Supreme Court Observer

☀️Good Morning! 🧑🏻‍⚖️ The Supreme Court began its summer vacation earlier this week. In the last three months leading to this vacation—the Summer Session—the Supreme Court was abuzz with activity, and delivered as many as 6 Constitution Bench Judgements. Read our Summer Session Review of the SC’s Judgements for more: (https://bit.ly/4355TQS) ⚖️ In the last three months, the Court also conducted hearings in some crucial cases, and reserved Judgement. This includes the petitions for marriage equality, challenge to the extension of ED Director S.K Mishra’s tenure, and the Adani-Hindenburg controversy. We reviewed the developments in the most important cases pending before the SC here: (https://bit.ly/42egOXm) 📃 The last three months also saw some rapidly paced SC collegium activity, and a reshuffling of the Cabinet gave India a new Law Minister. More on SCO’s Summer Session Review of the key institutional developments at the SC: (https://bit.ly/42egOXm)

☕ Good Morning! 🐂 The SC recently upheld the practice of Jallikattu reasoning that Tamil Nadu's 2017 amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 'minimises the pain and suffering inflicted on animals'. SCO spoke with Animal rights activist Mr. Alok Hisarwala Gupta on the impact of this judgement on the rights of animals. Full interview here: (https://t.ly/a8-JS) 📜 Persons with mental illnesses are often medicalised and stigmatised by the law. However, the SC's judgement in _Ravindra Dhariwal v. UoI_ paved the way for a reasonable accommodation of disabled persons through an inclusive interpretation of Art. 14. Dr. Sanjay Jain and Ms. Malika Jain discuss this judgement here: (bit.ly/3MRmeCX) 🖥️ Yesterday, the SC invited bids to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) for transcribing Constitution Bench proceedings. An AI assisted initiative was previously announced by CJI Chandrachud on February 21st, 2023. SCO takes stock of this initiative here: (https://bit.ly/45tzllh)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: ⏱️ The hearings for marital equality for the queer community took nearly 30 hours spread over 10 days. While over 30 lawyers argued in the case, just three senior counsels took up 50.7% of this time. SCO breaks down the time split for arguments and how it made hearings more efficient: https://bit.ly/3MOfIwL ✍🏽 Indian criminal law exempts the crime of rape from punishment in one instance—when it is committed by a husband against his wife. Attempts to strike down this exemption from S.375 of the Indian Penal Code (“Rape”) have been blocked over concerns of undue interference in the private sphere of marriage. Diksha Sanyal explores the privacy arguments defending the marital exception to rape here: https://bit.ly/42YSg5M ⁉️ Interestingly, the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts took differing views on the criminality of marital rape. The Karnataka HC held that the marital rape exception violated the right to equality of the wife. The Delhi HC had a split decision. The SC is expected to hear appeals to these cases post its summer vacation: https://bit.ly/43n9MAt

☀ Good Morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day! 🐂 Yesterday, 5 Judges unanimously upheld the practice of Jallikattu, Kambala and Bailgada Sharyat. They held that the amendments which permitted the sport minimised any animal cruelty. Further, they held that Jallikattu was a cultural practice as recognised by the Tamil Nadu legislature. Read SCO's judgement pronouncement report here: https://bit.ly/3MDtz92 ⚖ Yesterday, in a cabinet reshuffle, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju was replaced by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Culture Arjun Ram Meghwal. Previously, Mr. Rijiju had often been critical about the SC's workings. With this change, SCO speculates the role and responsibility of Mr. Meghwal as the new Union Law Minister. Read here: https://bit.ly/457obm5 👨🏾‍⚖ Today, Justice P. K. Mishra (Andhra Pradesh HC) and Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan will be sworn in as Judges of the SC. They were recommended by the collegium on May 16th, 2023. Read SCO's report here: https://bit.ly/3MDrdXY

☀️Good Morning! Here’s a list of platforms where you can find SCO’s simple and direct reporting on the SC. 💬 Big on social media? Follow us on Twitter! Our contemporaneous tweets of hearings are contextualised, with links to reliable, authentic resources. https://bit.ly/3dXuuCU 📸 We’re also on Instagram, where we upload a video on the biggest SC story of the day and week. We tell you what happened at the Court and why it matters. Follow now! https://bit.ly/3Rnjzjr 📹 Our videos are also on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel, and tell us what kind of content you would like to see on the Supreme Court! https://bit.ly/3RkL39u 📧 If you enjoy sitting back on a Sunday morning and reading a crisp newsletter on the highlight of the week, SCO Desk Briefs are for you. This weekly newsletter cuts through the clutter and tells our 12k subscribers the full story in the simplest way. https://bit.ly/3SMjxml 🙏🏽 Thank you for following our daily updates, and for being an engaged, interested community of readers. We’d love to hear from you on what you would like to read/watch/listen to on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. Hear from you soon!

🌅 Good Morning! 🧾 Yesterday, the SC Collegium recommended Chief Justice P.K. Mishra (Andhra Pradesh HC) and Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan as judges to the SC. Seniority has been a common criteria in Collegium recommendations, but has the SC made an exception this time? Read more here: (https://bit.ly/3Wo9EhX) 👮‍♂️ Sr. Adv. K.V. Viswanathan has served as an amicus to assist the SC in several cases. Most recently in the challenge to the tenure extensions of CBI/ED Directors, he viewed that repeated tenures extensions compromised the independence of these investigative bodies. SCO explains the key arguments made in the case. (https://bit.ly/3o95my7) 💍 Earlier this month, the SC held that it could directly grant divorce using the discretionary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution. SCO summarised the judgement here: (https://bit.ly/3IhYsxs)

🌞 Good Morning! ⏱️ The SC’s recent decision on the Maharashtra political crisis presented a strong moral victory for former CM Uddhav Thackeray. However, Mathew Idiculla argues that it may be the right decision at the wrong time. Find out why: (https://bit.ly/42YCQxO) ✍🏽 Yesterday, Justice M.R. Shah retired after serving a 4.5-year tenure at the SC. The most prolific judgement author at the top Court, Justice Shah has over 700 SC judgements to his name at a rate of almost 160 judgements per year. SCO examines his legacy in numbers: (https://bit.ly/3OeqSMq) ⚖️ Last week, the SC reserved its judgement on the pleas seeking marriage equality for the LGBTQIA+ community. SCO simplifies key arguments from both sides through a matrix: (https://bit.ly/454EOyO)

☕ Good morning! After functioning at full strength for over 3 months, the Supreme Court is facing back-to-back retirements of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and M.R. Shah. 👨🏾‍⚖️ *Justice M.R. Shah* Justice M.R. Shah retires today after a career spanning 4-years with over 700 Judgements authored. In his final days as an SC Judge, he stayed the appointment of 68 district judges in his home state of Gujarat and was a part of 2 Constitution Bench decisions. Read about the his most important Judgements here: (https://bit.ly/3M7eNGj) 🪑 *Justice Dinesh Maheshwari* Justice Maheshwari retired on May 14th, 2023. He was appointed to the SC in 2019 after a 15-year tenure as a High Court Judge, including two stints as Chief Justice in Meghalaya and Karnataka. During his SC tenure, he authored 110 Judgements. Read more here: (https://bit.ly/3WiGhgZ)

☀️ Good Morning! 🧔🏽‍♂️ Days before Justice M.R. Shah’s retirement, the SC delivered judgment in two big constitution bench cases he was on. Here’s what they held. 🪑 *On the rift within the Shiv Sena* : 5 judges unanimously held that the Governor was not justified in calling a floor test. He did not have reasons to believe that Mr. Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the house. However, as Mr. Thackeray resigned, they cannot reinstate his position as Chief Minister. Read the SC’s decision on the other questions in the case here: (https://bit.ly/3WbXeJX) 💪🏽 *On the tussle between AAP and BJP for power over administration in NCT Delhi* The 5-Judge Bench, by a unanimous verdict, upheld the powers of the Delhi government to control civil servants and the day-to-day administration of the National Capital Territory. Emphasising the federal structure for the NCT of Delhi by Article 239AA, the SC ruled that the democratically elected NCT government cannot be deprived of its legislative and executive powers by the Union. More on the various issues in the case here: (https://bit.ly/3MlQy8o) 🏳️‍🌈 Marriage Equality hearings concluded yesterday. Watch SCO’s Daily video update on the hearing here: (https://bit.ly/42F99BU)

🌅 Good Morning! All eyes are on the SC today as it is set to deliver judgments in two big Constitution Bench cases. 🏹 *Maharashtra Political Crisis* The SC will answer the many questions surrounding Mr. Eknath Shinde’s dramatic rebellion from the Shiv Sena party last year. Can a speaker hear disqualification proceedings against MLAs, when there’s a disqualification proceedings against him? Does the Shinde faction’s rebellion in the Shiv Sena amount to defection? What are the contours of anti-defection law uder the 10th Schedule of the Constitution? More on the case here: (https://bit.ly/3NXS9CB) ⚖️ *Tussle Between the Union and State Governments in NCT Delhi* The SC will decide the limit of the Union's power to interfere in the administration in the NCT of Delhi. The decision may redefine the concept of federalism, separation of powers, and rule of law in the Indian context. More details here: (https://bit.ly/3NSSJ4J) 🏳️‍🌈 *Marriage Equality Petitions* After 10 long days of arguments, hearings in the plea for marriage equality are expected to conclude today. Read the respondents arguments against marriage equality and part of the petitioner’s response here: (https://bit.ly/3HY7IXh)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🏳️‍🌈 Today, the Court will continue hearing arguments against the recognition of marriage equality for the LGBTQIA+ community. Yesterday, Sr. Adv. Rakesh Dwivedi argued that only heterosexual couples have the right to marry as this right flows from custom, personal laws and societal acceptance, not the Constitution of India. Today, Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar will continue to argue about the purpose of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and why the Court cannot recognise marriage equality under it. (https://bit.ly/3HSqRKf) 💍 As we approach the final arguments in the marriage equality case, the conversation about the road ahead gains more importance. If the SC does recognise marriage equality under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, what are the practical, day-to-day benefits that LGBTQIA+ persons stand to receive? Is there a middle ground the SC can occupy where benefits are provided but completel recognition isn’t realised? SCO breaks down the concerns that the Court will have to address befor making a decision. (https://bit.ly/3LT8B4E) 🚨 After the third straight hearing on procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court has finally informed Bilkis Bano and the other parties in the case that hearings on arguments will take place in July. In order to get a hold of one unreachable respondent (one of the men convicted of gangraping Ms. Bano and murdering her family) the Bench directed the publishing of a public notice in a Gujarati newspaper. However, a new Bench will have to be constituted to hear the challenge to the early release of the convicts as Justice K.M. Joseph, who is presiding over the case, will retire during the SC summer vacation in June. (https://bit.ly/3HWpVo0)

🌅 Good Morning! 🗓️ On May 22nd, 2023, the SC will break for summer holidays till July, 2023. In today’s *Know your Court* series, let us talk about Vacation Benches of the SC. ❓ *What are Vacation Benches?* The SC takes multiple breaks in a year—during summer, winter, and on other religious holidays. During these vacation periods, the CJI may appoint single Judges or constitute special Benches called Vacation Benches to hear ‘matters of urgent nature’ or to clear the Court’s backlog. (https://bit.ly/42orva3) ⚖️ *Nature of Matters* Vacation Benches typically hear cases on death penalty, appeals against wrongful imprisonment, human rights violations, elections, bail, or evictions. Vacation Benches do not hear matters involving a substantial interpretation of the Constitution. The CJI may also direct a particular case to be listed before a particular Bench. 👨‍⚖️ *Procedure to approach vacation Benches* If the Court deems that a plea is indeed urgent, the Vacation Bench will hear the case on merits. For Instance, in June 2022, a vacation Bench of the SC passed interim orders in the Maharashtra MLA disqualification case. (https://bit.ly/3nDherI)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 💍 Yesterday, the Union government suggested the formation of a committee to address the concerns of the LGBTQIA+ community. The Bench accepted the Union’s suggestion to take care of things on the administrative side, but clarified that they would still decide whether queer marriages could be recognised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). The Bench also heard other respondent arguments, claiming that recognition of queer marriages under the SMA would diminish the historical significance of heterosexual marriages. Read more: https://bit.ly/42jhRph 💸 In other news, a 3-Judge Bench of the SC began hearing Union’s defence against allegations of unlawfully extending Enforcement Directorate (ED) director Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s tenure. Yesterday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that some of the petitioners challenging the tenure extensions were under investigation for money laundering and were privately motivated. He claimed that Mr. Mishra’s tenure was extended in anticipation of a review by the Financial Action Task Force, a global money-laundering watchdog, in order to maintain continuity of expertise in the ED. Read more: https://bit.ly/42p4dB5 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)

☕ Good morning! 🌈 Today, the Supreme Court will continue hearing the pleas seeking the recognition of marriage equality for the LGBTQIA+ community. Last week, the Bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to confer with various Union ministries to determine what protection can be afforded to LGBTQIA+ couples to level the playing field with married couples. Today, Mr. Mehta is expected to return with those findings. Read SCO’s recort of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3LLFph4) ⌚Yesterday, a Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna heard the challenges to the early release of prisoners who were convicted for gangraping Ms. Bilkis Bano and murdering members of her family. Hearings were meant to start but several of the respondents advocates clamored for time for the second week in a row, claiming that notice had been incorrectly served to some of the convicts. They claimed that the petitioners were attempting to play a fraud on the Court and asked to file a counter-affidavit. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/44eUvCS) 💍 On Monday, the Constitution Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul held that the Supreme Court has the power to act as a ‘court of first instance’ in divorce cases. Parties can approach the SC directly seeking divorce by proving that there has been a ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’. The SC held that this power stems from Article 142 of the Constitution which allows them to pass any Order for the purpose of affecting ‘complete justice’ to the parties. Read SCO’s coverage of the Judgement. (https://bit.ly/3AKWHVl)

☕ Good Morning! ⚖️ Today, the Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna are expected to continue hearing the challenge to the early release of 11 men convicted in the m Bilkis Bano gang-rape case during the Gujarat riots. In the last hearing, the Bench emphasised that the case would be decided on the strength of the Gujarat government’s reasoning behind the early release of the convicts. However, they allowed the Union time to consider filing a review petition to object to the SC’s Order to submit relevant documents. So far, no petition has been filed. (https://bit.ly/40PJ1CS) 💍Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the SC led by Justice S.K. Kaul passed the final judgement in a case concerning the SC's discretionary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution in matters of Divorce. The Bench held that it can invoke its powers under this Article of to grant divorce on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage'. This ground though common in many foreign jurisdictions, is not yet a statutorily recognised one in India. The Bench also held that the mandatory waiting period of six months for divorce by mutual consent can be set aside under this Article. (https://bit.ly/3Hvx2n9) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 🙅‍♂️ Last week, the Union commenced its arguments against legally recognising marriage rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. Chief among the Union’s concerns is the practical implications on other laws if the SC interprets the right to marriage in a manner that extends to queer marriages. SG Tushar Mehta pointed out that adopting gender-neutral terms such as “person” and “spouse” in place of “husband”, “wife”, “man”, and “woman” would cause confusion in the application of gender-based laws governing adoption, inheritance, dowry, and maintenance. Read more: https://bit.ly/3LiJojG 💍 In the last hearing, on Thursday, the Union also claimed that while the rights to love, sexual orientation, and to choose a partner are fundamental rights, the queer community did not have a right to compel the State to recognise queer marriages. Mr. Mehta also argued that it was solely within Parliament’s remit to recognise a new class of marriages, and the SC cannot rule on the matter. A vacuum in law governing queer marriages does not violate the right to equality either, he added. Read more: https://bit.ly/3LHimUp 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)

☀️ Good morning! 🏳️‍🌈 Yesterday. The Union government completed its arguments opposing the recognition of LGBTQIA+ marriages in India. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that the petitioner's arguments regarding sexual orientation and freedom to choose one’s partner could justify incest in the future. This was met with immediate reprisal from the Bench. However, the Bench also acknowledged that the SC may not be best suited to provide relief to the petitioners and asked Mr. Mehta to return on Wednesday with word from the Union on what steps can be taken to protect queer couples. (https://bit.ly/3VhU5HN) 📄 On Wednesday, a Bench comprising Justices Murari and C.T. Ravikumar faced a case where multiple CBI chargesheets led to the arrest of an individual for criminal conspiracy. None of the chargesheets explicitly named the excuse, which led to the Bench berating the CBI for attempting to ‘scuttle’ the right to default bail by filing additional chargesheets. They observed that the right to default bail is a fundamental right, as a part of the right to life. Why does the SC face trouble in making their bail rulings and approach trickle down to other courts? (https://bit.ly/3n9FVMe) 🚔 Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will continue hearing the challenge to the early release of 11 men convicted of gangraping Ms. Bilkis Bano during the Gujarat riots and murdering her family. In the last hearing, Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna emphasised that the case would be decided on the strength of the Gujarat government’s reasoning behind the early release of the convicts. However, they allowed the Union time to consider filing a review petition to object to the SC’s Order to submit relevant documents. So far, no petition has been filed. (https://bit.ly/40PJ1CS)

🌅 Good Morning! 🗣️ Today, the CJI Chandrachud led Constitution Bench will continue hearing the Union's arguments opposing the legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ marriages in India. Yesterday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the matter not only concerned numerous other statutes, but also involved several undefined identities of the gender spectrum. Therefore, Parliament was the appropriate authority to make laws on the matter. (https://bit.ly/441XMoZ) 🌍 The SG also spoke about the process of legalising non-heterosexual marriages and civil unions in countries such as Austria, Latvia and the UK. He claimed that in most cases, these marriages were recognised through a legislative process. Citing the dissenting judgements in international cases such as Obergefell (2015), he argued that the legislature was deemed the appropriate body to recognise (or not recognise) queer marriages. (https://bit.ly/40H4MVi) 🧾 Lastly, the SG presented arguments about the non-applicability of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He claimed that the drafters of the SMA intended for it to recognise only heterosexual marriages and the SC could not substitute this intention with a new one. (https://bit.ly/3V61dHi) 📳 Follow SCO's Twitter account for clear, concise, and relevant live updates of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3Vbjtig)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 💍 The CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench is expected to begin hearing arguments by the Union against the plea for marriage equality for the queer community. Yesterday, the Bench was faced with a unique question: Can the SC deny recognition of marriage equality to the queer community to avoid practical difficulties that may arise in law? The Bench also heard a plea seeking to recognise the right to family alongside the right to marriage equality. Read more: https://bit.ly/41VjMQH 📑 Yesterday, the Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench ruled by 3:2 majority that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable in law. An arbitration agreement is valid only after the stamp duty and penalties for non-payment, if any, are paid. Justices Ajay Rastogi and Hrishikesh Roy dissented, holding that payment of stamp duty at the arbitrator appointment stage would hamper the efficiency of arbitration. Read more: https://bit.ly/3AtLAA4 ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like us to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

☀️ Good morning! ⛱️ Last week, the Supreme Court decided to restrict the scope of the marriage equality case and set aside the challenges to the definition of marriage under various religious personal laws. Only the challenges to the secular Special Marriage Act, 1954 are being entertained. Many personal laws cannot be immediately adjusted to include LGBTQIA+ couples without changing a host of other provisions. However, the SMA poses its own challenges and the Court may be foregoing the opportunity to answer some fundamental constitutional questions. Diksha Sanyal tackles the reasoning and drawbacks behind the Court’s decision. (https://bit.ly/3LusfFe) 📄 Until recently the marriage equality case appeared to be racing toward a conclusion. However, in most cases, the Court is forced to adopt a more gradual pace. In these cases, Interim Orders play a crucial role in protecting the interests of all the parties involved and protect them from incurring any ‘irreparable injury’. However, this opens up a new debate. Sometimes, Interim Orders can contradict the balance they are meant to maintain, such as in the Maharashtra Legislature case. Further, choosing not to deliver timely Interim Orders can carry grave risks as well. Gauri Kashyap canvasses some recent cases to assess the SC’s Interim Order practices. (https://bit.ly/3oIrMG9) 🇮🇳 Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the celebrated Keshavananda Bharati case. The Judgement recognised that certain parts of the Constitution are inalienable and form part of its ‘basic structure’ such that they cannot be amended by Parliament. The Supreme Court honoured this occasion by launching a website containing all the written opinions and related documents for the public to access. Watch SCO’s Live Update from yesterday to learn more. (https://bit.ly/41BGuO2)