Supreme Court Observer

✨Good Morning! Yesterday, the SC continued to hear arguments in the ‘right to die petition’. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care approached the Court requesting a 5-Judge Bench to modify some guidelines prescribed by the SC in a 2018 Judgment. In the hearing, Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar mentioned 3 key areas of modification. 1️⃣ That an ‘Advance Directive’ (AD), be considered when a treatment may be more harmful than beneficial, or for persons who are in a permanent vegetative state. ADs are used to express medical decisions in advance, preempting a situation when a terminally ill' person may not capable of making or communicating such decisions. The Bench appeared unconvinced, citing the possibility of misuse of such a wide use of ADs. 2️⃣ That instead of requiring the Judicial Magistrate to sign the AD, it can simply be attested by a notary public. Though the Bench seemed inclined to the idea, they insisted that copies must be maintained by an authorised person to verify its claims. Mr. Datar recommended the National Digital Health Commission, where patients may upload their ADs which doctors could easily access and verify. 3️⃣ That the requirement for a second medical board for the review of the primary medical board’s decision be done away with. Further, for the sake of efficiency, he suggested limiting the primary board to 3 members: the treating physician, a specialist, and the hospital director. After a long debate, the Bench agreed to mandate a 4-member Board comprising the treating physician and 3 ‘subject-experts’. 🎧 Hearings are expected to continue today. This case may be a critical stage in securing the right to life, and by extension the right to die with dignity, for terminally ill patients in India. Stay tuned to SCO for updates!

☀️ Good Morning! Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph heard an application to modify a 2018 Judgment of the Court recognising the right of terminally ill patients to die with dignity and refuse further treatment. (https://bit.ly/3XjhBnY) 📄 *What is the case about?* In 2018, the SC held that the right to die with dignity was an extension of the right to life and liberty and upheld the validity of ‘Advance Directives (ADs).’ ADs allow individuals to provide instructions on how to proceed if they become terminally ill and are unable to communicate their wishes. The Court also issued guidelines on the procedure for carrying out ADs. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) filed a Miscellaneous Application asking the SC to modify these guidelines. The ISCCM claimed the guidelines were very cumbersome. As a result, very few ADs were accepted and implemented. (https://bit.ly/3XxKE76) ❓ *What were the suggested modifications?* Yesterday, Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar, representing ISCCM, suggested that requiring a Judicial Magistrate to verify that the AD was signed voluntarily was unnecessary. He stated that this requirement caused many delays in the process. Justice Joseph expressed the desire to modify a condition which requires a person to ‘clearly indicate’ the circumstances when medical treatment can be withdrawn. He suggested modifying this requirement for patients who have reached a 'terminal stage' based on the prevailing scientific definition at the time. Other suggestions included modifications to a wide range of topics such as defining 'terminally ill', the ways in which misuse of ADs can be prevented, and the requirement to get approval from two medical boards. (https://bit.ly/3klVLSl) 💬 *What Next?* The Judges asked Mr. Datar to prepare a chart comparing the SC’s 2018 guidelines and the recommended changes. The case will be heard again at 2 PM today.

☀️ Good morning! The 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to finish hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over the control of administrative services in the NCT of Delhi. (https://bit.ly/3ZFmdXa) 👨🏾‍⚖️ *What is the case about?* In 2018 the SC held that the NCT of Delhi held special status in comparison to other Union Territories. The Lieutenant Governor (LG)—the administrative head appointed by the Union government—is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers for most matters under the State and Concurrent Lists of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3iJ8Swl) In April 2022, the Union government claimed that the Judgment was silent on who controlled civil servants and administrative services in Delhi (https://bit.ly/3CVqtbs). The Delhi government claimed this was a ‘delaying tactic’ and an attempt from the Union to convince the Court to reconsider the 2018 decision (https://bit.ly/3WfiBsa). However, the Bench led by CJI Ramana referred the case to a 5-Judge Bench on May 6th, 2022 (https://bit.ly/3CRVSLV). 🗣️ *What arguments have been made so far?* The Court began hearing arguments in the case on January 10th, 2023. Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, argued that civil servants must answer to the Delhi government in order to be held accountable. Further, the Union cannot usurp these powers from the Delhi government without enacting a Constitutional Amendment. (https://bit.ly/3Xvkt0E) Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, argued that the Delhi government’s concerns were overblown. The LG only interferes in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and the Union was not attempting to usurp any of the Delhi government’s powers. He suggested that the Union and the LG have administrative control over the territory while the Delhi government retains ‘functional’ control. The Bench however, did not appear convinced by his arguments. (https://bit.ly/3kjMqdG) Mr. Mehta will finish his arguments today and the case is expected to conclude following Dr. Singhvi’s response to the Union’s arguments.

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day: *Constitutionality of Anti-Conversion Laws* 🛐 Today, a Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will hear a case challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The challenges to these laws were filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace, a Mumbai-based NGO, and Adv. Vishal Thakre. They claim that these anti-conversion laws violate the rights to life, liberty, privacy and the freedom of religion by restricting their freedom to choose their religion and their marriage partners. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3w79wXu) *Why were the laws challenged?* 📝 The petitioners claim that anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand introduced a very cumbersome process for anyone wishing to change their religion. This entails filing a declaration before the local Magistrate up to 60 days in advance before converting from their original religion. Further, the person performing the conversion is required to prove that register the conversion in advance failing which they can be punished with upto 10 years of imprisonment. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3w5W6LG) ❓ Is there something about the Supreme Court you would like to learn more about? Drop a text and let us know!

🌄 Good Morning! Two Constitution cases took centre stage this week at the Supreme Court—a plea seeking additional compensation for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, and the dispute between the Union and the Delhi Governments over the control of Delhi’s administrative services. 🏭 The Union Government in the *Bhopal Gas Tragedy* challenge approached the Court seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide. In 1989, the Court facilitated the $470 million settlement between Union Carbide and the Union government. In 1991 the Union filed a petition to review the Judgment, claiming that the settlement was invalid. The Court dismissed the case on grounds that the settlement was sound, and did not qualify a review from the Court. 32 years later, the Union came to the Court with similar concerns. They stated that new facts have emerged since the settlement—more victims, new illnesses and environmental damage have been identified. This _curative petition_, filed as a last ditch effort after the _review petition_ was rejected, seeks a whopping ₹7,400 crores. (https://bit.ly/3Zw96HL) The Court heard the case for 3 days and reserved Judgment this week. 💪🏽 Three days of hearings have been completed in the *clash between the Union and Delhi Governments*. Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party-led government has tussled with the Union for control over the National Capital Territory ever since it first came to power in 2013. In 2018 the SC found that as per Article 239AA, the elected Delhi government had power over all items in the State List except police, land, and public order—these remaining items would be controlled by the Union. In May 2022, the SC referred the limited question of who should control Delhi’s civil services to 5-Judge Bench. (https://bit.ly/3H2aCdq) The case will be heard next on Tuesday, and hearings are expected to continue next week.

☀️ Good morning! Here are the new developments in the Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul. 💸 *Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* Yesterday, the Constitution Bench headed by Justice Kaul concluded hearings in the Union’s plea to increase the compensation awarded to victims of the bhopal gas tragedy. Adv. Harish Salve, representing Union Carbide, vehemently argued against enhancing the $470 million compensation granted for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims. Advocate Karuna Nundy argued that Union Carbide committed fraud by suppressing crucial material when the settlement was being decided. Read SCO's report. (https://bit.ly/3ZyMHd1) 🌇 *Control of the NCT of Delhi's Civil Servants* Yesterday, the Constitution Bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud continued hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over control of civil servants. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta extensively argued about Delhi's significant status compared to other States and Union Territories. He faced tough questions from CJI Chandrachud about Delhi Government's Legislative Powers & Executive Control over services. SG Mehta will continue arguments next week on Tuesday. Read SCO's report. (https://bit.ly/3iGzQEN) ✍️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! Yesterday the 5-Judge Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul continued hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over control of civil servants, and the Unions bid to enhance the compensation provided to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. 💸 *Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* The Attorney General argued that the SC should interfere in the case on account of the human tragedy involved. However, the Bench stuck to their objections from the day before, they did not see a way to interfere with the settlement agreement while they were restricted by the Court’s limited jurisdiction in curative petitions. Here, the Court can only grant relief when one of their past Orders has caused a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’. The AG attempted to argued that the settlement was agreed to based on erroneous assumptions, resulting in such a miscarriage of justice. However, the Bench repeatedly pointed out that if there was any shortfall in the amount of compensation provided to the victims, the Union has the obligation to pay the amount. The AG concluded his arguments and the Bench is expected to finish hearing the case today. Read SCO’s report of yesterday’s hearing. (https://bit.ly/3IH4qbW) 🌇 *Control of the NCT of Delhi’s Civil Servants* Senior Advocate Dr. A.M Singhvi and Advocate Shadan Farasat argued on behalf of the Delhi government yesterday. Dr. Singhvi argued that the Delhi government should retain control over the appointment and transfer of civil servants alongside the allocation of work. Mr. Farasat argued that the Union did not have any legitimate interest in controlling civil services within the Union Territory and compared the administration of Delhi to that of other national capitals worldwide so show that power over civil services must lie with the local government. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that there was a mistake in the perception of the law. The Lieutenant Governor, the administrative head of the NCT of Delhi appointed by the President, had a harmonious relationship with the Delhi government and there was no scope for their power to be misused. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3WjYvwZ)

☕ Good morning! Today, 5-Judge Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul will resume hearing arguments over the adequacy of the compensation provided to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims and the control of Delhi’s Civil Servants. Here is a recap of yesterday’s hearings: 🚨 *1. Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* Sr. Adv. Harish Salve, for Union Carbide, objected to the Union’s claim for additional reparations for victims by arguing that there was no law to reopen compensation claims after a settlement was reached. As such, Union Carbide was not willing to reopen a compensation claim at this juncture. He also pointed out that ₹50 crores remained with the welfare commission for victims of the tragedy to be paid from the settlement amount. Attorney General R. Venkataramani, for the Union government, pointed out that the settlement provided to Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims was inadequate as there were far more victims than initially anticipated. He argued that the 1989 settlement reached before the SC left the door open for future claims. He further stated that the Union did not wish to set aside the 1989 settlement, but instead wished to present fresh data to justify the additional payment. Read more about the case here: (https://bit.ly/3GWunmU) 🛂 *2. Control of the NCT of Delhi’s Civil Servants* Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi, for the Delhi government, argued that core issue behind the control of Delhi’s civil servants was the accountability of the NCT’s administrative officials. He pointed out that civil servants should be accountable to the NCT of Delhi’s council of ministers who in turn answer to its legislature. Since the legislature is accountable to the people who voted them to power, this creates a chain of accountability. He pointed out that if Delhi’s civil servants answer to the Union government instead, this chain of accountability will be broken. For a government to fulfil the will of its people, Mr. Singhvi highlighted that it must have a mechanism to do so. A government performs its functions by formulating policies which are implemented through civil servants. If the Delhi government cannot control its civil servants, its very purpose as a government will be negated. He argued that allowing the Union government, and not the NCT of Delhi government, to control Delhi’s civil servants will lead to ‘complete insubordination and chaos’. Read more about the case here: (https://bit.ly/3k4MY7g)

☕ Good morning! Two 5-Judge Constitution Benches are set to convene today. 👨🏾‍⚖️ The Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to finalise the schedule for hearing three of the four cases that were listed before it when the Bench was first created on September 6th, 2022, by CJI U.U. Lalit. The cases are as follows: 1) Deciding how the 10th Schedule of the Constitution applies to the Shiv Sena party split in Maharashtra. (https://bit.ly/3IB9VJk) 2) The dispute between the Union and Delhi government over the control of civil services in the Union Territory. (https://bit.ly/3GrMbor) 3) The challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which enables the creation of a ‘National Register of Citizens’ in Assam. (https://bit.ly/3QpgOPI) 💸 Another Constitution Bench, led by Justice S.K. Kaul, will begin hearing the Union government’s plea to increase the compensation awarded to victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In 1989 the Supreme Court awarded the victims $470 million. In 2010 the Union government filed a petition seeking further compensation of ₹7400 crores. The case remained unheard until September 20th, 2022 when it was placed before the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul. Read more about the history of the claim for compensation. (https://bit.ly/3CAfGTH)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day. 📣Today, a 2-Judge Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna will continue hearing activist Gautam Navlakha's house arrest plea. Gautam Navlakha, a 73-year old activist, was arrested in the Elgar Parishad Case. He was accused of inciting violence and criminal conspiracy under the UAPA and the IPC. On November 11th, 2022, the SC ordered him to placed under house arrest for 1 month. His period of house arrest was later extended upto the second-week of January. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3GOwNDR) 🔢 Last year, the Supreme Court recorded an average of 2,911 cases disposed of per month, a major improvement compared to the COVID years of 2020 and 2021. Notably, this increase in disposal figures also coincides with the revival of Constitution Benches under former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit. SCO analysed the Supreme Court's disposal trends in 2022. Read More: (https://bit.ly/3VQMw9H) ✍️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’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’re the kind of person that wants to sit back on a Sunday morning and read 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 10.5k 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! Here are SCO's updates for the day. 👭 Today, a Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to hear a plea seeking the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The petition challenges the use of the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ in S,4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, claiming that it denies same-sex couples the right to marry. The plea also argues that the non-recognition of marriage for same-sex couples denies them adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits which are available to heterosexual couples. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3GhL6zu) 👥 The CJI Chandrachud-led Bench is also expected to hear a plea by former BJP spokesperson and Adv. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking uniform divorce laws across all religions and genders. The plea claims that the inconsistent personal laws governing divorce in India are discriminatory and reinforce ‘patriarchal and stereotypical notions about women’. Further, the non-uniformity in personal laws violates the rights to life, dignity and equality. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3WKkVs2) 🔢 Justice Abdul Nazeer retired on Wednesday after serving a 6-year term as a Supreme Court Judge. He authored an average of 15.5 Judgments a year—a relatively low figure compared to his peers. However, he was part of 458 Benches during his tenure. SCO looked into Justice Nazeer’s impact at the Supreme Court in numbers: (https://bit.ly/3iaqtgF)

☕ Good morning! The Supreme Court returns from its winter vacation today! 💸 Today, a Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer is expected to pronounce the Demonetisation Judgment. The 2016 Demonetisation scheme declared all ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency notes as invalid tender. Those who challenged the scheme claim that the exercise was carried out in an unreasonable manner and without following proper procedure. Read more about the background of the case here: (https://bit.ly/3DKRyNS) 🪙 *What did the petitioners argue?* Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, arguing against the scheme, claimed that the Union did not have the power to carry out demonetisation in the manner that it did. He further claimed that the Union and the RBI did not meet the procedural requirements to carry out such an exercise and that the two bodies did not reasonably apply their mind. Read more about his arguments here: (https://bit.ly/3VkopAE) 💳 *What was the Union’s response?* The Union claims that the demonetisation scheme achieved its stated objectives. Attorney General R. Venkataramani pointed out that demonetisation led to an increase in digital currency usage and tax collection. The AG also claimed that demonetisation was a monetary policy which must be viewed through a broad lens. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3vrzJQt) What are your views on the demonetisation challenges? What do you think the SC will decide? Drop a text to let us know!

☀️ Good morning! Today, we review the five most important Freedom of Speech cases heard at the SC in 2022. 🔊 Freedom of Speech cases were characterised by the Union routinely citing ‘national security in response to the Court’s questions to avoid sharing information with the other parties, and the Union’s inability to follow and implement the Court’s Orders. (https://bit.ly/3CdSVFb) 1️⃣ In perhaps the most significant Freedom of Speech development this year, the Union government agreed to re-examine the law on sedition, in an attempt to shed India’s ‘colonial baggage’ as a part of _Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav_. The SC passed an Order, barring any new sedition cases from being filed in the meantime, and directed the Union to return with an update in two months. However, the Union only returned five months later, in October, to inform the Court they would ‘probably’ re-examine the law during the winter session of Parliament. (https://bit.ly/3jwpabU) 2️⃣ Journalist Qurban Ali and the President of the _Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind_ drew the SC’s attention to hate speech incidents in Haridwar, Uttarakhand and Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. They claimed that the Union, States and police authorities were not following the SC’s 2018 guidelines on curbing hate-speech. The Union argued it was taking the necessary steps, but the Court still ordered them and the States to return with a report on each States’ compliance with the 2018 guidelines. (https://bit.ly/3IaluHj) 3️⃣ In the challenge to the broadcast ban placed on MediaOne TV by the Ministry of Information a Broadcasting, the Ministry repeatedly refused to share the material that formed the basis of the ban with the news channel. The material was only submitted to the Bench in a ‘sealed cover’ barring anyone else from accessing it. The Bench openly wondered how MediaOne was meant to defend itself without knowing the substance behind the allegations against them. The Bench reserved Judgment and will decide if Judgments can be delivered based on material submitted in a sealed cover. (https://bit.ly/3hWKs2g) 4️⃣ The Union government, citing national security, repeatedly refused to clarify if they used the Pegasus spyware to illegally access information on citizen’s devices. This led to the formation of an SC Technical Committee to investigate the allegations. The Committee prioritised transparency by publishing the videos of all the depositions they conducted online. However, their final report was submitted in a sealed cover at the request of the owners of some of the devices they examined. (https://bit.ly/3WCiR5s) 5️⃣ The Supreme Court reserved Judgment in a case to decide if additional restrictions can be placed on the Freedom of Speech for public officials. In response to comments from Samajwadi Party MP Azam Khan in 2016, when he called an FIR filed by victims of gangrape a ‘political conspiracy’, the petitioners sought a transfer of the investigation to ensure its independence and the creation of a code of conduct for public officials. The Bench however, seems hesitant to create such a code, as that may be interfering with the Legislature’s powers. (https://bit.ly/3WXCx3A) ❓ How do you think these developments will impact our Freedom of Speech?

🌻 Good Morning! Today, we review the top 4 Supreme Court Judgments on reservations. 🪑 Affirmative action through reservations have stuck around in public employment and education for the last 75 years. However, in many instances, there seems to be little clarity on some fundamental questions. Why were reservations were introduced, and who were its intended beneficiaries? In the four leading reservation cases this year, the SC made little headway in providing this clarity. (https://bit.ly/3PYgrvk) 1️⃣ In the biggest Constitution Bench case of the year, the Supreme Court upheld *reservations for Economically Weaker Sections* of society, introduced through the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. It introduced reservations based solely on the economic status of individuals. Critics of the Judgment state that it flies in the face of the Right to Equality, by excluding socially disadvantaged persons (such as SC/STs and OBCs), who are often the most economically deprived. (https://bit.ly/3jDGpbz) 2️⃣ _Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta_ brought a key question concerning reservations to the forefront—what kind of data should be used to determine if a class of persons are inadequately represented? The question was raised in the context of reservations in promotions in public employment. However, after two Judgments in the case in 2018, and 2022, States seem to still be unsure about how they must quantify 'backwardness' and provide reservations in India. (https://bit.ly/3I5EqXH) 3️⃣ The question of how States can provide affirmative action through reservations came up in Tamil Nadu this year. A 2021 Act gave 10.5% reservations to the Vanniyar community in public employment and education by sub-classifying them within the 20% seats reserved for the State’s Most Backward Classes (MBCs). On March 31st, 2022, the Supreme Court struck down Vanniyar reservations, as the TN government had relied on ‘outdated and antiquated data’ in this case. Providing internal reservations for Vanniyars based on this data was detrimental to other MBCs. Especially because, unlike the State’s 115 other MBC communities, the Vanniyars already enjoyed higher representation in public employment and educational institutions. The Vanniyar Judgment added to a list of cases that emphasised the need for reliable data to provide reservations. (https://bit.ly/3Grukzd) 4️⃣ On January 7th, 2022, the SC delivered a Judgement upholding OBC and EWS reservations in PG NEET admission for the previous year’s PG NEET examinations. Responding to protests about the severe dearth of doctors to respond to the third wave of the pandemic, they allowed the Union government to complete the 2021 round of exams with reservations to OBC and EWS candidates. In the same Judgment, they upheld OBC reservations, stating that reservation is not antithetical to merit. Though the 2021 PG NEET round would provide reservations for both, the validity of the ₹8 lakh income limit to be eligible for EWS reservations was scheduled to be decided after the third wave of the pandemic. However, substantial hearings have not been held yet, causing concerns as 2022 ends. (https://bit.ly/3hW75Ug) ❓ What do you think about the biggest reservation judgments of the year?

☕ Good morning! Today, lets take a look at the trends in the institution of cases at the Supreme Court in 2022. (https://bit.ly/3hRVe9Y) 📄 Institution of cases refers to the number of cases filed at the Supreme Court. It accounts for cases that are in the admission stage, when the SC will decide if a case should be heard regularly, and cases that are in the regular hearing stage. To learn more about how a case reaches the regular hearing stege at the SC, visit SCO’s Procedure page. (https://bit.ly/3I5Ouja) 😷 During the COVID-19 years the number of cases instituted at the SC fell dramatically due to reduced physical access and, possibly, limited income. In 2019, an average of 3717 were instituted each month. This number fell to 1960 cases instituted a month in 2020 when the pandemic gained steam and the first lockdown measures were imposed. (https://bit.ly/3YQ0eMT) 🌐 In April 2021 the SC addressed some of the concerns of access by updating it’s mechanism for filing cases online or ‘e-filing’. This spurred an increase in institution of cases in 2021 by nearly 3000 cases when compared to the overall institution numbers in 2020. 📈 The monthly average for cases instituted in 2022 steadily increased until March (3240 cases) and remained around the same level till May (2866 cases) before a precipitous drop in June (296 cases) after the Court’s summer vacation began. 👨🏾‍⚖️ The second half of the year saw a 59% spike in the institution of cases from August to September (an increase from 2578 to 4090 cases instituted). This coincides with the beginning of CJI U.U. Lalit’s tenure as Chief Justice from August 27th onwards, and the increase may have been influenced by his assurances that fresh cases would be heard promptly, within a week of their filing and acceptance by the SC Registry. 📊 The SC appears to be gradually recovering from the effects of COVID-19 on the institution of cases. The monthly average for cases instituted in 2022 marks a promising rise when compared to the numbers for 2021 and 2020. However, there is still a gap between the rate at which cases were instituted prior to the pandemic and now.

☀️Good Morning! In today's edition of *Know Your Court*, we discuss how the Chief Justice is appointed. 🙌🏾 The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the highest ranking Judge at the Supreme Court. Article 124(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 which establishes the Supreme Court of India, adds that it must have a Chief Justice at its helm. The current Chief Justice is CJI D.Y. Chandrachud. (https://bit.ly/3YPyuId) 📝 The President is given the power to appoint SC Judges, including the CJI, under Article 124(2). A Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) (https://bit.ly/3hRezb8) details the steps to be taken to appoint a CJI. When an incumbent Chief Justice’s tenure is about to come to a close, the Law Minister writes to them asking to recommend a successor. The Law Minister forwards this to the Prime Minister of India who advises the President. The President then decides whether to approve the recommended CJI.  🫡 The MoP states that the CJI should be the ‘senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office’. This practice, called the ‘seniority principle’ was devised as a way to safeguard the judiciary’s independence from political interference. (https://bit.ly/3C4EoeF) The seniority principle has been strayed from 3 times in the history of the Court. 1️⃣ The first time was in February 1964, when Justice Gajendragadkar was appointed as the Chief Justice, superseding Justice Imam who was suffering from a serious illness.  2️⃣ The second time was in 1973, the Indira Gandhi Government appointed Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India, superseding three senior Judges. This appointment was made a day after the Court’s famed decision in _Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala, 1973_, where the Majority held that Parliament was not empowered to pass Amendments abrogating the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Ray had dissented, writing crisply that there was no limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.  3️⃣ The third time was also under the Indira Gandhi Government, when Justice M.H. Beg was appointed as the Chief Justice in 1977 against the backdrop of the National Emergency. Beg J superseded Justice Khanna, who wrote a scathing dissent in _ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, 1976_. In ADM Jabalpur, Justice Khanna was the sole dissenter, and stated that the Right to Life Under Article 21 could not be suspended even during a National Emergency. Should the seniority principal be followed when appointing judges? Or should judges be appointed on ‘merit’ rather than seniority? If so, what criteria would you consider important in assessing merit? Let us know what you think!

☀️ Good morning! SCO tracked the trends in the Supreme Court’s pending caseload over the course of the year. Read our comprehensive review of pendency in 2022 here. (https://bit.ly/3WJcywj) 📊 The year began with 70,101 cases pending at the SC—the highest in 29 years. This number would only increase in the first half of the year due to the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the two-month summer vacation. By the end of June, the number of pending cases increased to 72,602. ✈️ The vacation months have a large effect on pendency as cases may be filed at the SC, but none are disposed of during this time. Judges have justified this time off, claiming that this time is used to write Judgments. SCO investigated this claim. (https://bit.ly/3hS5dvN) 📉 Fortunately, pendency would peak in June and would slowly be reined in during the back half of the year. By the end of August, in the last few months of CJI N.V. Ramana’s tenure, pendency was brought back down to 70,310 cases. (https://bit.ly/3HVbAJr) 👨🏾‍⚖️ Despite the revival of Constitution Benches in the last week of August—which occupy five or more Judges at once and at length to hear a single case—the freshly appointed CJI U.U. Lalit installed measures to keep pendency under control. A maximum of two Constitution Benches would sit simultaneously and a new listing system for cases was installed to ensure smaller Benches heard more cases. These changes helped reduce pendency to 69,461 cases by the end of September, marking the first time it dropped below 70,000 since December 2021. (https://bit.ly/3ve9XyV) 🗓️ The number of pending cases has remained steady since September, through the transition from CJI Lalit to CJI D.Y. Chandrachud on November 9th. This is especially noteworthy as the number of Judges at the SC steadily decreased through the year, with eight retirements and only three appointments. For the first time in the last five years, the number of pending cases has seen an overall annual decrease, although the effect of the winter vacation is yet to be seen.

The majority stated that there is no active exclusion—the Amendment merely creates a new class of beneficiaries within the general category. They saw no issue with economic considerations being the sole criteria for reservations. Justice Ravindra Bhat wrote the dissenting opinion for himself and CJI Lalit. They did not object to solely using economic criteria, but claimed that the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs violated the Right to Equality. 🔟 *Public Officials can be Convicted of Bribery Based on Circumstantial Evidence (Dec)* A 5-Judge Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer unanimously held that public officials can be convicted of bribery or ‘illegal gratification’ based on circumstantial evidence. The passing away of the primary witness (which happened in this case) would not affect the case, if the circumstantial evidence was strong. The Judgment may have a cascading effect on corruption in similar cases. *What did you think was the most important case of the year?*

☀️Good Morning! 🔝 SCO’s list of the *top 10 Judgments of the year* is out! Here’s the list in short. https://bit.ly/3BVZwnu 1️⃣ *OBC Reservations upheld in PG NEET Admissions (Jan)* In July 2021, the National Testing Agency introduced reservations for OBCs and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within the All India Quota. The SC upheld OBC reservations stating that reservations did not contradict merit. They decided to hear the EWS matter at a later time. 2️⃣ *States Continue to Seek Clarity on Reservations in Promotions (Jan)* State Govs approached the SC for clarity on a 2018 Judgment. The SC had directed States to find out if there was inadequate representation in a post, through reliable data, before providing reservations. In Jan the SC stated individual cadres must be assessed to determine inadequate representation. However other questions remain. What kind of data must be presented? What is the measure of inadequacy of representation? 3️⃣ *Court Refused to Interfere with ‘One Rank One Pension’ Policy (March)* Three Judges dismissed the challenge to the OROP scheme. They held that the policy was not discriminatory as the same understanding of OROP is applied to all retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement. They gave full discretion to the Union, stating that it is a matter of policy and the Union may decide how it is implemented.  4️⃣ *Reservations for Vanniyar Community in Tamil Nadu Struck Down (March)* Tamil Nadu govt passed an Act to provide reservations for the Vanniyar community _within_ the reservations that were being provided for Most Backward Classes (MBC). This sub-classified category of Vanniyars would receive 10.5% of the 20% reservations provided to MBCs. The SC held that the policy was unconstitutional as it was made on the basis of unreliable data. 5️⃣ *Additional Restrictions on Foreign Contributions to NGOs Upheld (April)* The 2020 FCRA Amendment barred the transfer of foreign funds received by NGOs to other organisations and individuals, strictly limited the funds that could be used for administrative purposes, and mandated that all funds could only be received at the main branch of the State Bank of India in New Delhi. The changes were made citing protection of national interest and security. The SC upheld the Amendment. 6️⃣ *SC Hit Pause on the Sedition Law (May)* On May 11th, the SC delivered an Order stating that no fresh sedition cases can be filed. All pending trials that include charges under sedition can only proceed hearing non-sedition allegations. This Order came after the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta convinced the Court that as a part of _Aazadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav_ , the Union would shed India’s ‘colonial baggage’ by re-examining the law. 7️⃣ *Challenged Provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Upheld (July)* Over 80 petitions were filed at the SC challenging the wide powers of investigation granted to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). In a widely criticised judgment, the SC held that the wide powers and onerous bail conditions were required to curb the ‘heinous’ crime of money laundering. The number of PMLA cases filed has increased astronomically, rising from 209 in 2014 to 3,985 cases in 2021. 8️⃣ *Hijab Ban Challenge Ended in Split Verdict (Oct)* Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the ban, stating that it was religiously neutral, and students were hindering their own Right to Education by violating it. The State itself was not denying access in any manner. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed, and held that there was no justifiable reason for banning Hijab in the classroom. Religious beliefs should be reasonably accommodated by educational institutions. The case is before CJI Chandrachud to place it before a larger Bench for a final decision. 9️⃣ *SC upholds EWS Reservations (Nov)* In perhaps the biggest reservation case of the year, EWS reservations were upheld by a 3:2 majority.