Articles

Important Recent Cases of 2018-2019 | Major judgments of 2018 – 2019

October 28, 2019


Hey Everybody, My name is Priya & in
today’s video, we will learn about only important judgements of 2018. Lets start! You are in a Movie hall and national anthem starts playing At this point, you are faced with 2 questions. 1st, should the national anthem be played
in cinema halls? And 2nd, that do you need to stand up for
national anthem in the cinema hall. These two questions were discussed in Shyam
Chouksey v. Union of India, which is also known as the National Anthem Case. First we have article 51 A which says that
every citizen is duty bound to respect national symbols, national emblems, national anthem, all of these. But while hearing this case, SC
said that cinema halls are not suitable placesto test anyone’s patriotism. People go to cinema halls for unobstructed
entertainment; so you cannot check patriotism there. After this case, playing of national anthem
in cinema halls went from mandatory to discretionary. Though even now, whenever the national anthem
is played in a cinema hall, it is your duty to respect it. 2nd is Shafin Jahan case. Which is also known as Hadiya’s marriage
case. Two issues were raised in this case: 1st,
related to religion/faith conversion. & 2nd, related to inter religious marriages. Supreme court, while answering these two issues
very simply, said that when two consenting adults choose each other as life partners
with mutual consent, this right to choice is protected under Art. 19 & 21. After this decision of the supreme court,
two manifestations of right to choice- 1. Right to choose faith meaning religion conversion,
& 2. right to choose life partners, both of these rights have been extended the protection
of art. 19 In similar lines and similar reasons is based
our next case. Have you watched Anushka Sharma’s movie – NH 10? In Shakti Vahini v. UoI SC said that right
to choose a life partner is a right that is recognised by the constitution, and for that,
you don’t need permission of your family, community or clan. I don’t know why am I even clearing this but… Khap panchayat
does not have any right to commit honour killing. You can register an FIR against this. Before checking our next case, lets look at art. 21 i.e. right to life & personal liberty;
which also has an important component i.e. right to live with dignity. In case of Common Cause v. union of India,
the SC held that right to live with dignity, within itself incorporates – smoothening of the dying process This case is also known as Euthanasia case;
because in this case right to die for the terminally ill patients or the patients in persistent vegetative state,
was recognised! the supreme court set detailed guidelines
and directives. If you wish to separate 2 persons, you need
some solid reason, right? This is what the SC said in the case of Navtej
Singh Johar. That to criminalise sexual acts between two
consenting adults, just because they are homosexual is violative of art. 14 See, under art. 19, every citizen has right to express their
personal identity, meaning that right to express sexual orientation is also granted. In addition, art.15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The word “sex” includes along side biological
sex, sexual orientation as well. This approach reflects improved understanding
of our country. After this case, the consensual homosexual
acts that were criminalised under s. 377 have been decriminalised. In next case, we will talk about adultery. There are already two famous judgements of
SC in respect to adultery: Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay & Saumitra Vishnu v. UoI. In both of these cases, the S. 497, which
is a law related with adultery, had been held valid for the reason of protecting the sanctity
of marriage. But in Joseph Shine v. UoI, SC held that the
primary purpose of S. 497 is to protect men’s property. So, in this case, while declaring S. 497 as
invalid, SC says that any law or provision that attacks of individual dignity or equality,
is unconstitutional. Rejecting Old norms of the society and SC’c
previous decisions, SC in this case held that Husband is not the master of wife. After this case, adultery is only a ground
for divorce and not a criminal offence. Yes, but if for the reason of adultery, the
other spouse commits suicide, the adulterous spouse can be prosecuted under s. 306 for Abetment to suicide. In this case lets see the Sabrimla verdict. See, the rules that were there to manage or
administer the Sabrimla temple, Specifically Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public
Worship Act; this rule banned the entry of women in the age group from 10-50 years in
the temple. Supreme court in this case, while ending gender
discrimination said that any such law which excludes or discriminates a woman shall be
unconstitutional. SC in this judgement said that Women of all
ages can enter the Sabrimala temple. Next case is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI. 2 issues were raised in
this case: 1st regarding Right to Privacy, which was answered by the SC in 2017 while
declaring that right to privacy is a fundamental right and the 2nd issue was regarding the
Valildity of Aadhar Act. Because of these 2 issues, this case I also
known as Privacy case & Aadhar case as well. See, the Aadhar Act came in 2016, & when it
came, its main objective was to keep Aadhar a voluntary exercise. But gradually, AADHAR as being made mandatory,
like for government services along with the private services e.g. for mobile number, for
bank account for education institutions., aadhar was made mandatory even for these. This is from where the aadhar act was challenged. In this case, SC upheld the validity of majority
of the provisions off the Aadhar Act. Some provisions were revealed but asked government
to strengthen the data protection. Additionally, SC also held that private companies
and educational institutions e.g for admission in school for mobile number for bank account,
aadhar cannot be made mandatory for these private services. Now let`s see Swapnil Tripathy v. UoI. In this case, with larger public interest
in view and to make judicial proceeding s more transparent it was decided that the SC
proceedings shall be live streamed. This would not include those cases which deal
with individual issues. For the live streaming of SC cases, the Attorney
General has been asked to make appropriate rules as under art. 145 of the constitution. To understand the next case I ill be talking
about, lets check the previous 2 cases. have you checked the video I made on art. 16? You will find the link above in the description. First we have, from 1992, Indra Swahney v.
UoI case. In this case, the SC declared reservations
in promotions as invalid, following which, the parliament brought and amendment added
clause 4 a was added in article 16 which talks about promotion in reservation. This amendment and clause 4a was challenged
in 2006’s M. Nagraj v. UoI case. In this case SC held clause 4a as valid, meaning
that SC upheld the reservation in promotions. But 2riders were added in this clause: 1st,
people in creamy layer shall not be availed the reservation inn promotion. 2nd, benefit of reservation in promotion shall
only be advanced to those classes, who can qualify the backwardness test. There are 3 criteria for backwardness test,
1st is inadequate representation. 2nd. Those classes must actually be backward. & 3rd, appointment of such candidates must
not negatively effect the administrative efficiency. The 2 riders from M Nagaraj case were challenged
in 2018’s Jarnail Singh v. UoI case where attorney general K.K Gopal said that it is
the constitution which has decided the backwardness status of schedule castes and schedule tribes. Apart from that, both the classes do not need
to take any additional test or verification for backwardness. So by this case, there is no need to take
any additional test or verification for reservation in promotions. Pending for years in Ram Mandir-Bsbri Masjid
Ayodhya dispute, to get an amicable solution the SC referred this dispute to court- mediated
mediation on 8th march. 3 member panel has been constituted for this
mediation. 1st we have, head of the mediation, Retd. Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah. 2nd is Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and 3rd is Senior
Madras HC Advocate Sriram Panchu. So I hope that you liked this video. So you have to like this video and subscribe
to this channel. With that, all the cases discussed in this
video and some relevant cases from some of the previous years, you will get the pdf in
this description box. That’s it for now, see you in the next class,
bye bye!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *