As the year 2023 comes to an end, the Supreme Court’s pronounced verdicts stand out as pivotal milestones, impacting the socio-legal landscape of the nation. Several landmark judgments, ranging from the status of Article 370 to the recognition of same-sex marriages, as well as decisions on demonetisation and reservation policies, have shaped the judicial discourse throughout the year.
Let’s take a look back at the landmark judgments made by the Supreme Court in 2023.
Article 370
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court of India ruled the Centre’s 2019 decision to revoke Article 370, directing the reinstatement of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood at the earliest.
Same-Sex Marriages
On October 17, a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled against legalising same-sex marriages in India. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, also ruled in a 3:2 verdict against civil unions for non-heterosexual couples, asserting that only legislative bodies could validate such unions.
On November 25, two same-sex couples filed a plea seeking recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act (SPA), arguing for gender-neutral provisions.
Manual Scavenging
The Supreme Court, in its October 20 judgment, expressed deep concern over deaths during manual scavenging and directed the Central and State governments to completely eradicate the practice of manual scavenging.
Increased compensation, up to Rs 30 lakhs in cases of fatalities, was mandated by a bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, along with directives for effective implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act of 2013. These directives include rehabilitation measures for the victim and their families, scholarships, and skill development programs.
Demonetisation
The Supreme Court, in its January 2, 2023, ruling upheld the 2016 demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes with a 4:1 majority. The court deemed the November 8 notification, which announced the decision to scrap the high-value currency notes, as reasonable and not subject to being struck down.
Four judges voted in favour of demonetisation, while Justice BV Nagarathna dissented on the Centre’s powers under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, expressing the need for legislative action rather than a notification to scrap the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 series notes.
Adani vs. Hindenburg
The Supreme Court on November 24 reserved its verdict in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking a court-monitored probe into allegations against the Adani Group by US-based short-selling film Hinderburg Research regarding violations of stock market regulations.
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, however, dismissed the petitioner’s allegations against the Expert Committee and urged Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conclude its investigation in all 24 cases.
Tenure Extension of ED and CBI Directors
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, which permit tenure extension provisions up to three years for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) directors. The extension can be granted if it is found to be in “public interest.”
Despite initial findings of an illegal extension, the court later extended the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mihsra’s term till September 15 in “larger public interest.”
Euthanasia
In an order published on February 3 this year, a five-judge bench of the top court simplified the directions outlined in the court’s 2018 order that allowed passive euthanasia. The simplified directions were pertained to implementation of advance medical directives.
The court’s order came on pleas contending that the directions passed in the 2018 Constitution bench order were near impossible to implement on ground. In 2018, the Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia, affirming an individual’s “right to die in dignity.” The court outlined guidelines for when a person under medical treatment can decide to discontinue life support.
Appointment of EC and CEC
A Constitution Bench on March 2 quashed the existing appointment system for Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC) by the Centre, ordering presidential appointments based on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The apex court highlighted the need to insulate the Election Commission from executive interference. It was noted that a ruling party would constantly seek to maintain its power by influencing a servile commission. The order was, however, overturned by the recent passage of the CEC Bill in Parliament that replaces the CJI on the selection panel with a cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.
Delhi Services
In May 2023, the Supreme Court clarified that Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services, except for public order, police, and land matters.
A Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha held that the Lt. Governor will be bound by the council of ministers’ decisions, except in excluded domains. The order was again overturned by an ordinance that kept services under the control of the Centre. The ordinance was later turned into a law.
False Promise to Marry
In a January 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court held that deeming every promise to marry as a false commitment leading to the prosecution of individuals would be an erroneous approach.
The Court clarified that the charge of rape should not be automatically applied in cases where a man fails to marry his girlfriend after making a promise. A bench of Supreme Court justices, including Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah, elucidated this legal standpoint while acquitting a 30-year-old individual of a rape charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.