Major judgements of 2018 by Supreme, High Court

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come.

Here are the major judgements passed by the judiciary in 2018.

Section 377- 'Sexual orientation is natural, people have no control over it'.

In a major victory to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, the Supreme Court on September 6 struck down the colonial era's Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex.

Ruling in the favor of the 'third recognised gender' the Supreme court said that sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it.

The ruling that permitted consensual adult gay sex also said that the law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times.

After the judgement, engaging in gay sex in private is no more an offense. The court said that consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The judges which called for the right to equality of the LGBT community also added that society's thinking, social morality cannot violate the rights of even one single individual.

Indu Malhotra who was one of the members in the bench said that society owes an apology to the LGBTQ community. While delivering its verdict the apex court laid emphasis on the fact that though sex, as per the order of nature, was seen as intercourse between man and woman for the purpose of procreation, the fact that it had already recognised a third gender needs to be kept in mind.

Aadhaar- 'Legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society'

On September 26, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act.

The court approved the linking of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the Unique Aadhar number while striking down its linkage with bank accounts and mobile number, pension or school admissions.The apex court's judgement came on the grounds that it "struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual withrightto life of the same individual as a beneficiary".

The judges said that the operational structure of the Aadhaar project ensures that the architecture of the Aadhaar does not create surveillance. The judgement further said that the legislation has helped in removing leakages and the benefits were now reaching the downtrodden.

The judges said that the legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society as it gives them a unique identity and helps them to avail the benefits of welfare schemes.

The bench of judges also asked the government to not to allot Aadhaar to illegal immigrants.

Adultery- 'Wife is not a property of husband'

On September 28, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which made adultery a punishableoffense. Terming the section as unconstitutional the apex court said it deprives women of their sexual autonomy and dignity. The court also held that the "wife was not a property of husband" and that the "husband is neither the master of his wife nor does he have legal sovereignty over her".

It added that the colonial-era provision violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

The judgement however clarified that adultery would continue to be a ground for divorce.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code stated that "whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such intercourse not amounting to the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

Ayodhya-'The court has its own priorities'

In a hearing on Ayodhya, the Supreme Court on September 27 rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP.The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

The hearing in the case has now been adjourned to January after the CJI on October 29 rejected the early hearing in the case by saying that '' the court has its own priorities".

Sabarimala Temple in Kerala- 'Dualism that persists in religion..in matters of devotion has to be abandoned'

In a historic judgement on September 28, the Supreme Court removed the restrictions imposed on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In its judgement the apex court said, " the attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender... the dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand, in matters of devotion has to be abandoned".

The judgement was passed by 4-1 ruling. Justice Indu Malhotra who disagreed with the lifting of ban on women's entry to the temple said, " the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an 'essential religious practice' and 'notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts'. She further claimed that 'allowing PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices.....the courts should intervene only if there are pernicious, oppressive or social evil like sati".

Live streaming of court proceedings- 'Will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work'

The Supreme Court in September ordered the live streaming of court proceedings claiming that it will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work. The court further asked to "implement the project" and employ the technology required to provide virtual access to live court proceedings. The court also asked that the live telecast of the proceedings should not interfere with the administration of the justice or the dignity and majesty of the court.

Passive Euthanasia- 'Individuals have right to die with dignity under strict guidelines'

In March 2018 the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia saying that individuals have the right to die with dignity under strict guidelines. The court in its judgement allowed a person to file a "living will" for the withdrawal of life support in case he/she falls in coma. The draft for "living will" can only be filed when the person is in "normal state of health and mind".

Anti-Sikh riots- 'Mass killing will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come'

In a historic verdict on the anti-Sikh riots that took place three decades ago and killed over 2700 Sikhs, the High Court on December 17 reversed the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar by the trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges ranging from murder to criminal conspiracy.

Calling the 1984 riots as "crime against humanity" the court said the riots were carried out by people who had "political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency". The judgement added that the mass killing will "continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come".

The court also noted that the accused in the case were brought to justice because of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses.

Questioning the investigation by the police, the court said that the police turned a blind eye to the mob rioting. It further said that the state machinery came to a complete standstill in those two or three days when the rioting mobs took to the streets and indulged in acts of violence.