15 Supreme Court Judgments 2018
nisha tyagi 24 Jan 2019

15 Supreme Court Judgments 2018

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Aadhaar Verdict)

 the SC has declared the Centre’s Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid, but with conditions. The five-judge Constitution Bench has ruled that there is no need to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones, but is must be linked with a PAN card. The court further says that schools cannot insist on Aadhaar and read down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, barring sharing of information with corporate bodies.

2. Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice( Homosexuality Decriminalised (Section 377))

The Supreme Court has declared the Section 377 of IPC as unconstitutional. The ruling re-examined a 2013 judgement that upheld Section 377 of the IPC, under which homosexuality is described as an “unnatural offence”. Now the homosexuals are now allowed to live as equal citizens in India and nobody can harass them on the basis of their sexual orientation. However, the apex court said that Section 377 would continue to be in force in cases of unnatural sex with children and animals.

3. Indian Young Lawyer’s Association Vs. State of Kerala (Women can enter Sabarimala)

The five judge bench of SC removed a ban that prevented women between 10 and 50 years of age from entering Kerala's Sabarimala temple.. The then CJI Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar,  Justices R F Nariman, and D Y Chandrachud ruled against the restriction, while Justice Indu Malhotra gave a different opinion, saying, “the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an ‘essential religious practice’” and “notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts”

4. Union of India & Anr. V. Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. (GST Validity)

In a verdict delivered by Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushant he Apex Court upheld the Constitutional validity of Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, as well as the Goods and Services Tax Compensation Cess Rules, 2017, as framed under the Act.

5. Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India( Live-Streaming Of Court Proceedings)

To make the legal proceedings transparent the Apex Court allowed live-streaming during a court proceeding. The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." The bench believed this will bring more accountability and will also help in improving the rule of law.

6. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union of India & Anr (Can’t Restrict MPAnd MLAs From Practicing Law)

The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud dismissed the petition seeking a declaration that a person cannot be allowed to perform the double role of a lawyer and a legislator (MP/MLA).

7. Tehseen Poonawalla v. UOI; Tushar Gandhi v. UOI (Cow Vigilantism)

On 17th July 2018, the three-judge bench comprising Ex CJI Deepak Misra , Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar delivered its judgment, issuing guidelines to curb acts of cow vigilantism. The Court did not address the question of the constitutional validity of immunity provisions for cow vigilantes.

8. Mohd. Akhtar V. State of Jammu & Kashmir(Kathua Rape Case)

The trial of rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl in Kathuawas transferred from district of Jammu and Kashmir to District and Sessions Court, Pathankot in Punjab by the Supreme Court

9. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi; Vineet Dhanda v. UOI; Sanjay Singh v. UOI; Yashwant Sinha v. CBI (Rafale Fighter Jet Deal)

The Supreme Court chose not to order a court monitored investigation of the Rafale Fighter Jet Deal, where the Central government purchased 36 Dassault Rafale fighter jets.

10. Joseph Shine v. UOI (Decriminalisation of Adultery)

On 27th September 2018, a five-judge Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), thereby decriminalising adultery. It struck down Section 497 IPC on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench held that the section is an archaic and paternalistic law, which infringes upon a woman's autonomy and dignity. The Bench also read down Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 198(2) CrPC specifies that only a husband can file charges for offences under Section 497.

11. Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V. State of Maharashtra &Anr. (SC/ST Misuse)

Guidelines to avert the misuse of provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act) were issued by the Supreme Court. A Two Judge Bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit was examining the question whether there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (SC/ST) Act 1989 are not mistreated for inessentialdeliberations.

12. Govt. of NCT of Delhi V. Union of India & Anr. (LG Vs. Kejriwal)

The Constitution Bench of the SC held that the LG of the Delhi had to act as per the assistance and guidance of the Council of Ministers of Delhi Government except in matters of land, police and public order. LG cannot interfere in each and every matter of the Delhi Government. Although decisions of the Government have to be communicated to the LG, there is no need to obtain the concurrence of LG in all matters.

13. Public Interest Foundation & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Ban of Charge-sheeted Politician)

The Constitution Bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra, and Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra observed that the Supreme Court did not have the capability to add new grounds of disqualifications, and thus, could not restrictcharge sheeted candidates from contesting elections. But, the court insisted the Parliament to enact a law to disqualify charge sheeted candidates.

14. Common Cause (A regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr.( Passive Euthanasia Allowed)

The apex court made it legal for a terminally ill patient to decline use of life support system and opt for euthanasia. The court has taken into thought the suffering of a patient and permitted families of such patients in an incurable coma to withdraw such measures. The bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra said that “smoothening” the process of death for terminally ill patients with no chance of recovery was integral to life with dignity

15. Common Cause (A regd. Society) v. Union of India &Anr. (Section 498A IPC)

Supreme Court of India has altered its guidelines issued in Rajesh Sharma case for preventing illuse of Section 498A of IPC. A three judge bench led by CJI has withdrawn the earlier guideline issued by two judges bench that complaints under Section 498A IPC should be inspected by Family Welfare Committees before additional legal action by police.

Did you find this write up useful? YES 2 NO 0

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work









Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail