The Supreme Court in 2022: 10 most important judgments and other notable interventions

In 2022, the Supreme Court of India returned to working in physical mode after the COVID-19-induced shift to virtual hearings..The year was marked by the start of live-streaming of court proceedings in Constitution Bench matters, and saw three Chief Justices putting in efforts to reduce case pendency and improve administrative efficiency..The Court also served as a bulwark against unreasonable and disproportionate State action, securing the liberty of those who expressed dissent against the ruling dispensation.However, there were some orders and judgments that were met with heavy criticism, with review petitions being filed against some of those..In this article, we take a look at the ten of the most important judgments passed by the apex court this year, as well as other instances in which it made invaluable interventions..1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (Provisions of PMLA upheld).At a time when the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) came under the spotlight, the Court upheld the validity of provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar upheld the validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).The Court also held that the supply of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under PMLA proceedings was not mandatory, since an ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).It also rejected the argument on proportionality of punishment under the PMLA with respect to scheduled offences as being wholly "unfounded".However, the Court later admitted that certain aspects of the judgment would need a relook, and agreed to hear a review petition challenging the verdict..2. Ms X v. Delhi Principal Heath Secretary (Beneficial provisions of abortion law cannot be denied to woman merely because she is unmarried).In July 2022, the Supreme Court held that the beneficial provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act cannot be denied to a woman solely on the ground that she is unmarried.A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna allowed an unmarried woman, who became pregnant due to consensual sex, to abort her 24-week-old foetus.The top court overturned a July 15 decision of the Delhi High Court which had declined to permit the abortion on the ground that the length of pregnancy had exceeded 20 weeks, which is the outer limit laid down by the MTP Act and Rules for termination of pregnancy arising from consensual sexual relationships.The bench said that the law has to be given a broad interpretation and that the intention of Parliament should be examined.Significantly, the Indian apex court's judgment came shortly after the United States Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively striking down the constitutional right to abortion in USA. .3. Noel Harper v. Union of India (Constitutional validity of FCRA Amendment Act, 2020 upheld).In April 2022, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar upheld the constitutional validity of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 (FCRA Amendment Act), which imposed restrictions on the way foreign contributions are handled by organisations based in India.The top court said that that citizens do not have any right to receive foreign contribution and permitting the same is a matter of State policy."It is open to the State to have a regime which may completely prohibit receipt of foreign donation, as no right inheres in the citizen to receive foreign contribution (donation)," the Court held.The Court held that foreign donations can influence policies of the country and lead to imposition of political ideology, and hence, they should be reduced.However, the three-judge bench held that Aadhaar numbers may not be given for FCRA clearance and said that applicants should be allowed to produce passports instead.The judgment was delivered on a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the FCRA Amendment Act prohibiting transfer of foreign funds (Section 7), requiring Aadhaar as identification for prior approval, registration etc (Section 12A) and mandating opening of an FCRA primary account exclusively in a branch of State Bank of India in New Delhi notified by the Centre (Section 17)..4. Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (Split judgment in Hijab ban case).On October 13, the verdict of the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in “hijab” case was delivered. To the surprise of many, it turned out to be a split verdict, with Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia holding diametrically opposite views on a host of issues surrounding the contentious topic. Justice Gupta held that the Karnataka government order allowing educational institutes to ban students from wearing hijab (headscarves) was issued to promote parity, ensure uniformity and maintain a secular environment in schools. He concluded that religious beliefs cannot be perpetuated in a State-funded secular school."It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds," Justice Gupta held. .Justice Dhulia, on the other hand, held that the right of a Muslim girl child to wear hijab does not stop at the school gate, since she has a right to privacy and dignity inside the classroom as well.In a judgment calling for accommodation and adjustment of different cultures, religions and languages, Justice Dhulia opined that a girl child requesting permission to wear a hijab is not too much to ask for in a democracy..The issue will now be decided by a larger bench..5. SG Vombatkere v. Union of India (Sedition law kept in abeyance).Early this year, in a breakthrough development, the Supreme Court asked the Central and state governments to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).A bench of then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli directed that proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government's exercise of reviewing the provision is complete.The Bench also asked governments not to continue investigation or take coercive steps in all pending proceedings under the provision till the government's exercise is complete.Earlier, the Central government had, through an affidavit before the Court, stated that it has decided to re-examine the provisions..6. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (10 per cent quota for Economically Weaker Sections upheld).A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in November upheld the Constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the forward castes.The judgment was delivered by a bench of then Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala.There were four separate judgments delivered by the Bench, with CJI Lalit and Justice Bhat dissenting from the majority opinion.Justice Maheshwari held that EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.Justice Pardiwala batted for putting an end to continuance of caste based reservation indefinitely.Justice Bhat in his dissenting judgment held that the amendment is "deluding us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit is somehow better placed.".The decision was met with protests from a number of political parties across the country, with the DMK even filing a review petition before the apex court..7. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (Daughter entitled to self-acquired property of Hindu male deceased before Hindu Succession Act).In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that even in cases prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in the partition of a coparcenary or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship. More significantly, a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals.The judgment by a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari had noted that the ancient texts and commentaries written by various learned persons and even judicial pronouncements "have recognized the rights of several female heirs, the wives and the daughter’s being the foremost of them."After analysing Hindu laws, customs and judicial precedents, the Court held that the right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law, but also by various judicial pronouncements..8. Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (SIT clean chit to PM Narendra Modi for role in 2002 Gujarat Riots upheld).In June this year, Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of former Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that investigated the 2002 Gujarat riots.A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar noted that there was no evidence to suggest a larger criminal conspiracy on part of the State which led to violence.The Court appreciated the SIT members for the "indefatigable work done", and having "come out with flying colours unscathed."It also came down upon certain Gujarat officials including former DGP of the State RB Sreekumar, terming them "disgruntled".Ehshan Jafri was killed in the infamous Gulbarg Society Massacre during the Gujarat riots. The plea before the top court had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision of 2017, which had upheld the decision of the magistrate to accept the closure report filed by the SIT in the case and had thus dismissed the petition filed by Jafri challenging the report..9. RP Ravichandran and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu (Premature release of all six convicts of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case).In May this year, the top court ordered the release of AG Perarivalan, the convict in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order Perarivalan's release after noting that there was considerable delay by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in deciding the convict's plea for remission under Article 161 of the Constitution.Following this, in November, the Court ordered the premature release of six other Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts - Nalini Sriharan, P Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Robert Payas, Santhan and Murugan, who were serving life sentences in the case.The bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna passed the order after noting that the convicts displayed good conduct in the prison and had been behind bars for a very long period.Initially, Nalini and Ravichandran had approached the Court placing reliance on the order releasing Perarivalan.Following the verdict, the Central government has filed a review petition challenging the release of the convicts..10. Dr Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (No one can be forced to get a COVID-19 vaccine).At a time when the nation and the world at large were slowly recovering from the debilitating COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court ruled that while no individual can be forced to get vaccinated, the current vaccination policy followed by government as regards restrictions imposed on individuals is not arbitrary.A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that on the basis of available material, and considering expert views on severe diseases, hospital admissions etc, the current vaccine policy cannot be said to be unreasonable.The Court, however, made it clear that vaccines cannot be mandatory and no person can be forced to get vaccinated against his or her wishes though the government can regulate the bodily autonomy of individuals."Considering bodily autonomy, bodily integrity is protected under Article 21. No one can be forced to get vaccinated. (But) government can regulate in areas of bodily autonomy," the Court held..Apart from passing these important judgments, the Supreme Court made timely interventions in a number of matters that caught the public's attention..Bail to Mohammed Zubair, Teesta Setalvad and Siddique Kappan.In July this year, the Supreme Court granted bail to AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair in the six first information reports (FIRs) registered against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police for some of his tweets.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna stated that there was no justification to keep Zubair in continued detention, especially since the allegations in the UP Police FIRs were similar to those made by the Delhi Police.The Court noted that the case registered by the Delhi Police included within its ambit a probe into Zubair's tweets as well as aspects relating to funding and alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)."We cannot stop him from tweeting. We cannot anticipatorily interdict him from exercising his right of free speech. He will be answerable as per the law. Evidence is all in public domain," Justice Chandrachud said..In September, Supreme Court granted interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad after she was arrested by the Gujarat Police on charges of fabricating documents to frame high-ranking officials including then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Godhra riots cases.A bench of then Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted the relief after Setalvad moved the top court against a Gujarat High Court order which had given a long adjournment in Setalvad's bail plea while not passing any order of interim bail.The Supreme Court said that the Gujarat High Court should have considered the application for interim bail during pendency of the matter since custodial interrogation had been complete..That same month, the Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in the case filed against him by the UP Police under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Kappan, a reporter for Malayalam news portal Azhimukham, and secretary of the Delhi unit of Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ), was arrested along with three others in Uttar Pradesh in October 2020, while on his way to Hathras to report on the gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl.A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha had stated that every person has right to freedom of speech and expression..Bail granted to Ashish Mishra cancelled.In April this year, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra and main accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, in which eight people were killed after being allegedly mowed down by Mishra's vehicle.A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. Following this order, the High Court declined to grant Mishra bail.The top court cancelled the bail in view of the fact that victims of the crime (family members of the deceased) were denied an effective hearing before the High Court..Controversial Saturday hearing to suspend acquittal of GN Saibaba.In October, after holding a special hearing on Saturday, the Court suspended a Bombay High Court decision to acquit GN Saibaba, a 55-year-old wheelchair-bound academic, in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly having Maoist links..A bench of Justices MR Shah and Bela Trivedi had remarked that generally “as far as terrorist activities are concerned, the brain plays a very important role… A brain for such activities is very dangerous”.The order was passed after the Maharashtra government contended that failure by the Central government to grant sanction cannot lead to acquittal in view of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Saibaba has been in custody for over seven years since his arrest in May 2014. A trial court had found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2017. The High Court had set aside the lower court judgment and ordered the release of Saibaba and other accused persons..The unprecedented haste with which the apex court listed the matter and suspended the acquittal order raised many an eyebrow..Listing of GN Saibaba case on a Saturday: Have former CJI UU Lalit's statements deepened the controversy?.Status quo order on Jahangirpuri demolition drive.At a time when shop owners and residents in the Jahangirpuri area of New Delhi were clashing with police personnel in a bid to save their properties from the controversial demolition drive initiated by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), the Supreme Court ordered a halt on the bulldozers.The order was passed after a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind was mentioned for urgent listing. The plea sought directions to the Central and State governments that no residential accommodation or commercial property be demolished as a punitive measure.The status quo order was repeatedly extended in a bid to save the properties from facing the brunt of the demolition drive. .The Nupur Sharma controversy.In July this year, while hearing a plea filed by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma seeking to transfer FIRs registered against her in different parts of the country to Delhi, the top court came down heavily on her remarks on national television about Prophet Muhammad, which had led to violent protests and riots in many States.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said that Sharma was single-handedly responsible for fanning flames across India and should apologise to the whole nation."The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country. We saw the debate on how she was incited. But they way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer, it is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country," Justice Kant had said.However, subsequently, the same bench granted her interim protection from arrest.Later in August, the Court also directed the clubbing and transfer of FIRs in the case to the Delhi Police..Remission of Bilkis Bano gang-rape convicts; Verdict in 2012 Chhawla rape and murder case.Towards the end of the year, the Court dismissed the review petition filed by 2002 Gujarat Riots gang-rape survivor Bilkis Bano challenging its May 13 judgement which had held that remission of the convicts who raped her should be considered as per the the policy existing at the time of conviction in the State.The convicts, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released by the Gujarat government ahead of assembly polls in the State..We failed her as a society: Lawyer of Bilkis Bano, Advocate Shobha Gupta on remission of 11 convicts.In a verdict that drew the ire of many, the Court acquitted three death row convicts in the 2012 Chhawla gang-rape and murder case that took place in Delhi's Dwarka, while noting that courts cannot punish accused on the basis of moral conviction.Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena subsequently approved the filing of a review petition against the judgment. He also approved the appointment of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to represent the government before the Supreme Court.