Supreme Court Observer

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. ✍🏽 Next week, a 3-Judge Bench of the SC is likely to give directions in the pending challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA). In the last hearing, on September 12th, 2022, Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal informed the Court that there were two sets of petitions in the case: (http://bit.ly/3TM90sp) 🛐 The first set of petitions challenges the 2019 Amendment and the rules framed under it. The Amendment was introduced to aid certain classes of illegal immigrants to gain Indian citizenship based on their religion and date of migration. The challenges claim that the Amendment discriminates against different classes of migrants based on religion and violates the Constitution: (http://bit.ly/3sCD65F) 📃 The second set of petitions concerns the rights of the indigenous people of Assam. They highlight the 1985 Assam Accord which was signed between the Indian government and the State of Assam for the expulsion of illegal immigrants who arrived after March 25th, 1971. They argue that Amendment goes against the Accord by granting citizenship to migrants who arrived in India up till 2014, and should therefore be struck down: (http://bit.ly/3Wdj6nB)

✨ Good morning! The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision in the challenge to EWS reservation after the Diwali break. Let’s recap the case and some key issues today! ✍🏽 On January 9th 2019, Parliament enabled States to make reservations in higher education and public employment on the basis of economic criteria alone. SCO’s Case Background tells you more about what the 103rd Amendment introduced. (https://bit.ly/3NbofIQ). 📃 More than 20 petitions challenged the Amendment. The Court heard arguments on three key issues: 1. Can reservations be granted solely based on economic criteria? 2. Can States provide reservations in private educational institutions which do not receive government aid, as provided in the Amendment? 3. Are EWS reservations invalid for excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Socially and Economically Backward Classes from its scope? 📑 Read a compilation of all the petitioners arguments, as submitted to Court, here (https://bit.ly/3gQLLi0). 🪑 At present, 49.5% of seats in education and public appointments are reserved, with 15%, 7.5% and 27% quotas for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes respectively. EWS reservations would breach the 50% Limit, by providing an additional 10% reservations for people whose income is less than ₹8 Lakh a year. ☑️ The arguments in the case concluded on September 27th, after 8 days of hearings. SCO’s unique arguments matrix breaks down the key issues. (https://bit.ly/3WaLrLu) ⚖️ Look out for SCO’s pre-judgment matrix that analyses the possible outcomes in the case and its impact on economic reservations.

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 👥 Next week, the Chief Justice's Constitution Bench is expected to pronounce Judgment in the challenge to economic reservations, introduced through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment allows reservations based on economic criteria alone, and excludes backward classes from claiming EWS reservations. Read the reports of all the SC hearings! (https://bit.ly/3stq7TI) 👨‍⚖ On November 1st, a Constitution Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear a bunch of petitions pertaining to Shiv Sena Disqualification Row in Maharashtra. The Judgment is expected to answer various questions on disqualification of members, Speaker's powers, floor tests, and most crucially, how splits and mergers of parties should be governed as per the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3BlS2KI). 👨🏾‍⚖️ On October 13th, a 2-Judge Bench presiding over the Hijab ban case delivered a split verdict. Justice Hemant Gupta confirmed the Karnataka HC Judgment and upheld the ban while Justice Dhulia struck the ban down. Are split verdicts a rare occurrence? How does the Court deal with such cases? Read more about split verdicts here (https://bit.ly/3D5UTqB) SCO is on YouTube! Subscribe to receive video updates on the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3LNNiRk)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is two weeks away from taking the office of the Chief Justice of India. Want to get to know the next CJI better? ✍️SCO analyses the writing style and influences in his Judgments here (https://bit.ly/3zakSfk). 🔒We trace Justice Chandrachud's sustained use of the right to privacy to expand the scope of other fundamental rights here (https://bit.ly/3DaS08a). 👨🏻‍⚖Our Judge Profile charts a full picture of his legal career (https://bit.ly/3Dv7tRP).

🪔 Good morning! Like many of us gearing up for Diwali celebrations, the Supreme Court is on Diwali vacation all of next week. 👨🏻 Yesterday marked the end Chief Justice U.U. Lalit’s second last working week at the Supreme Court. He is set to retire on November 8th, completing his 2.5 month tenure. More about the Chief Justice here (https://bit.ly/3MTSCDh) 5️⃣0️⃣ Justice D.Y. Chandrachud will succeed CJI Lalit, and become the 50th Chief Justice of India. Chandrachud J’s tenure of 2.5 years is expected to be longer than the average CJI tenure of 1.5 years. Read about the average CJI tenure here (https://bit.ly/3z6fWbl) 📚 Chandrachud J will be inheriting nearly 70,000 pending cases (Data as of Oct 1st). In his long tenure he may have more opportunities than his predecessors, who have held the post for a shorter period, to meaningfully tackle pendency at the SC. SCO explains the pendency problem in this video (https://bit.ly/3SoISSA) 📹 As CJI Lalit’s tenure inches towards the end, this video on the various reforms he has introduced in the SC becomes a reference to examine his tenure. (https://youtu.be/L5iSrrQfiVU ). Did his reforms bear fruit? What will his legacy be? What changes will the next Chief Justice continue to support? Let us know what you think! Write to us at 📧 admin@scobserver.in, or tag @scobserver in your tweets!

☀️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. 🎙️ On Monday, the Delhi HC rejected student activist Umar Khalid’s bail plea. Khalid, who is accused of conspiring to incite the 2020 Delhi Riots, has been in custody for 2 years. In our latest SCO Daily, Court Reporter Ayushi Saraogi discusses bail provisions under the UAPA and why Khalid was denied bail by the High Court. Watch now: (https://bit.ly/3ThxeKC) 🔏 The Supreme Court, on Saturday, suspended the Bombay HC's decision releasing scholar and activist, Prof. G.N. Saibaba, less than a day after it was delivered. The SC’s decision stands out for a number of reasons. Saturday’s hearing was scheduled only on Friday evening and marked by the Union's pressing urgency to make sure Prof. Saibaba remains in prison. The 90% physically handicapped activist has been behind bars for 7 years. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3TeO9xx) 📩 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! There has been lots of UAPA chatter since yesterday, so let's break it down. 👱Justices Bhatnagar and Mridul of the Delhi High Court denied bail to student activist Umar Khalid yesterday. Khalid has been in Tihar jail for over 2 years for allegedly conspiring to incite the violent 2020 North-East Delhi Riots. The Court's understanding that they can look at very few contentious details during bail proceedings under the UAPA seems to have worked against Khalid yesterday. (https://bit.ly/3TrTKjy) ⏪ The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is a special criminal legislation designed to punish and prevent terrorist acts. The Act notoriously places many hurdles between accused persons and their civil liberties. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on Section 43 D(5), which governs bail, has cemented that bail is near impossible under UAPA. Read SCO's analysis of the SC's Judgments on UAPA bail here. (https://bit.ly/3gggPri) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☕️ Good morning! The President of India approved the appointment of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as next Chief Justice of India. 👨🏽Justice Chandrachud’s tenure will begin on November 9th. Let’s learn a little bit about who he is! 👨🏽‍🦳The soon to be 50th Chief Justice of India is the son of the 16th and longest-serving CJI, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud. Like his father, Chandrachud J will serve a higher than average tenure as a Chief Justice. 👨🏻‍⚖️ In his nearly 6.5 year tenure as a Supreme Court Judge, he overturned two of his father’s judgments. 1) In 1985, a 3-Judge Bench led by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud upheld the crime of Adultery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This was later overturned by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in _Joseph Shine v Union of India_ (2017). (https://bit.ly/3MDitzi) 2) In _Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India_, Justice D.Y Chandrachud declared the Right to Privacy a fundamental right. This overturned _ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla_ (1976) where his father, a part of the majority, had held otherwise. (https://bit.ly/3MFfYwh) 📖 Read a host of other critical judgments delivered by the Chief Justice to-be on SCO’s Judge Profile! https://bit.ly/3CxjtjW

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🚨 On October 15th, 2022, the SC suspended the Bombay HC’s Order releasing Prof. Saibaba, who was arrested under the ‘draconian’ Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Sr. Adv., Mr. R. Basant, passionately pleaded the Court to place him under house arrest with any additional restrictions they deemed necessary. The reason? Prof. Saibaba is suffering from a long list of diseases including post-polio paralysis. Despite his attempts, the Court rejected his plea. Read more about the hearing here: (https://bit.ly/3CYUgjR) 🗳️ On October 15th, 2022, the SC heard arguments against the Union’s Electoral Bond scheme. Sr. Advs. Prashant Bhushan and Kapil Sibal argued that the scheme exposed Indian elections to foreign influence. SG Tushar Mehta claimed the scheme was very transparent but did not get a chance to elaborate. Will the Court great the case again before the upcoming State elections? Read more to find out: (https://bit.ly/3TphnJD) SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☀️ Good morning! Yesterday was Justice Gupta’s final working day as a Supreme Court Judge. 🧕🏽 On October 13th, his penultimate day at the SC, he delivered a split verdict upholding the Karnataka Hijab Ban while Justice Dhulia held that it was unconstitutional. This Judgment may define his career as a Judge which began in 2002 at the Punjab & Haryana High Court where his father once served as the Chief Justice. Watch SCO’s Daily Update video to learn more about Justice Gupta’s career through the years. (https://bit.ly/3EJaAX7) 👨🏾‍⚖️ During Justice Gupta’s short 4-year tenure, he authored more than 50 Judgments a year, a number only exceeded by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah among other sitting Judges. He authored 35 of his 203 Judgments in cases dealing with service issues, such as his 2021 dissent upholding the Ordinance which gave the Union control over the administration of Tribunals. Read more about his tenure in numbers. (https://bit.ly/3CZCGfJ) 💳 Yesterday, an SC Bench comprising Justices Gavai and Nagarathna heard challenges to the Union government's 2018 electoral bond scheme which allows individuals and corporations to anonymously donate funs to political parties. Senior Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Kapil Sibal briefly laid out the issues that the Bench would have to consider in the case. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3VvPVMn)

☀️ Good morning! You guessed it. We're talking about the Hijab Ban Judgment today. 🧕Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered a split verdict on the Hijab Ban challenges yesterday. Focusing on the need for discipline and equality through sameness at schools, Justice Gupta upheld the ban. Speaking of reasonable accommodation and the importance of educating girl children, Justice Dhulia struck it down. SCO's Judgment Matrix breaks down the two opinions. (https://bit.ly/3To3pb9) ⏭️ What happens next? A split verdict from a 2-Judge Bench means the case must be heard again, by at least three Judges. The case will now go to the Chief Justice who will decide when and how to list it for hearings. Given CJI Lalit's fast-approaching retirement, this decision is likely to be taken by his successor, Justice Chandrachud. (https://bit.ly/3Cx17Q3) ❓You've probably heard the term 'ERP' a lot since the Judgment was delivered yesterday. ERP or the Essential Religious Practices test, was devised by the Supreme Court to determine which practices are so fundamental to a religion that government intervention in them will change the very nature of the religion. The ERP test is contentious for many reasons, and its validity is pending before a 9-Judge Bench of the SC. The Karnataka High Court decision in the Hijab Ban case focused almost exclusively on how the Hijab is not essential. Strikingly, both SC Judges refrained from commenting on ERP. Read more about the test here. (https://bit.ly/3rUPpd2) 👨🏻‍⚖ Yesterday's Judgment will be Justice Hemant Gupta's last move at the SC. Today is his final working day before retirement. Read the highlights from his 4 years at the SC here. (https://bit.ly/3yGGwaN)

❗ We are interrupting our daily broadcast to bring you breaking news on the Hijab ban case. 👨🏾‍⚖️ The 2-Judge Bench presiding over the Hijab ban case delivered a split verdict today. 📄 Justice Hemant Gupta confirmed the Karnataka HC Judgment and upheld the ban. 🧕🏽 Justice Dhulia held the opposite, and decided in favor of those challenging the ban. He quashed the Karnataka govt Order and said the High Court 'took the wrong path' by focusing on the essentiality of the Hijab to Islam. The Right to Equality and Freedom of Speech should have been the focus instead. The case will be placed before CJI U.U. Lalit to decide the next steps to be taken. ⌚ Arguments were conducted for nearly 24 hours in total over nine days of hearings. Depending on CJI Lalit's decision, the case will be place before a 3-Judge or a 5-Judge Bench and a majority of the arguments will be replayed. Read SCO's report on the Judgment Pronouncement: https://bit.ly/3Ms3vMs

🫖 Good morning! 🧕🏽 The Hijab Judgment will be delivered today! The Supreme Court will decide if the Hijab ban in Karnataka educational institutions violates students’ rights to freedom of religion, equality and speech. Find reports on the nine days of arguments on our Case Background (https://bit.ly/3Msc9dY) 🎤 Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued four guidelines to ensure that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would stop being used. This provision prescribed punishment for sharing ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘menacing’ information online. Despite being struck down by the SC in 2015 for violating the freedom of speech, citizens continued to be prosecuted by police under the provision. Read more about the case here (https://bit.ly/3rRmabe) The Court issued the following directions yesterday: 1. No citizen can be prosecuted for an alleged violation of 66A. 2. All cases in which citizens are facing prosecution under S66A will be deleted. 3. Home Secretaries, Director Generals of Police and other relevant State authorities must ensure that the police no longer use S66A. 4. In all government, semi-government or private publications on the IT Act and S.66A, readers must be ‘adequately informed’ that the provision has been struck down. Read more about the hearing here (https://bit.ly/3CwF0JH)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day. 👨🏻‍⚖ Yesterday, CJI Lalit recommended Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as his successor. If the Union Government accepts his name, Justice Chandrachud will be the 50th CJI. Read Justice Chandrachud's profile and check out his notable judgments here. (https://bit.ly/3CQdF6x) 🛐 A Constitution Bench led by Justice S. K. Kaul reserved a crucial Order in the 60-year old challenge to the Dawoodi Bohra leader's power to excommunicate community members. The Bench must decide whether to refer this case to the 9-Judge Sabarimala Review Bench or to hear it themselves. (https://bit.ly/3rM98eP) 💰A constitution bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer will hear challenges to the Union's 2016 demonetisation scheme today. Citizens challenging the scheme will first have to prove to the Court that the petitions continue to raise pertinent legal questions, despite no hearing since 2016. (https://bit.ly/3CQHMuE)

☕ Good Morning! Today, the Supreme Court returns to its Constitution Bench routine and will hear a host of other important cases too. 👨🏾‍⚖️ A *Constitution Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul* is expected to begin hearing arguments in two cases. 1. The Bench will decide if religious communities have the right to ‘excommunicate’ or expel members of the community (https://bit.ly/3EseUtF). 2. The Bench will hear the Union governments plea to reconsider the amount of compensation paid to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy by Union Carbide India Limited (https://bit.ly/3yu7xOx). 📱 The *Chief Justice's courtroom* is expected to see arguments in a handful of important cases as well. 1. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 continues to be applied by police across the country, despite the SC striking it down in 2015. The provision gave the State broad powers to punish individuals who sent ‘offensive’ or ‘annoying’ messages. The Bench will hear petitions requesting the Court to ensure that the ‘dead’ law is no longer applied. (https://bit.ly/3eo3Ind) 2. The same Bench will also hear a petition asking the Court to recognise Hindus as minorities in certain states (https://bit.ly/3SQ1NqN), and a challenge to the cutoff date (August 15th, 1947) in the Places of Worship Act after which the religious character of a place of worship cannot be changed (https://bit.ly/3MrvJHm). Both petitions were filed by lawyer and ex-BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

☀️ Good morning! The Supreme Court is back from its Dussehra vacation today. What can we expect from the week ahead? 🧕 The SC is likely to pronounce its Judgment in the Karnataka Hijab Ban case this week. Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia completed hearings in the case on Sept 22nd, 2022. Interestingly, the Bench commented that the Karnataka High Court should not have considered the Essential Religious Practices doctrine to determine the case. Instead, they should have looked into whether the Karnataka Government had the power to regulate dress codes, and if the ban violated the right to equality and free speech. Read SCO’s report on what arguments dominated the Hijab Ban hearings (https://bit.ly/3STnFkX) 📣 This week, the Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer will decide if it will continue hearing the challenge to the Union’s 2016 demonetisation policy. Over 50 petitions challenging the Union government’s demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes have been pending at the Supreme Court since November 2016. Notably, the SC transferred challenges to demonetisation pending before various High Courts to itself in Dec 2016. The case has came up for hearing only in 2022. In the last hearing, Justice Nazeer wondered if there were any issues left for the Court to consider in the case. Read SCO’s report to find out more. (https://bit.ly/3edplH3) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 📬 Last Saturday, in an unprecedented move, CJI Lalit proposed the appointment of 4 SC Judges and sought the consent of the Collegium through a letter circulated to the Judges instead of conducting a meeting. The letter pointed out that the recommendations were based on previous deliberations of the Collegium. However, 2 members strongly objected to the letter. This interplay gives us a brief insight into how Judges are appointed by the Collegium, which is often criticised for their lack of transparency. What do SC elevations from earlier this year say about clarity in the Collegium? Read more: (https://bit.ly/3RLwtbk) 📈 With Justice Banerjee’s retirement last month, the SC currently has 29 sitting Judges. If convention is followed, CJI Lalit will be barred from making recommendations to SC elevations after tomorrow as he will be less than a month away from his own retirement. In comparison, former CJI Ramana enjoyed a longer term of 16 months and was able to make 11 recommendations for SC Judges. How active was the Collegium under CJI Ramana? Read more: (https://bit.ly/3RKZUKk) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☀️Good Morning! 👩🏾‍⚕️ This week, Dr. Syeda Ambreen, a doctor from Karnataka filed a PIL asking the SC to declare unilateral and out-of-court divorces in Islam as unconstitutional. She specifically referred to the practices of _Talaq-e-Kinaya_ and _Talaq-e-Bain_. _Talaq-e-Kinaya_ is divorce given through vague words that do not directly mean ‘divorce’, but indirectly refer to it. _Talaq-e-Bain_ is an irrevocable type of divorce, which unlike the now banned practice of triple talaq, requires the husband to utter divorce just once. The petitioner has argued that these practices violate a woman’s fundamental rights. 📜 In August 2017, the Supreme Court held that the practice of _talaq-e-biddat_ or instantaneous triple talaq is unconstitutional. Dr. Ambreen's challenge seems to be invoking some of the same grounds used in the 2017 Judgement. The Court held that the practice was arbitrary and violated a woman’s right to equality. SCO reported on the hearings and the Judgment here: (https://bit.ly/3SLPAmQ) 🗃️ Dr. Ambreen also asked the Court to establish uniform grounds of divorce that were gender and religion neutral. This is similar to the petitions filed Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay at the SC seeking uniform personalaws. He argues that different laws for marriage, divorce, maintenance and alimony under personal laws reinforce ‘patriarchal and stereotypical notions about women’. Read more about Mr. Upadhyay’s claims here (https://bit.ly/3fNCwin) At the heart of the host of PILs filed by Mr. Upadhyay is one prayer—the formation of a Uniform Civil Code. He has filed petitions seeking uniformity in Succession and Inheritance (https://bit.ly/3EoAJum), Marriage Age (https://bit.ly/3fNDs6n), and Adoption and Guardianship (https://bit.ly/3Mb0uQs). SCO is tracking all these cases on the ‘Case Page’ of scobserver.in

☀️Good morning! In the last week of September, a Constitution Bench led by Justice SK Kaul reserved Judgment in 2 key matters, and listed 3 others for hearing starting from October 11th and November 1st, 2022. (https://bit.ly/3M69JBH) Here are the 2 cases in which the Bench is expected to deliver Judgment soon: ✍️ *Validity of the All India Bar Examinations (AIBE)* In 2010, the Bar Council of India (BCI) introduced the mandatory AIBE for anyone wishing to practice as an advocate. Practicing advocates complained that they were compelled to write the exam even though they had already been enrolled in the Bar. Those challenging the exam are questioning if advocates can be compelled to answer qualifying exams before their enrollment, and if not, if they can be compelled to do so after enrollment. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3RxYyTr) 📃 *SC’s Power to Directly Grant Divorce* In 2014, the SC granted divorce to a couple who had approached them directly to dissolve their marriage. The reason? Family Courts were slow and the process to obtain divorce from them was lengthy. While the SC granted the divorce, the case raised crucial questions on the Court’s power to do so in the first place. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3fG9Yam) 📩 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)