Aadhaar Verdict & More: Here’s How the Day Looks For SC Today
Here is a list of all the important verdicts likely to be pronounced tomorrow and in the following days at SC.
With Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra entering his last week as the head of the Indian judiciary, several landmark cases and rulings can be expected from benches headed by him.
Here’s a look at how the day will be looking on Wednesday, 26 September:
Validity of Aadhaar
A long-standing case that was heard for over 38 working days, a bench headed by the CJI had reserved its verdict in the case on 10 August.
The hearing pertains to a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, where the top court is expected to pass a judgment on whether or not the government can continue making Aadhaar, which is driven by personal biometric data, a mandatory identification document in its welfare schemes.
Ahmed Patel's Re-Election to the Rajya Sabha
The court had, on 18 September, reserved its verdict in the case which sought to disqualify Congress leader Ahmed Partel’s election to the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat. The plea argued that Patel had secured his seat via corrupt practices after he lodged 44 MLAs from his party in a Bengaluru resort to avoid poaching by the BJP.
Reservation in Promotions
Following up on the 2006 judgement which held that reservations for SC/ST in promotions should be based on "tests of backwardness, representation and administration efficiency", the SC is likely to decide on whether the verdict is to be reconsidered by a larger bench - as sought by the Centre.
However, The Wire reported that it was likely that the constitution bench currently hearing the case would instead clarify the 2006 judgment.
Live Streaming of Court Proceedings
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on 24 August on a bunch of pleas related to the issue of live streaming of court proceedings.
MLAs, MPs with Criminal Cases to Contest Elections Verdict Already Out
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI Misra, on Tuesday held that candidates cannot be disqualified from contesting elections merely because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case.
The bench added that political parties would have to publicise the list of cases pending against their candidates, reported Live Law.
The bench added that the court cannot add to the grounds of disqualifications and therefore cannot declare that chargesheeted legislators as disqualified, and left it to the Parliament to pass a law that can can stop criminalisation of politics.
Other Likely Landmark Verdicts This Week:
A three-judge bench headed by the CJI will resume hearing on whether or not the Ayodhya dispute case needs to be referred to a larger constitutional bench, depending on whether or not the case involves constitutional questions.
The bench, comprising of Justice Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and SA Naseer, is expected to deliver a verdict on the same front. The bench had reserved its order in the plea on 20 July, which was filed by a group of Muslim groups who sought to refer the 1994 constitution bench’s judgment to a larger bench.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its verdict after it had, on 20 September, reserved its order on the petitions filed by Romila Thapar and others challenging the arrest of the five activists.
On 6 September, the top court had reprimanded Maharashtra Police over their press conference, saying that they cannot make statements in the press. It had further ordered that the five activists be kept under house arrest till a conclusive verdict was delivered by the apex court.
The Sabrimala Case
The apex court is also set to hear a clutch of petitions seeking to strike down the rule restricting the entry of women of menstrual age into the Sabrimala temple premises. According to The Wire, the court, which had on 1 August reserved its verdict in the case, is highly likely to read down the rule, thereby ending discrimination against women.
The court is also expected to deliver a judgment decriminalising adultery, which under section 497 of the IPC is currently a criminal act. The Wire noted that the court had, on 8 August, disagreed with the Centre, which continued to bolster its stand on the criminalisation of adultery keeping in mind the "institution of marriage."
MPs As Practicing Advocates
Pettioner Ashwini Kmar Upadhyay had sought a ban on legislators from practising as advocates. He had argued that since the Bar Council of India barred any salaried person from practising as a lawyer, an MLA or MP too should be subject to the same bar.
A three-judge bench had reserved its verdict in the case on 9 July.
A Few Other Cases:
Aseer Jamal v Union of India: The plea sought to simplify RTI procedures for differently-abled persons. Order reserved on 5 July.
Union of India v Hardy Exploration: Order reserved on 5 September
Uttaradi Mutt v Raghavendra Swamy Mutt: ORder reserved on 7 September
Union of India v E. Krishna Rao: Order reserved on 7 August
Coal India Limited v Navin Kumar Singh: Order reserved on 19 February
(With inputs from The Wire)
(The Quint is available on Telegram. For handpicked stories every day, subscribe to us on Telegram)
Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.