Supreme Court Observer

☀️ Good morning! ⛓️ On 25th June 2022, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, former IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt and former Gujarat State DGP, R.B. Sreekumar were arrested by the Gujarat Police. They were accused of conspiring, committing forgery and preparing false records to cause injury. Teesta Setalvad was the co-petitioner alongside Zakia Jafri who challenged the SIT’s ‘clean chit’ granted to 64 Gujarat Riots accused including then CM Narendra Modi. Visit SCO’s Cases page for a comprehensive background of the case, important documents and coverage of the hearings between November and December 2021. (https://bit.ly/3NodbX6) ⚖️ The FIR directly quotes the SC’s Judgment, delivered a day earlier, where the Bench stated that the ‘coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat along with others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge.’ The Judgment further calls for proceedings to be initiated against all those involved in such ‘abuse of process’. The full Judgment is available on SCO’s website. (https://bit.ly/3ODyvsK) 👨🏽‍⚖️ The Bench that delivered the Judgment comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar (https://bit.ly/3NsqR3s), Dinesh Maheshwari (https://bit.ly/3OMcMPE) and C.T. Ravikumar (https://bit.ly/3ymkJp3).

☀️ Good morning! Yesterday, three SC Judges upheld the clean chit given to 63 persons, including PM Narendra Modi & Home Minister Amit Shah, who were accused of conspiracy in the 2002 Gujarat Riots by Zakia Jafri. This may be the end of the road for Jafri's long & meandering journey for investigation and fair trial. 🗓️Who is Zakia Jafri? How did the case come to the Supreme Court? *A timeline* 👵Zakia Jafri is the wife of Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri who was killed during the Gujarat riots, following the Godhra deaths. In October 2006, Jafri filed a police complaint alleging dereliction of duty from State officials in preventing the riots. 📁Jafri filed a petition in the Gujarat HC in June 2006 after there was no police action on her complaint. She called for an investigation into the alleged conspiracy behind the 2002 pogrom. Among the accused was then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi. The HC dismissed Jafri’s petition in November 2007. Jafri approached the SC in March 2008. 👨‍⚖By this time, the Supreme Court had already constituted an SIT to look into the riots. The SC directed the SIT to investigate Jafri's complaint as well. The SIT, in February 2012, granted a 'clean chit' to the accused without hearing Jafri. ❌Zakia Jafri filed a protest petition at the SC against the report of the SIT in April 2013. The SC directed the Magistrates Court to look into the petition and the report. The Magistrate dismissed Jafri's protest petition in December 2013, stating no case was made against the accused. Zakia Jafri then challenged the decision of the SIT in the Gujarat HC. In October 2017 the HC did not find fault in the SIT's report. However the HC allowed Jafri to approach the SC. 👩‍⚖In 2018 Jafri filed an petition at the SC challenging the Magistrates dismissal of her petition. At the SC in 2021, Zakia Jafri argued that the Magistrate dismissed the petition and her claims of a larger conspiracy without considering the merits of her case. She sought further investigation into the alleged 2002 conspiracy surrounding the Gujarat riots. Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, representing the SIT, argued that they conducted an unbiased investigation and any allegation of deliberate omission of evidence was unfounded. SG Tushar Mehta, for the State of Gujarat, argued that co-petitioner Teesta Setalvad’s motive and character were suspicious and suggested she was involved in the case for personal gain. Read SCO's case archive for key documents, court-side hearing reports and a thorough background on the case. (https://bit.ly/3HSrFxB)

☀️ Good morning! In the first half of 2022, the SC delivered an important Judgment upholding the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 (FCRA) on April 8th. Through this Act, the Union government tightened it's already strong regulatory grip over the social sector's access to foreign donations. ( _*Noel Harper v Union of India*_) The Act made four big changes to the way NGOs receive and use foreign donations. First, it barred subgranting of such money from one NGO to another. Second, it emphasised that foreign funds must be used to directly aid beneficiaries, capping the amount NGOs can spend on administrative expenses to 20%. Third, it required all NGOs to receive foreign money through one bank-the SBI's Delhi branch. (https://bit.ly/3QMdX3l) 📖 *The Challenge* A group of NGOs challenged the FCRA at the Court. They said that the Act places unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on NGO's operational abilities and right to access foreign funds. ⚠️ *Issues* ✅ Do NGOs have a right to foreign donations? ✅ Does the FCRA violate this right? ✅ Are the FCRA restrictions unreasonable? 🛣️ *Arguments* NGOs argued that they have a right to foreign funds under the Right to Freedom of Association (Article 19 (1)(c)). The Act does not reasonably restrict this right—it prohibits it. The Union government argued that there was no right to foreign donations. The Amendment was necessary for national security-to prevent foreign interference in the Indian economy and society. Read SCO's sharp and concise court-side reporting on the hearings here (https://bit.ly/3niPhSc) and here (https://bit.ly/3Nn3gB3). ✒️ *The Judgment* A three-Judge Bench held that there was no right to foreign donations—the government could create any policy necessary to regulate it and protect national security. The Judgment, authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, encouraged NGOs to replace foreign funds with domestic contributions. Read SCO's Judgment Matrix for a simplified breakdown (https://bit.ly/3bsr3CF). 🎯 *What this means* The Judgment will disproportionately impact smaller grassroots NGOs who have no direct access to donors and rely on subgrants to do crucial work for marginalised communities. SCO's impact assessment tells you more (https://bit.ly/3blYtTi).

☀️ Good morning! Among the important subjects the SC delivered Judgment on in the first half of 2022, was the much debated ‘*One Rank One Pension*’ policy. As per the policy, all army officers retiring at the same rank, after the same period of service, would get the same pension, irrespective of which year they retired. Army servicemen argued that the Union Gov's 2015 pensions policy was effectively a One Rank Different Pensions policy. On March 16th 2022, a 3-Judge Bench of the SC upheld the 2015 ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) policy as proposed by the Union Government. (https://bit.ly/3NehCUg) 📖 *The Challenge* The 2015 notification provides for a periodic review of pensions of past retirees every five years. The officers argued that it was discriminatory towards older retirees, who would get less pension that more recent retirees, until the fifth year when review is completed, creating inequality among officers who retire at different times. ⚠️ *Issues* ✓ Does the OROP policy violate the right to Equality? ✓ Does a system of periodic pension review discriminate against older army retirees? 🛣️ *Arguments* The officers argued that the Union government had agreed to implement an automatic review process during consultations. What the Union promised against what it later executed became the main contention for the petitioners. SCO’s detailed OROP Judgment summary explains the conflict. (https://bit.ly/3xJnPCg) The Union Gov argued that they were not bound by past promises, and that the OROP scheme was not discriminatory. Servicemen with fewer years of service would not receive with the same pension as those who had served for longer. ✒️*The Judgment* The SC ruled that the review period was applicable to all pensioners regardless of date of retirement—as such, it was not discriminatory. Further, the basis of calculating pensions was a policy decision and not within the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. https://bit.ly/3OgIYKT) 🎯 *What this Means* The Judgment will have bearing on how India’s public sector retirees are compensated for their services in the future. (https://bit.ly/3tUWLyIc)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: 💸 On June 20th, two imprisoned Nationalist Congress Party legislators were denied permission by the SC to cast their vote in the Maharashtra Legislative Council elections. The two legislators face charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Between October 2021 and March 2022, Opposition party leaders argued, over 23 days of hearings at the SC, that the PMLA gives the ED wide unchecked powers which are used to stifle political dissent. Read SCO's arguments matrix for a simple summary of the 23 days of hearings here (https://bit.ly/3beUyYq) 👩🏾‍⚖️ The conflict for control over tribunals between the Judiciary and the Executive rages on. On June 21st, lawyers of the NCLT Bar Association appeared before the SC challenging the Union's latest notification specifying a short 3-year tenure for NCLT Judges. Length of tenure is among the long disputed factors of tribunal functioning. To know more about the history of this conflict, read SCO's analysis here (https://bit.ly/3n4VelP)

🌞Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads of the day: 🎤 Yesterday, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud spoke at a seminar at King’s College, London. He was questioned on various key issues before the SC, including the rights of minorities in India. Stating that he was unable to critically comment on cases that were currently at the Court or cases where he was on the Bench, he insisted that contrary to much of the criticism against the SC, Judges have been cognisant of issues concerning minorities. SCO’s profile on Justice Chandrachud compiles crucial cases that he has been a part of. (https://bit.ly/3Owv7Qf) 🔈 Highlighting that the SC has taken notable strides in championing gender rights, Justice Chandrachud referred to his Judgment in the case pertaining to allowing women into permanent commissions in the armed forces. The Court had held that systemic discrimination and inequality must be considered in assessing the quality of equal opportunities. This episode of SCO Explains breaks down the case in detail. (https://bit.ly/3O7Wz7l) 🕌 Justice Chandrachud was on the Bench that decided the Babri Masjid title dispute in 2019. (https://bit.ly/3zQMzed). He is currently on the Bench hearing the Gyanvapi dispute (https://bit.ly/39CTCN0).

🌞Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads of the day: 💵 Agneepath Scheme protests continue to rock the nation this week. Among other concerns, protestors are angry with the lack of pensions for recruits through the scheme. Veterans have long protested their pension schemes as well, demanding 'One Rank, One Pension' (OROP). How did the Supreme Court address these demands? Read SCO's case archive for a comprehensive account of the OROP proceedings. (https://bit.ly/3mZbm8o) 💰The Union's stated reason for the Agneepath and OROP schemes has been the same—a pressing need to cut defense spending on salaries and pensions. SCO investigates this claim in context of OROP here (https://bit.ly/3zOcyD6)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: ⚖️ When a Court takes up a matter of its own volition, it is called a suo moto action. Courts usually exercise this power with the utmost caution. In 2020 the SC took up an unprecedented number of suo moto cases. How did this happen? What matters were pressing enough for the SC to take up suo moto petitions? SCO reports on the suo moto cases at the SC (https://bit.ly/3HxfAgR) 👮 Rakesh Asthana made headlines when he was appointed Delhi Police Commissioner. Mr. Asthana was a mere 4 days from his retirement when the Central Government relaxed the retirement age allowing his tenure to be extended by one year. As his retirement date, July 31st 2022, gets closer, the SC only has a limited window before the case becomes infructuous. SCO explains how this can happen (https://bit.ly/3Od2UOu) 📵 On June 17th, internet services were blocked in 12 Bihar districts following violent protests against the Agnipath Scheme. SCO brings you a curated list of must reads on the SC’s directives on internet shutdowns when it happened in Jammu and Kashmir. (https://bit.ly/3xXLlg4)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: 🗓️ The Supreme Court is faced with a season of retirements and appointments. How long do SC Judges serve? Does the total number of Judges have an effect on their tenure? SCO tells you all about it (https://bit.ly/3MZEpTX) 👨‍⚖️ 2022 began with key matters such as freedom of the press, reservation and terror pending before the SC. With half the year gone by, how many important questions has the Court decided on? Find out on SCO (https://bit.ly/3zJhGby) ⚖️ Defamation cases have been in the spotlight following the Depp v Heard trial. Are defamation laws the same in India? Read about what the SC had to say in Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (https://bit.ly/3MW0kLF)

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day: 🗓 As we inch towards the middle of 2022, SCO stops to take a look at how the Supreme Court has performed this year, so far. 📚The year began with 70,239 cases pending before the Court. In its latest report, the SC disclosed that, as we entered June, pendency had risen by 613 cases to 70,852. This is not too alarming compared to the previous COVID years. 2021 saw the highest spike in pendency at 3,320 cases. The SC has been on vacation since May 24th and will resume regular hearings on July 11th 2022. (https://bit.ly/3NPxKgh) 🖋 Before it went on vacation, the SC delivered key judgments on reservations, foreign funding for NGOs, sedition and pension for Army servicemen. Read about what the Court held on these crucial topics and why it matters in SCO's bi-annual review. (https://bit.ly/3MZbUFQ) 🧑🏻‍⚖️ Most notably, 2 new Judges were appointed this year. However, three Judges—Justices Subhash Reddy, Vineet Saran and L.N. Rao—have retired so far in 2022. A slew of retirements are expected this year, with one judge retiring every month until November. Read more here (https://bit.ly/39orFbT)

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day: 💰Rahul Gandhi's questioning by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the National Herald money laundering accusation continued for the second day on June 14th. In February 2022, over 80 money laundering accused, including prominent opposition leaders, challenged the ED's unchecked investigation powers. Read an overview of 23 days of hearings in SCO's arguments matrix. (https://bit.ly/3zz68I1) 🚧 The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to stop the allegedly illegal demolition of homes in Uttar Pradesh. The U.P. government, the Jamiat claims, is targeting homes of citizens protesting BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's comments against Islam. The Jamiat, along with other petitioners, succeeded in getting the Court to stay similar demolitions in Delhi's Jahangirpuri in April 2022. On SCO Shorts, we tell you how this happened. (https://bit.ly/3b2ZUGb)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: 📦 On June 13th, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal instructed Amazon to pay Rs. 200 Crore for withholding facts regarding their 'acquiring strategic rights and interests over Future Retail Limited'. Reliance acquired FRL's retail businesses and assets in March 2020, but this sale was halted by the Singapore International Arbitration Center. Amazon will likely approach the SC to challenge the NCLAT's Order. SCO has provided a simple timeline to understand the complex dispute. (https://bit.ly/39prbCg) 🛕 Sriram Panchu, the SC appointed mediator in the Ayodhya Title Dispute case, approached the Madras HC on June 13th to challenges the withdrawal of police protection that had been provided to him since his appointment. He claimed that this protection was still necessary on account of the ongoing dispute regarding the Gyanvapi mosque. SCO is tracking the Gyanvapi dispute. (https://bit.ly/39j42RK) 💸 On June 13th, the SC issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to respond to the plea for bail made by actor Mohd Naseer who has been accused on cheating and siphoning funds. The stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the ED's powers of investigation have been challenged at the SC and the Judgment has been reserved. SCO tracked the challenges. (https://bit.ly/3xNVprS)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: 👨🏽‍⚖️ On June 7th Justice Nageswara Rao, during his retirement address, stated that SC Judges should have a tenure of at least 7-8 years. Often, according to Rao J, it takes time for Judges to acclimate to the SC and by the time they do, their retirements are looming. SCO looks at Rao J's 6-year tenure and analyses his contribution to the SC in numbers. (https://bit.ly/3zyA86F) ⌨️ The SC's Judgment translation project has come to a complete halt in 2022, with 0 new Judgment translations having been made available on the SC website. This is a decline even compared to the height of the COVID pandemic, when the SC only translated 31 Judgments between March 2020 and December 2021. SCO reported on how the project was coming to halt (https://bit.ly/3NOiy2T) and the subject matter of the few Judgments they succeeded in translating (https://bit.ly/3HiG99J). 📧 Did you know that you could receive SCO's sharp and incisive reporting on the SC straight to your email inbox? Subscribe now! (https://bit.ly/3GDYyNG)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads of the day: 😷 On June 10, India recorded 7,584 new COVID cases and 24 deaths. Last year, the SC stepped in to deal with the unprecedented pandemic. What did the SC do when cases rose last year? Find out on SCO’s COVID Coverage (https://bit.ly/39kynzi) 🚨 8 civilians were killed in Kashmir in just the last month. The victims include Kashmiri Pandits, Dalits and Muslims. Claims have been made that the repeal of Kashmir’s special status has made Hindus more vulnerable to terrorism. SCO reported on the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370 (https://bit.ly/3Oq9gKD) 🗞️ The recent news about the gangrape of a 17 year old by a group of school boys in Hyderabad has left the country horrified. See what the SC had to say in the pending suo moto petition concerning the alarming number of reported child rape incidents in India (https://bit.ly/3NIogn0)

✨Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day: 🌞 After a month of intense hearings in controversial cases on religion, administration and freedom of speech, Supreme Court judges probably sighed in relief when summer vacation began on May 23rd. As the judges cool off in Delhi’s sweltering heat, SCO highlights the most notable activities in the month. https://bit.ly/3aLIM7P 💲On June 4th 2022, the Delhi High Court disallowed Aadmi Party minister Satyendar Jain's lawyers from being present during his interrogation in relation to a money laundering case. A group of 80+ petitions at the Supreme Court, heard in February 2022, challenged various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Does the Act violate the rights of accused persons? Why does the Union think the strict provisions are necessary? While the SC contemplates the constitutionality of the Act, read SCO's arguments matrix for a simplified summary of 23 days of hearings in the case. https://bit.ly/3aAIKPL 📩 SCO delivers it's sharp and incisive court-side reporting on the SC straight to your email inbox every week. Subscribe now! https://bit.ly/3GDYyNG

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day: 🔁 On May 27th, the SC collegium passed a resolution recommending the Union government transfer six Judges from different High Courts across the country. The resolution gave no reasons for the transfers, raising questions of transparency in the collegium. SCO reported on the transfer of HC Judges between 2017-21 and the reasons given in the resolutions. (https://bit.ly/3wZcv4s) On May 18th, the SC temporarily allowed the Madhya Pradesh government to provide OBC reservations in local municipal elections. The SC clarified that this was not a final comment on the constitutionality of the proposed reservations and left the door open for a challenge in the future. SCO reported on the SC order. (https://bit.ly/3Ng1ti4) 📧 Did you know that you could receive SCO's sharp and incisive reporting on the SC straight to your email inbox? Subscribe now! (https://bit.ly/3GDYyNG)

Good morning! Here are SCO’s must-reads for the day: 📰 Yashraj Sharma, the 23 year old acting editor of ‘The Kashmir Walla’, was summoned by the J&K counter-intelligence wing for questioning over a “seditious” article published in 2011. Editor-in-Chief, Fahad Shah, and the author of the article, Abdul Aala Fazili, are already in custody. Read SCO's account of the history of sedition law in India. (https://bit.ly/3Mi3GZ0) 🖥️ On June 2nd 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology proposed changes to the IT Rules, 2021. The Ministry claimed that the changes, including the setting up of an appellate committee to hear challenges against decisions of grievance officers of social media platforms. However, the draft proposal was withdrawn just hours later “to make some changes”. The IT Rules, 2021 have previously been challenged in multiple High Courts and a petition by the Union Government to transfer all the pending High Court challenges is being heard by the Supreme Court. SCO reported on the challenges filed (https://bit.ly/3zez4oA) and the transfer petition before the Supreme Court (https://bit.ly/3Nf7j3n). 📧 Did you know that you could receive SCO’s sharp and incisive reporting on the SC straight to your email inbox? Subscribe now! (https://bit.ly/3GDYyNG)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day: 📜 On May 29th, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, an organisation of Islamic scholars, passed a resolution criticising the ‘negative and divisive politics’ behind the support for the creation of a Uniform Civil Code. Lawyer and BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) at the SC seeking uniform laws on adoption and guardianship (https://bit.ly/38Xczd8), succession and inheritance (https://bit.ly/3m4KC5Y), divorce, maintenance and alimony laws (https://bit.ly/3agqbAb), and marriage age (https://bit.ly/3GDEScG). 🗂 PILs, which allow petitioners to approach the Court on behalf of other groups of people in ‘public interest’, have rapidly increased since its early use in the 1980s. Last year, the SC received a record high of 88,381 PILs between January to September alone. Read SCO’s report on the number of PILs received by the Court since 1985 (https://bit.ly/3t8Ls5G). 💻 Did you know that you could receive SCO’s sharp and incisive reporting on the SC straight to your email inbox? Subscribe now! (https://bit.ly/3GDYyNG)

✨ Good morning! Here are SCO'S must-reads for the day. 🕌In the wake of the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute, a new petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991. This petition joins BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay's 2021 petition stating that the Act favours one religious community while ignoring the interests of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. Visit SCO's case archive for the background on the Act and key documents filed in the case https://bit.ly/3t8Uyzi 📺Sources from the Supreme Court's E-committee have revealed that CJI N.V. Ramana is keen to launch livestreaming of the Court's proceedings in the next 2 months, before his retirement in August 2022. What lessons can India learn from the livestreaming experience of other countries? Read SCO's analysis https://bit.ly/3x4Mt0P

✨ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day: 📈 SCO analysed trends in PILs filed at the Court between 1985 and 2021 based on two criteria—the mode of filing and the nature of cases filed. A total of 10,81,109 PILs were filed during this period. Additionally, the number of PILs filed before the SC in the form of writ petitions is at an all-time high as of 2021, standing at 88,381. However, data indicates that a majority of this docket is dominated by ‘letter petitions’—that is, around 99.31%. This may be indicative of a rise in frivolous PILs filed in the form of letter petitions. (https://bit.ly/3lYigtW) 👨🏾‍⚖️While speaking at the 'Arbitrate in India Conclave, 2022' recently, former SC Justice A.K. Sikri emphasised the need to develop India into a hub for arbitration within the South Asian region. Notably, in the ongoing ONGC v Afcons dispute, a cap on the fees owed to arbitrators have been deliberated over the past few months. The outcome of this case could determine the future of arbitration as a viable and cost-effective alternate dispute resolution mechanism in India. SCO's case page compiles the hearing reports and documents surrounding the dispute—and the bearings it may have on India's future as an 'arbitration hub'. (https://bit.ly/3z6qaJy) 👁️ On May 29th, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology withdrew a press release it circulated only two days earlier—asking citizens not to share photocopies of their Aadhaar cards with institutions not authorised by the UIDAI. For example, neither hotels nor cinema halls are authorised to collect Aadhaar photocopies, as sharing this sensitive information can lead to the misuse of personal information linked to the card. The circular triggered public concerns over privacy—and flies in the face of the now-established practice of handing over copies of the ID to various unauthorised institutions. SCO's archive dives deep into the many challenges to the Aadhaar Act, many of which surround the privacy infringements the system poses. (https://bit.ly/3xgD4lZ).