The incumbent Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, will retire on 2 October. His tenure was very productive and many landmark judgments were delivered. It was the SC bench led by CJI Dipak Misra that settled the 120 year old dispute over the Cauvery river. He ordered a special investigation team (SIT) to reopen 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases and investigate 186 cases related to it. CJI Misra also slammed Kapil Sibbal who wanted to postpone the judgment of Ram Janambhumi Case after July 2019. On mob-lynching, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed vigilantism and mob lynching as unacceptable and also put the responsibility on the state government to tackle them. In one more landmark decision, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra gave legal sanction to passive euthanasia.
However, his tenure was also marred with many controversies. Opposition parties once moved an impeachment motion against him and for the first time, four judges did press conference questioning the working of the CJI. However, those are things of past and the CJI Misra now has only 18 working days before he retires. In these 18 days, CJI Misra has to deliver no less than 10 landmark judgments, including whether the mosque is integral to Islam in relation to Ayodhya case, Section 377, Section 497, and entry of Women in Sabarimala Temple, Aadhaar, the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community and reservation in promotions etc. It means next one month is going to be very crucial.
Live streaming of court proceedings: In August, a Supreme Court bench comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud and headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra has observed that live streaming of SC proceedings could be done for constitutional matters or social matters of constitutional importance. The Centre also maintained the same but with some reservations related to cases which are sensitive in nature and must not go live. The three-judge bench has reserved its order.
Practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community: The central government has already been pushing for a ban on the ghastly practice which mutilates the private parts of a woman. The petition filed by the Dawoodi Bohra Women’s Association for Religious Freedom was an appeal against the decision of centre which has pushed to end this torment for the women belonging to the Dawoodi Bohra community. The questions posed by the CJI and other judges from the bench throws some more light on what the stand of the Supreme Court is likely to be in the days to come. CJI Dipak Misra asked whether the practice was imposed on the girls, “If they are opposed to it, can you force it on them?” while Justice Chandrachud asked, “Why should a woman’s right to bodily integrity be violated? Everybody’s genitals are a private part of them and they have absolute control over them. Can anyone be allowed to touch them?”
Section 377: The Supreme Court has reserved its judgement on petitions asking to decriminalise homosexuality. Earlier, the SC observed, “the right to privacy and protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.” In a big morale boost for the LGBT community, Justice Chandrachud also stated that partner can be from the same sex.” This makes it clear that the bench is strongly inclined towards decriminalising the archaic law. However, it was decriminalised in a landmark and progressive Delhi High Court judgment in 2009, only to be reversed and overruled by the Supreme Court in its 2013 judgment, Suresh Kumar Kaushal v Naz Foundation.
The Aadhaar Judgment: The Modi government’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory in many government schemes and in many other thing has led to outrage by leftist-liberal lobby and as result filed many petition against the Aadhaar. A five-judge Constitution bench has reserved its order on the constitutional validity of Aadhaar card.
Is Mosque integral part of Islam or not? – On 20 July, a three-judge special bench its verdict on the observation made in case of M. Ismail Farooqui vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 1994, the judgment stated that a Mosque is not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam needs to be reconsider by the a larger bench. Verdict on this case is important before the hearing of the Ram Janambhumi case.
Entry of women in Sabarimala temple: The Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court comprising of CJI Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra reserved its order in the case which seeks to lift the ban on entry of women in the age group of 10-50 into the Sabarimala temple.
Revision of the anti-dowry law: A batch of petitions challenged the SC’s judgment passed by a division bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit where they issued formal directions on the procedure to be followed with complaints filed under IPC 498A. In its directions, the Supreme Court had made it clear that no automatic arrests were to be made with such complaints and also ordered the setting up of Family Welfare Committees in every district to look into the complaints filed under sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court made it clear that no arrests were to be made before the Committee filed its brief report about the factual aspects and opinions in the matter.
Reservation in promotions: The Supreme Court on 30th August reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions against the 2006 order where a verdict of the top court had ruled against quotas in promotions for the creamy layer.
Other cases where landmark judgment is expected to come, includes disqualification of MPs/MLAs having criminal cases against them, Section 497, ban on MPs/MLAs from practicing as advocates. The remaining 18 days would not only be significant for CJI Misra but also has the potential of influencing India’s society and polity in a big way.