LANDMARK JUDGMENTS- 2021 & 2022 (UGC NET/JRF- LAW 2023) Into Legal World Landmark Judgment Sat, May 13, 2023, at ,03:11 PM Union of India v. KA Najeeb 2022 The apex court held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of the Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial. Bench: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose Vikash Kumar v. UPSC 2021 A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 would “not be a binding precedent”, after the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The Bench in the same judgment also held that the facility of the scribe can be provided for persons with disabilities other than those having benchmark disabilities. V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu -The Court said that a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State Of Maharashtra 2021 “Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the extent that it does not exceed aggregate 50 per cent of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together,” Bench: AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister; 2021 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha quota in excess of 50% ceiling limit as unconstitutional. Bench: Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat Madras Bar Association v. Union of India 2021 The Supreme Court by 2 :1 majority set aside the provisions in the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as four years. The majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that this term violated the express direction given in the earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases that the term of tribunal members should be 5 years. Accordingly, the bench set aside those provisions. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented saying that a law cannot be struck down merely for the reason of being contrary to judgments. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022Reservation is not at odds with merit”; Here’s why SC upheld OBC reservation in NEET PG and UG Admissions in AIQ (All India Quota) quota.Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2022Suspension of 12 Maharashtra BJP MLAs for one year “grossly illegal”; worse than expulsion, disqualification or resignation.Jagjeet singh and others v. Ashish mishra alias monu and another 2022Victim has right to participate in every step of criminal process till conclusion of appeal.Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.); 2021The Supreme Court, by 4:1 majority, has dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Aadhaar case [Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India]. While Justices AM Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai observed that no case for review of judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud expressed his dissent.Re: Advocate On Record Includes A Proprietary Firm Etc. 2021"Whether 'Advocate On Record' Includes Sole Proprietary Firm?" Supreme Court Leaves The Question To SC Rule Making AuthorityKaniz Fatima v. Commissioner of Police; 2021"Right To Protest Cannot Be Any Time And Everywhere": Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition Against 'Shaheen Bagh' Judgment(AMIT SAHNI vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE) 'Shaheen Bagh' Judgment(AMIT SAHNI vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE), 2020 The Supreme Court has observed that the right to peaceful protest against a legislation exists, but the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari observed that the mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. The court said that the fundamental right of every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State must be respected and encouraged by the State.Neena Aneja & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.; 2021The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints filed before the coming into effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019(CPA 2019) should continue in the forum in which they were filed as per the pecuniary jurisdiction under the previous Consumer Protection Act of 1986(CPA 1986).Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others; 2021NCDRC Can Direct Deposit Of Entire Or More Than 50% Of Amount Determined By SCDRC For StayAparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021While setting aside the "rakhi-for-bail" order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines to be followed by Courts while dealing with sexual crimes. The Supreme Court suggested that gender sensitization training should be imparted to Judges and public prosecutors. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat directed the Bar Council of India to take steps to include such courses as part of LLB and AIBE syllabus.Lt. Col Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors; 2021A Division Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah declared that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to consider the grant of permanent commission for women officers to be "arbitrary and irrational".Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021Call For Justice Not Hate Speech": Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Patricia Mukhim A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara and S. Ravindra Bhat quashed a FIR registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim over a Facebook post on violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya.Mohammad Salimullah v. Union Of India; 2021While rejecting a plea to stop the deportation of Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu, a bench comprising of then CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the right not to be deported is ancillary to the fundamental right to reside or settle in any part of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution.Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act; 2021A constitution bench of the Supreme Court issued a set of directions to expedite the trial of cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bench: Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and S Ravindra BhatPLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd; 2021High Courts Are In A Crisis Situation': Supreme Court Laid Down Time Line For Appointment Of High Court Judges Bench: CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya KantLok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors.; 2021'Ad-Hoc Judges Not An Alternative To Regular Appointments': Supreme Court Passes Guidelines On Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges In HCs Under Article 224A Bench: CJI SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya KantIndian School, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan; 2021The Supreme Court has held that State's regulation of profiteering by education institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements' fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Upheld the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh MaheshwariElection Commission of India v. MR Vijaya Bhaskar 2021'Citizens Have Right To Know What Transpires In Judicial Proceedings': Supreme Court Upheld Media's Freedom To Report Court Hearings Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR ShahGurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately Before': Supreme Court Issued Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha BoseJigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E; 2021'Name Is An Intrinsic Element Of Identity': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recording Corrections & Changes In CBSE CertificatesIn Re Contagion of COVID Virus In Children Protection Homes; 2021Stop Illegal Adoption Of Children Orphaned By COVID; Public Advertisements For Adoptions Unlawful: Supreme Court Bench: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha BoseState of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph, 2021Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In PromotionsUnion of India v. Rajendra Shah and others; 2021The Supreme Court upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down the provisions of the Constitution(97th Amendment) Act 2011 to the extent it introduced Part IX B in the Constitution to deal with co- operative societies. The bench unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required ratification by at least one-half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, since it dealt with a entry which was an exclusive state subject (co-operative societies). Since such ratification was not done in the case of the 97th Constitutional amendment, it was liable to be struck down. There was a split in the bench on the point whether Part IX B will survive with respect to multi-state co-operative societies. While the majority comprising Justices Nariman and Gavai upheld those provisions of Part IX B which deal with multi- state co-operative societies by applying the doctrine of severability, Justice Joseph dissented on this count. Justice Joseph held that the doctrine of severability was not applicable and struck down the entire amendment.State of Kerala v. K.Ajith; 2021Legislative Privileges & Immunities Not Gateways To Claim Exemption From Criminal Law Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR ShahUnion of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar; 2021Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To Government Accomodation Bench: Hemant Gupta and AS BopannaMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha; 2021The Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports.Goutom Roy and Anr v. State of West Bengal; 2021There cannot be a complete ban of firecrackers. Strengthen the mechanism to stop misuse.Jeeja Ghosh vs Union of India; 2021Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Asked to Remove Prosthetic Limbs At Airport Security Checks