings.Even with virtual functioning, the Supreme Court delivered several important judgments and settled several prominent questions of law. Here is a list of 65 important judgments of 2020, including the verdicts which have come under severe criticism.The arrangement of the judgments in the list is mostly in the order of chronology and the same is not indicative of their relative importance.1. Kashmir Lockdown and Internet Shutdown : Anuradha Bhasin v Union of IndiaOn January 10, a three-judge bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant, and B R Gavai delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which challenged the legality of the curfew orders and internet shutdown imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of the abrogation of the special status of the state in August 2019.A significant take away from the judgment is its declaration that freedom of speech and expression and also freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and Articles 19(1)(g), respectivelyThe Court said: "We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g)". The Court observed that indefinite suspension of internet is not permissible and that repeated orders under Section 144 CrPC will amount to abuse of power. The Court also added that the Government should publish all orders of restrictions, and should follow the principles of proportionality to adopt less restrictive measures.The Court observed that the power under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure cannot be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights. The Court said that provisions of Section 144, Cr.P.C. will only be applicable in a situation of emergency and for the purpose of preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.While the judgment is laudable for its reaffirmation of the principles of proportionality, its caution against arbitrary use of Section 144 to curb dissent and its recognition of internet as a medium to exercise fundamental right to free speech and trade and commerce, the Court stopped short of giving a ruling of the legality of the prohibitory orders passed by the administration. The judgment remained as a restatement of principle without tangible relief to the petitioners. It directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of restrictions imposed in the state post the abrogation of the state's special status within a week.Reports about the judgment :Freedoms Of Speech & Expression, Trade & Commerce Through Medium Of Internet Are Constitutionally Protected : SC In Kashmir Case [Read Judgment]Section 144 CrPC Cannot Be Used As A Tool To Prevent Legitimate Expression Of Opinion: SC [Read Judgment]2. Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances : Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.On January 29, a constitution bench of the the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. Justices MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments agreeing with each other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran concurred with the conclusion reached by both the judges. The Court also held that life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.Other reports about the judgment: Rights Cherished By Citizens Are Fundamental, Not The RestrictionsAccused Released On Anticipatory Bail Need Not Surrender And Seek Regular Bail For Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence ActThe Constitution Bench also discussed in the judgment the impact of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the bail granted. In this regard, the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat in the case Sushila Aggarwal and others v State of NCT of Delhi and others largely reaffirmed the principles laid down in the case Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.3. 'No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions' : Supreme Court Upholds WB Madrasah Service Commission...

Good & Bad : 65 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2020

Manu Sebastian

Judgments of Supreme Court 2020

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Good & Bad : 65 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2020

Manu Sebastian

Judgments of Supreme Court 2020

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers