In the Court of Justice, both the parties know the truth, it’s the judge who’s on trial
Justice JR Midha
In the year 2021, the Supreme Court of India issued a slew of decisions. The key pronouncements are briefly reviewed in this article.
VIKASH KUMAR VS UPSC
The decision in Vikash Kumar is forward-thinking. By overturning Surendra Mohan’s decision, it recognises that people with impairments may perform their tasks if reasonable accommodations are made available to them. There have been numerous examples of judges with disabilities properly carrying out their duties in various places around the world. In a session organised by the Nyaya Forum of NALSAR University of Law, Justice Chandrachud stated that current technology has helped impaired people to the point where there is almost no difference between them and the general population today. He also stated that the first visually impaired Supreme Court judge must be appointed as soon as possible.
In the judgment, Justice Chandrachud cautioned against perpetuating the negative imagery around disability: “When competent persons with disabilities are unable to realise their full potential due to the barriers posed in their path, our society suffers, as much, if not more, as do the disabled people involved. In their blooming and blossoming, we all bloom and blossom.”
NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is hearing an appeal against a decision of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, which refused the seaman’s claim for disability compensation by referring to clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement. The appellant joined the Shipping Corporation of India’s (SCI) offshore section in 1988, and after eight years, he was freed and transferred to a foreign-going vessel with a new registry in 1996, at his own desire. He joined the crew in September 2009 and was dismissed in June 2010 after being declared permanently unsuitable for sea service owing to Dilated Cardiomyopathy after 9 months. The appellant argued, citing an article, that cardio vascular illness is one of the many occupational ailments that seafarers face, and that injury does not have to present itself outwardly or in the form of blood oozing, but should also include an impeded heart. It was also claimed that SCI violated Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 by failing to accommodate the sailor in an alternate work that was suitable for his condition.
SAURABH SHARMA VS DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ORS.
Writ petitions challenging the Delhi government’s imposition of penalties on those who did not wear masks when travelling alone in their automobiles were dismissed by a single-judge bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh. According to the Court, the mask functions as a “Suraksha kavach,” protecting both the person wearing it and those around them. The court further said that “Scientists and international governments have advised wearing of a mask. The challenge of the pandemic was huge and the wearing of face masks is important whether a person is vaccinated or not”.
SUJATA VS STATE OF PUNJAB
This case is about a live-in relationship with a girl of a young age. “The Court is the Guardian of Tender Aged Girls Who File Protection Pleas Without Knowing The Consequences,” according to the courts. A protection petition based on a live-in relationship should be filled out with dignity and caution. The petitioner was ordered to appear before the inquiry officer within 10 days and was granted temporary bail. Courts view- (1) Where the girls minor before disposing of petition based on live-in relationship, the court has to give notice to the parents. (2) Find out whether she has understood the consequences of filling the protection petition. (3) whether she is capable of taking independent decision.
SATISH RAGDE VS STATE OF MAHARASHATRA
‘Satish Ragde,’ the accused, attempted to sexually abuse a 12-year-old girl. The attacker, who had been enticed to the victim’s house in order to present her with guava, touched the little girl’s breast and attempted to remove her salwar just as her mother approached his house. Her mother and their neighbour investigated his house and discovered her daughter imprisoned in a room. The daughter then told her mother about the incident, and they went to the police station to report it. Because the case involved the POCSO Act, the police filed a charge sheet with the Special Court. After recording his conviction under Sections 342, 363, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the Special Court sentenced the accused to three years of solitary confinement and a fine of Rs.1500/-.
The accused went to the Bombay High Court, where J. Pushupa Ganediwala acquitted him under section 8 of the POCSO Act and found him guilty of outraging the modesty and wrongfully imprisoning the prosecutrix under sections 354 and 342 of the IPC for a year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs500. In addition, the accused was served with a non-bailable warrant. The learned counsel was unable to prove from the record that the minor girl’s mother and the little girl’s evidence could not be considered or that they were not competent witnesses, according to the Court. The girl’s responses to the questions were not irrational. Furthermore, she informed her mother about the incident as soon as it occurred, and the First Information Report was filed as a result. Both the mother’s and daughter’s testimony are consistent and valid under section 6 of the Evidence Act, implying that the Res gestate principle would apply.
The Court also considered that as per the definition of ‘sexual assault’, a ‘physical contact with sexual intent without penetration’ is essential ingredient for the offence and the Court believed that stronger proof and severe allegations are necessary. The Court also stated that whether the accused removed the top of the prosecutrix or inserted his hand while groping her breasts is unknown, which would not constitute a direct physical contact or “Skin-to-Skin” contact between the accused and the victim as per the section 7 of POCSO Act. The act committed by the accused would apparently fall under the definition of “Outraging the modesty of a women” provided under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench acquitted the accused under section 8 of POCSO Act and convicted him for outraging the modesty & wrongfully confining the prosecutrix under section 354 & 342 of IPC for a period of 1 year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs500. Also, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused.
RAKESH VAISHNAV & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance & Farm Services Act, 2020, Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, 2020, and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 (‘farm laws’) were passed by Parliament in September 2020. The agriculture laws were promulgated as ordinances on June 5th, 2020, before being adopted by Parliament. The agricultural laws aim to make it easier for farmers to sell their output outside of the state-designated Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), to govern contract farming, and to restrict the supply of particular food items in emergency situations such as war and famine.
With the passing of the farm laws and intensified farmers’ agitation, several petitions challenging the constitutionality of farm laws were filed. Soon, petitions in support of the farm laws were also filed. In the hearing on January 12th 2021, the three-judge bench led by CJI Bobde stayed the farm laws. Bemoaning the lack of progress, the Government has made to resolve this crisis, the Court set up a four-member Committee to negotiate between the farmers and the Government with the following members:
(1) Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President, Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee
(2) Dr. Parmod Kumar Joshi, Agricultural Economist, Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute
(3) Ashok Gulati, Agricultural Economist and Former Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices
(4) Anil Ghanwat, President, Shetkari Sanghatana
Following the stay order, no hearings were held. On a different bench, Khanwilkar J, who was hearing the KisanMahapanchayat’s request to hold protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, wondered whether the farmers’ right to protest encompassed occupying public areas indefinitely while the issue was before the Supreme Court. Farmers, on the other hand, continued to demonstrate in various parts of the country. The Prime Minister revealed the Union Government’s plan to repeal the farm laws in the forthcoming Winter session of Parliament in a national address on November 19th, 2021. The constitutional challenge will be moot if a repeal is enacted.
JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS CHIEF MINITER OF MAHARASHTRA
The “Maratha” is a Hindu community that is primarily found in Maharashtra. Following the implementation of the Indian Constitution, the President of India constituted a 13 Commission under Article 240 to investigate the status of all such socially and educationally backward communities. The Supreme Court overturned provisions of a Maharashtra law that gave the Maratha group reservation, pushing the state’s total population above the 50% threshold imposed by the court in the 1992 IndraSawhney decision. “The half-standard… is to achieve the correspondence’s goal as engrafted in Article 14, of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets… “To modify the 50% is to have a general public that isn’t founded on equality but on the rank principle,” a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan said in four separate decisions. The concept of popular government is an important part of our Constitution and our fundamental foundation. If the reservation exceeds the 50% limit… It will be a slippery slope, as the political pressure makes scaling back an equal difficult.”
ELECTION COMMISSSION OF INDIA VS VIJAYABHASKAR
The Supreme Court was hearing a case in which the Election Commission sought the Hon’ble court to order the media to refrain from broadcasting remarks made by Madras High Court justices against the election commission, in which they were accused and held guilty for the second wave. The Supreme Court correctly stated that an open court ensures that judges behave in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court stated that media reporting of judicial proceedings falls under the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, and that it is a part of press freedom. The election commission has a history of being a self-governing organisation, and it should continue to be so.
With the passing of the farm laws and intensified farmers’ agitation, several petitions challenging the constitutionality of farm laws were filed. Soon, petitions in support of the farm laws were also filed. In the hearing on January 12th 2021, the three-judge bench led by CJI Bobde stayed the farm laws. Bemoaning the lack of progress, the Government has made to resolve this crisis. The Court set up a four-member Committee to negotiate between the farmers.