1. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. V. The State of Kerela & Ors.

(Popularly known as the Sabrimala Verdict)

The Supreme Court considered whether the Sabarimala Temple’s customary religious
practice, which prohibits the entry of women, violates fundamental rights guaranteed to
women by the Indian Constitution.[1]
In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation petition before
the Supreme Court challenging the Sabrimala Temple’s custom of excluding women. The
Association argued that the custom violates the rights to equality under Article 14 and
freedom of religion under Article 25 of female worshipers.
In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that Sabarimala’s exclusion of women violated the
fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10-50 years and Rule 3(b) of the Public
Worship Rules was unconstitutional. Justice Indu Malhotra delivering a dissenting opinion
observed that in a secular polity, it was not for the Courts to interfere in matters of religion
and the same must be left to those practicing the religion.
 
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Aadhaar Verdict)
“It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one,
but being unique makes you the only one.”[2]
In a 4:1 verdict, the Supreme Court has declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as
constitutionally valid, but with conditions. The majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution
Bench has ruled that there is no need to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones,
but held that Aadhaar could be passed as a money bill. 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.
 
3. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (Verdict on adultery law)
In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court scrapped the 150-year old adultery law.
Reading out the judgement, CJI Dipak Misra clearly stated that equality is the need of the
hour. He also added that time has come when the husband should not be considered the
master.
“Adultery cannot and should not be a crime. It can be a ground for a civil offence, a ground
for divorce,”[3] a five judge bench led by outgoing Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said.
 
4. Mohammad Salimullah & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Verdict on Rohingya
Crisis)
The Supreme Court Thursday rejected the plea to stop the deportation of seven Rohingya
immigrants to Myanmar from Assam. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi rejected the plea saying that the seven were found as illegal immigrants by the court
earlier and that Myanmar is also ready to accept them as their nationals.  “We are not inclined
to interfere on the decision taken,”[4] the apex court said.
The plea filed by two Rohingya immigrants challenged the Centre’s decision to deport over
40,000 refugees who came to India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread
discrimination and violence against the community. The fresh plea said that the decision to
deport was in “grave violation” of India’s international obligation and moreover, the situation
in Myanmar was extremely dangerous for the Rohingyas to return and they are likely to be
subjected to torture and even killed.
 
5. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Ayodhya Verdict)
A case related to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case has found closure in the
Supreme Court today with a three-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra and comprising
Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer refusing to refer to a larger bench the issue of a
1994 ruling that said mosques were not necessary for practice of Islam. Justice Nazeer,
however, disagreed with the majority judgement.
Now when SC now refused to refer it to a larger bench, it would in essence be used to
establish the fact that site of Babri Masjid can indeed be shifted to a different site since
“neither namaz in mosque”[5] essential to Islam and state can also acquire such a land.
 
6. Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. V. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law
and Justice (Section 377 Verdict)
“―I am what I am, so take me as I am.”[6]
In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today scrapped the controversial Section 377– a
158-year-old colonial law on consensual gay sex. The Supreme Court reversed its own
decision and said Sectuion 377 is irrational and arbitary. “LGBT Community has same rights
as of any ordinary citizen. Respect for individual choice is the essence of liberty; LGBT
community possesses equal rights under the constitution. Criminalising gay sex is irrational
and indefensible,” said Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who headed the five judge bench hearing
the case.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices
Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.
CJI Misra and Justices Nariman, Chandrachud and Malhotra delivered separate, concurring
judgments.
 
7. Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. V. Supreme Court of India & Ors. (Verdict on Live
Coverage of Supreme Court Verdict)
The Supreme Court has pushed for greater transparency in the judicial system by setting the
stage for live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of constitutional importance. The court
directed the centre to frame rules for this and said the project will be carried out in phases.
The three-judge bench agreed that it would serve as an instrument for greater accountability
and formed part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“It will encourage the principle of open court, effectuate the public’s right to know and
reduce dependence on second-hand views,”[7] said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
 
8. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Anr. (Power tussle between
Delhi Government and Lt. Governor)
In this landmark verdict that came as a shot in the arm for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP
government in its tussle with Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal for control of Delhi, a five-
judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the elected
government of Delhi do not require the concurrence of the Lt Governor who only needs to be
informed.[8]
Calling for Constitutional pragmatism and underlining the clear separation of powers, the
bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y
Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, in three separate yet concurring orders, made it clear that
“the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he
remains an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant
Governor”.
 
9. Common Cause (A regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Passive
Euthanasia)
Supreme Court of India has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The
Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally valid.
The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. “The right to life and liberty as
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within
its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum
of Article 21 to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life
and liberty”.[9]
The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the
process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in Persistent vegetative state
with no hope of recovery.
 
10. Public Interest Foundation & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Ban of
Charge-sheeted Politician)
The Constitution Bench which gave the ruling comprised CJI Dipak Misra, and Justices RF
Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. The bench observed the
apex court did not have the power to add new grounds of disqualifications, and thus, could
not bar chargesheeted candidates from contesting elections.[10] However, the court urged the
Parliament to enact a law to disqualify chargesheeted candidates.
 
11. Jarnail Singh & Ors. V. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. ( Verdict on SC/ST
Reservation)
As the Supreme Court has upheld reservation in promotion for the SC/ST communities, the
court’s position on the idea of a creamy layer has put the political class in a dilemma.
So far creamy layer is applicable only for OBCs seeking reservation. Last year, the creamy
layer ceiling for OBC reservation was raised to Rs 8 lakh per year — families with income
above this were not eligible.
How will a creamy layer apply to SC/STs is uncharted territory. While the government says it
is still “examining”[11] the judgment, SC/ST groups are restive in a poll year that has seen
caste protests nationwide.
 
12. Romila Thapar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (Verdict on Bhima Koregaon
Arrest)
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court[12] refused to interfere in the arrests of five rights
activists in the Bhima-Koregaon violence case in a 2:1 verdict. The activists — poet Vara
Vara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj, activists Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and Gautam
Navlakha — were arrested by Maharashtra Police in cross-country raids in connection with
the Bhima-Koregaon violence probe. The Supreme Court, however, extended the house arrest
of the activists. Justice Chandrachud dissented with the majority verdict.
 
Full Judgments Links:
[1] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018)
<https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement
_28-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[2] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018)
<https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement
_26-Sep-2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[3] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/32550/32550_2017_Judgement_27-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[4] (Barandbench.com, 2018) <https://barandbench.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/Intervention-Application-Rohingyas-matter-watermark.pdf>
accessed 16 December 2018.
[5] (Timesofindia.indiatimes.com, 2018)
<https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/realtime/read_full_judgment_supreme_court_refuses_to
_refer_ayodhya_land_dispute_case_to_5_judge_bench.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[6] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[7] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/40426/40426_2017_Judgement_26-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[8] (Supremecourtofindia.nic.in, 2018)
<https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/29357.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[9] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2005/9123/9123_2005_Judgement_09-Mar-2018.pdf>
accessed 16 December 2018.
[10] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/36674/36674_2011_Judgement_25-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[11] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/34614/34614_2011_Judgement_26-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.
[12] (Sci.gov.in, 2018)
<https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/32319/32319_2018_Judgement_28-Sep-
2018.pdf> accessed 16 December 2018.