Tag: supremecourtofindia

–Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentences of four people in the case of MOHAMMAD IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA for conspiring a terrorist attack in Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Science in December 2005.

FACTS OF THE CASE

There was a shootout at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 2005, which was being investigated. During this investigation, a larger conspiracy concerning Lasker-e-Toiba(LeT), a banned organization in India was revealed. After carrying out the full investigation, eight persons were arrayed as accused. Accused no.8 or A-8 was shown to be absconding. A trial was held for A-1 to A-7. In 2011, the trial court acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6 guilty and passed an order under the Indian Penal Code,1860; Explosive Substances Act,1908; Arms Act, 1959 and Unlawful activities prevention Act, 1967.

Four appeals were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A separate appeal was filed by A-3. The state also filed an appeal against the acquittal of A-7. The High Court upheld the imprisonment under section 121A for A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A-2 was given 8 years of imprisonment under section 5 of the explosives arms act while the order of acquittal of A-7 was upheld.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed by A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-6. No appeals had been preferred by A-2 and A-3. The state had also not filed any appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

It was contended that the charges under Sections 121 and 153A of the IPC had not been established, leaving only the charge under Section 121A of the IPC, which was also without merit. There was no justification for the High Court to extend the sentence to life imprisonment in a charge where 7 years of imprisonment were sufficient. According to the accused, the circumstances in the record did not support such an exercise. Further, it was stated that the recovery of the books and explosive substances is insufficient for sustaining a charge under section 121A of the IPC. It was contended that the sentence entered into the record did not meet the requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which asked for a sanction from the competent authority for the prosecution of an accused for an offense punishable, among other things, under Chapter VI of the IPC.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENTS

The state contended that the material on record which was recovered during the investigation such as a diary, books, minutes of meetings attended by the accused, and the explosives are enough to put the matter against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents are signed by all the accused and have been verified by a handwriting expert. The diary and the books clearly mention their intent. The sanction had been obtained for the prosecution of the accused under section 196 by a competent authority and considering the number of explosives recovered, the enhancement of punishment was required.

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION

The court read the judgments delivered by the lower courts in detail and also considered the evidence of record and held that the accused are guilty. It held that the question of obtaining sanction under section 196 does not arise as it had been obtained by Undersecretary after discussion with the Home Minister and the Chief Minister.

The court further observed that though the witnesses turned hostile, some evidence can be deduced from the testimony which cannot be rejected like some of the accused being members of the trust and going for meetings. Further, the court observed:

“……The recoveries of books and literature were completely supported by the concerned Panch witnesses and the Panchanamas on record. The books and literature did carry inflammatory content and messages. The translations of the original versions in Urdu were placed on record by the Prosecution. The voluntary statements which led to such recoveries and the recoveries themselves were also proved by the Prosecution. One important piece of material recovered from A-2 was Diary Exh.P-92. The tenor and text of the contents were captured quite correctly by the trial court in its judgment as referred to hereinabove. The signatures of the concerned accused were proved beyond any doubt through the evidence of PW67, handwriting expert. It thus stood established that the Accused had assembled together with the intent as disclosed from the minutes of the meetings of the Trust. The explosive substances, details of which are given hereinabove were recovered from A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6. Voluntary statements of said Accused and consequential recoveries effected through Panchas were also duly proved by the Prosecution.

The court relied on a number of judgments to reach the decision. Relying on the observations of Navjot Sandhu, Mir Hasan Khan vs State, Nazir Khan, etc, the court held that from the language of section 121A, persons who plan to “overawe” the central or state government by use of criminal force will be guilty. From all the evidence the intent of conspiracy was clear and it is not necessary that an illegal commission or omission must take place to be punished under section 121A.

The court emphasized that, if the conspiracy, in this case, had been carried out, it would have caused significant harm to public safety and the lives and safety of the people, therefore enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment was necessary. Such conspiracies shall be dealt with strictly. All the appeals were dismissed as they were devoid of any merit.

About Divyank Tyagi

Divyank Tyagi is a Practising Advocate at the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi and various district courts in Delhi. An Ambitious, Passionate, Enthusiastic and confident individual, brought up in a multi-ethnic and multicultural environment who had attained legal education from leading institutions with an LL.M degree from National Law School.

Having studied in a dynamic environment and having exposure to working under Legal Stalwarts, he is well versed in legal structures with excellent networking skills and lucrative networks in all fields of law. Due to law-related work experience, and opportunities gained over the years, he has been able to assimilate key skills in the past years. He has managed to define his strengths, growing a strong interest in the legal and financial sectors. Despite his great mindset for business matters, he never forgets to add some creativity and individualism to everything he does.

About the Internship

•  Eligibility: 4th & 5th Year Students of 5-year course / 3rd Year Students of the 3-year course.

• Mode: Virtual/Online

Intern responsibilities will include:-

• Drafting & Vetting of Pleadings, Preparing case briefs.
• Legal Research & Due Diligence
• Legal Compliances with Clients & Companies.
• Carry your own laptops.
• Allowed to work in Independent Environment.

Skills and Experience

1. Good communication skills in English
2. Active listening skills
3. Strong convincing skills
4. Client handling skills
5. Ability to handle stress and rejection in soliciting clients
6. Strong time management, prioritization

How to Apply?

Interested candidates can share their updated CVs to divyanktyagi03@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

CITATIONS

1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594.

BENCH

• Justice Fazal Ali, Saiyid
• (CJ) Kania, Harilal
• Sastri, M. Patanjali
• Mahajan, Mehr Chand
• Das, Sudhi Ranjan
• Mukherjea, B.K.

JUDGEMENT GIVEN ON

26 May 1950

FACTS AND BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Romesh Thappar was a publisher of a weekly magazine called Crossroads; certain articles were published in his magazine regarding the doubtful nature of public policies especially foreign policy. These articles created suspicion among the public about governmental policies leading to a communist movement rising in some regions of Madras forcing the state government to impose a ban on circulation of the magazine in areas where the communist movement was going on with enthusiasm.

LAWS INVOLVED

1. Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 Section 9 (1-A): It allows the government to stop the circulation, selling, and distribution of any journal in any part of Madras to ensure ‘Public Safety’ or preserving ‘Public Order’.
2. Constitution of India Article 19 (1) (a): Provides freedom of speech and expression to citizens of India. Freedom of speech and expression gives one a right to speak and express their opinions and ideas about something through traditional media or social media.
3. Constitution of India Article 19 (2): Provides for the reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19 (1) (a). These restrictions include the sovereignty and integrity and security of the state and friendly relations with foreign states.
4. Constitution of India Article 13: Provides for the laws that may or may not be passed before the commencement of the Constitution of India if violates fundamental rights mentioned in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution must be declared null and void.
5. Constitution of India Article 32: Provides an Indian citizen right to approach Supreme Court if their fundamental right has been violated by any government authority. The article goes as ‘Heart & Soul of Indian Constitution’ due to its protective nature towards other fundamental rights specified in Part 3.  
6. Constitution of India Article 226: Provides High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.

ISSUES

1. Whether the violation of the fundamental right can be dealt with by Supreme Court before State High Court?
2. Whether the order passed by the government under Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 Section 9 (1-A) violate the freedom of Speech and Expression?
3. Whether the existence of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 Section 9 (1-A) was itself unconstitutional for it violates fundamental rights mentioned in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution?  

DECISION OF COURT

On the issue of whether the Supreme Court can be approached before the State High Court, the court believed that Article 32 gives power to Supreme Court to issue writs if any government authority violates fundamental rights provided in part 3 of the Indian Constitution, which in itself as a fundamental right that cannot be denied. Hence, the Supreme Court as the guardian of fundamental rights cannot refuse to entertain any petition for seeking against infringements of fundamental rights.

The order passed by the Madras government was declared unconstitutional as it violates the Freedom of Speech and Expression mentioned under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The ban imposed by the state government on the circulation of magazines prevents the freedom to propagate ideas, opinions, and viewpoints regarding any issue that concerns the general public.

The Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 Section 9 (1-A) was made with the interest of issues like ‘Public Safety’ and ‘Public Order’. Here, ‘Public Safety’ means the security of health of the general public from dangers that vary according to the situation. ‘Public Order’ means to deal with events that may lead to disruption of peace and tranquility of the province. Regarding the question of the unconstitutionality of the law, the Supreme Court invokes the ‘Doctrine of Severability’ to ensure if severing any law defeats the entire purpose of legislation or not. Thereby, declared that the said order contradicts the fundamental right given under Article 19 (1) (a) hence ultra vires. However, Court is of the view that entire legislation cannot be considered void as Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states that the law can be declared null and void only to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights.

This article is written by Simran Gulia, pursuing BA LLB from Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies.

About the Firm

Sharma & Sharma, Advocates & Legal Consultants is a full-service law firm. It was established in 2006 with offices in Kolkata, New Delhi, Mumbai, Chandigarh & Bhubaneshwar having associate lawyers, chartered accountants, and company secretaries in most major cities of India.

About the Internship

1. Duration: The internship programme is offered for 1 – 3 months depending on the requirement and the interest of the applicant.
2. Qualifications: Law Students of 5 Year and 3 Year Law Courses at any reputed Law college can apply.
3. Location: K-30, Jangpura Extn. Second Floor, G2, Chambers, New Delhi – 110014

Skills and Experience

• Candidates from 2nd year onwards in a 3-year course and 3rd year onwards in a 5-year course are eligible.
• Self-motivated and enthusiastic about imbibing knowledge from the varied experience that they would be exposed to.
• Fluent in written and spoken English.
• Professional and Punctual in their approach to the office environment.
• Candidates having an interest in commercial litigation and who have participated in reputed Moot Court Competitions would be given preference.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates can send their updated Curriculum Vitae with a Cover Letter to contact@sharmaandsharmalegal.com.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Union government’s “Agnipath” scheme is being contested, and the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear arguments next week. According to the news agency PTI, a statement has been made by a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari that, When the Supreme Court reopens after its summer break, cases challenging the recruiting plan would be listed before the relevant bench.

Notably, on June 21, the Union government submitted a caveat motion to the Supreme Court pleading with it to hear the government in the petitions brought before it contesting the “Agnipath” defense force recruitment plan. A petitioner filed a caveat application to ensure that no unfavorable judgment is rendered against them without a hearing. According to advocate ML Sharma, the Agneepath scheme is “illegal and unconstitutional,” so he filed a PIL to
have the Centre’s notification of it quashed. Sharma claims in the PIL that the government invalidated the 100-year-old mechanism for choosing the armed forces, which led to the violation of the constitution.

The Agnipath program, unveiled on June 14, calls for recruiting young people between the ages of 17 and 21 for only four years, with the option to keep 25% of them for an additional 15 years. Protests against the idea have already begun in a number of states. Later, the government increased the hiring age limit from 18 to 23 beginning in 2022.
The appeal also mentions nationwide demonstrations against the plan. It has asked for permission to form an expert committee with a former high court judge as its head to investigate the scheme and its effects on the Army and national security. Attorney Kumud Lata Das brought up a petition submitted by potential air force members for urgent mentioning before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwar. The attorney argued that the method shouldn’t be applied to people who are currently going through the selection process.

According to her submission, the Agnipath system will reduce the applicants’ term from 20 years to 4 years. The counsel continued,

“The 31 selected candidates who are awaiting their enlistment as Airmen in the IAF in Group X Trades and Group Y for Intake 02/21 conducted by the Central Airmen Selection Board (CASB) preferred the petition under Article 32 in response to the advertisement dated 11.12.2019 for which online applications were requested from 08.01.2020 to 12.01.2020 for both Group X and Group Y streams. Despite numerous mentions, the Registry has not provided a specific date of listing.”

The petitioners were shortlisted and the provisional list was announced on May 31, 2021. However, for administrative reasons, there was no recruitment. The petitioners claimed that on June 14, the Central Government notified the Agnipath plan without concluding the enrolment procedure for 02/2021. They contend that they are not at fault for the recruiting process’s delay and that the authorities cannot stop their hiring now.

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha (J.) is a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is the former Additional Solicitor General of India. He is well known for his work on the Ayodhya Title Dispute and the BCCI cases.

Justice Narasimha was brought up in Hyderabad. After passing LL.B in 1988 he started practice in Andhra Pradesh High Court. His father Kodanda Ramayya was also a judge and legal writer. Narasimha thereafter moved to New Delhi to practice at the Supreme Court. He was designated as Senior Advocate and was appointed as Addl. Solicitor General of India in 2014. In August 2021 he became the Judge of the Supreme Court. He is in line to become the 55th Chief Justice of India if the convention of seniority is followed.

About the Internship:

Chambers of HMJ P.S. Narasimha, Judge, Supreme Court of India is inviting applications for internship for the months of August to December 2022.

Eligibility:

Please note that only students in their 4th and 5th year of the five-year course and 3rd year of the three-year course are eligible to apply.

Location:

New Delhi

Last Date to Apply:

July 25th, 2022

How to Apply?

Interested candidates, please fill out the form given below:

APPLY NOW

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Avinash Pandey

The Supreme Court recently upheld the death penalty awarded to a 37-year-old man for the rape and murder of a 7and a half-year-old girl who was mentally and physically challenged, in the case of Manoj Pratap vs State of Rajasthan. The crime had occurred in 2013 in the state of Rajasthan when the convict Manoj Pratap was around 27 years old. The 3-judge bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice CT Ravi Kumar had made an observation that the crime that was in contention was of extreme depravity while looking at the vulnerable state of the victim and the manner in which the crime had been committed.

The victim had been kidnapped by the accused party in this case on a stolen motorcycle by misleading her after offering the little girl sweets and other attractive eatables. Thereafter the accused had taken the victim to a silent area where he committed the crime and at the same time, her head was smashed which resulted in multiple injuries including bone fractures and dislocations. The doctors had reported gruesome injuries on the private parts of the victim as well.

The convict urged in front of the court that he was only 28 years old at the time he had committed the crime and furthermore he has a family and a minor daughter. However, the Supreme Court asserted that these are not mitigating factors and there is no foreseeable probability that there can be any rehabilitation or reformation in the behavior of the convict.

The Supreme Court while upholding the death sentence for the convict stated that the convict was a danger to the maintenance of peace and order in the society. The court said that the conduct that the convict has shown in the past and after going through the facts of the current case it is not possible for the court to reduce the penalty or the punishment from a death sentence to life imprisonment.

For generations, people have argued about the cultural and ethical shame associated with capital execution. Nonetheless, the court has repeatedly given verdicts in favor of the retention of the death penalty in the nation.

Article 21 of the Indian constitution, while recognizing the right to life as an indisputable and basic value, contains several restrictions. The 35th Law Commission Report of 1967 outlined how repealing the death sentence legislation in India just wouldn’t improve society as a whole. Maintaining the safety of people at the forefront of its debate, the study concluded that in order to maintain harmony and security in a society with huge educational or ethical distinctions, a mechanism for the death sentence was necessary for some situations.

The punishment allotted to the convict, in any case, is based on the facts and not on the severity of the crime which was concluded by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In some situations where there is no scope for any reform, the death penalty can be given as has been held in this case.

-report by Monishka Allhabadi

The Supreme Court ruled in the case LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA that two consenting adults don’t need the permission of their family, community, or clan to marry. On February 8, the Supreme Court ruled over again that two adults who have agreed to marry don’t need permission from family, community, or clan. The Supreme Court issued its decision in response to a petition filed by a couple from Karnataka who eloped and married after the woman’s family refused to approve of their union. A division bench of Justice Sanjay Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy ruled that the decision of an adult to marry the person of their choice shouldn’t be tormented by concepts like “class honor” or “group thinking.”

In this case, a family filed a missing complaint of their daughter who eloped and married someone without informing them. Following an investigation, the local police discovered Chandaragi’s whereabouts and it was revealed that she had married and was living with her husband. Despite this, police demanded that Chandaragi appear at the local police office to relinquish an announcement, failing which a kidnapping case would be filed against her husband at her parents’ request. To that end, the couple petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging that the IO was threatening the lady to return to Karnataka or he would file a kidnapping case against her husband.

The division bench of Justices Sanjay Kisan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy halted proceedings in the hope that the woman’s parents would accept the wedding and resume social interaction with the couple. “Alienating the kid and son-in-law under the guise of caste and community will hardly be a desirable social exercise,” the seven-page verdict stated. Justice Kaul and Roy also stated that the younger generation is making the choice to settle with their life partners on their own, unlike the previous generations, where societal and caste, community differences played a major role in determining whom to marry. “Perhaps this is often the way forward, where caste and community tensions are reduced by such intermarriage, but within the meantime, these youngsters face threats from the elders,” the judgment stated.

The Supreme Court stated that a program to coach cops was urgently needed to accommodate such cases. Pulling up the local police, the court stated that its intervention wouldn’t have been necessary had the case’s investigating officer conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint. “If he really wanted to record the statement of petitioner No.1, he should have informed them that he would visit her and recorded the statement rather than putting her under threat of action against petitioner No.2 to return to the police office,” the court added.

“The police authorities mustn’t only counsel the present Investigating Officers, but also devise a training program for managing such cases for the advantage of all police personnel. We anticipate that the police authorities will take action during this regard within the following eight weeks to ascertain some guidelines and training programs on the way to handle such socially sensitive cases,” it added while dismissing the case. The court noted in its decision that educated adults were choosing their spouses, which differed from previous societal norms during which caste and community played a major role.

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected Zakia Jafri’s appeal, which questioned the clean chit of Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) given to the then-Chief Minister, Narendra Modi and numerous other individuals in the 2002 Gujarat riots. Zakia Jafri is the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri. However, it was held that the appeal is without substance, according to a bench led by Justices AM Khanwilkar.

BACKGROUND
Zakia’s husband, Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, was brutally murdered in the Gulberg Society massacre during the Gujarat riots in 2002. According to her when Mr Modi was Gujarat’s chief minister at the time, he was charged with not doing enough to put an end to the anti- Muslim riots—a charge he has consistently refuted. Zakia was forced to go to the Gujarat High Court to request that the complaint be regarded as a FIR because the State police did
nothing. However, the petition was dismissed by high court.

This was challenged before the supreme court and subsequently an impartial Special Investigation Team (SIT) was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2008 to check this matter. No evidence was discovered against Mr.
Modi in the riots case, according to the report that investigators provided in 2012. Zakia Jafri’s challenged SIT’s clean chit given to 64 people including Narendra Modi before the supreme court.

PETITIONER’s CONTENTION
It was argued that the SIT did not thoroughly investigate all the pieces of evidence that pointed to a bigger conspiracy. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal led the arguments for Zakia Jafri against the Gujarat High Court’s ruling for a number of days.
RESPONDENT’s CONTENTION
The SIT had contested Jafri’s argument, claiming that the complaint was part of a diabolical scheme to look into the “bigger conspiracy” that led to the riots in Gujarat in 2002 and that Teesta Setalvad, a social activist, had allegedly directed Jafri’s initial complaint in an effort to stir up trouble.

SUPREME COURT DECISION
Supreme stated that in relation to the events that occurred in Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, including the attack on Ehsan Jafri, a FIR was filed on June 8, 2006. Therefore, the SIT’s task with regard to Zakia’s complaint was to investigate the claims that were not already the subject of an investigation in connection with the four crimes involving the Gulberg Society case. SIT’s reach was therefore restricted to the allegation of larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level resulting in mass violence across the State during the relevant period.

The court further observed that the allegation of larger conspiracy was based on the ‘sensational revelation”, which were later established to be false by the SIT. According to Mr. Sibal’s argument, the dead bodies were paraded to Ahmedabad after the post mortem was conducted in an open yard at the railway station. The court held that full procedure was followed by state administration regarding the dead bodies and the contention was dismissed.

The Bench determined that the appellant’s claim that only one community was being targeted also lacked evidence. Therefore, the court held that Conspiracy cannot be readily inferred merely on the basis of the inaction or failure of the State administration.

RELATED PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 356 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION ;Article 356 deals with breakdown of constitutional machinery. The court in this case observed that misgovernance or failure to maintain law and order for a brief period of time shall not come under article 356.
SECTION 120B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; This section deals with criminal conspiracy and with regard to this case the court observed that in order to prove a larger conspiracy, prior meeting of minds must be proved in the court of law.

INTRODUCTION

“Yato Dharmastato Jaya” means “Where there is Dharma, there is victory”. The Motto of the Supreme Court clearly shows that Judicial Independence is the barricading of our dynamic system. It gives vitality to the words of legislators who framed the Indian Constitution with a vision. Justice is that harmless weapon in the hands of people which if lost would shatter the society to pieces. Hence the Judiciary is empowered to become the voice of the people and to impart a sense of freedom within the society.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA- THE KEEPER OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

With the advancement of time and keeping at a pace with the revolutionary changes that are occurring worldwide, our Indian Society has taken a major blow as well. Age-old laws, beliefs, lifestyle, and customs are all taking a leap and requires major improvisation. Legislators, Administrators, and Judiciary have been constantly realising the need for an hour and striving hard to maintain balance, nationally and internationally.

Supreme Court of India, the watchdog of our rights is often reached out to raise its voice when people are losing their faith in the system. Constitution of India is the Grundnorm of Indian Society, it sets out the ultimate goal below which derogation is neither possible nor allowed. Every law, legislation, judgment, and rule framed must be in line with the essential spirit of our Constitution. The primary duty to adhere to the Constitution is of the Supreme Court. The constitution itself has given vast powers to the Supreme Court to maintain the sanctity of legislative intent behind the constitutional framework.

India works on the principle of Rule of law which can function effectively only when access to justice is readily available. Justice is that basic resource which every individual must have access to in order to stabilise. Injustice, unfairness to another or violation of one’s rights would only result in instability.  The Supreme Court is thus given the agenda of keeping checks and balances in the ever-evolving Indian society.

Justice is one of the essential traits of our Constitution as envisaged in the Preamble and Supreme Court is basically a medium to enforce the common will of the people. If the Judiciary gets biased and starts to create difference the light of justice would fade away and the faith of the people would be lost forever. The most important function of the Judiciary is the Administration of Justice for the upliftment of society.

THE TUSSLE BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATURE

It is very well said that the excellence of the judiciary is the measure of excellence of its government. Though the two always strive to have the ball in their court but in the Indian Political democratic setup, independence of the two organs is very essential. Supreme Court though many a time takes suo moto cognizance on matters of public importance and where grave injustice could be witnessed, it does not empower it to intermeddle with the work of the legislature. Supreme Court hold the power to refrain itself from any matter involving law and order situation and thereby confer its forbearance on the authorities concerned.

THE INTERRELATION OF JUSTICE WITH POVERTY

Barriers to access to justice are very strong in developing countries and primarily amongst the poorest crowd. Discrimination, inequality, lack of legal awareness and corruption often weaken the justice delivery system and have a direct impact on poor people. Those who lack the resources to access the legal system often face the brunt. They are exploited by corrupt government officials and still, their path toward justice remains blurred. For example, In India, there is very less discussion on bringing the socio-economic profile of the death row prisoners as a mitigating factor while awarding them capital punishment. As a result of which there is empirical evidence now that a vast majority of India’s death row prisoners are extremely poor and often do not receive competent legal representation. The Apex Constitutional body must press upon the need to have proper representation of the needy. The access to justice must be smooth for those who believe it to be far-reaching.

GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT

Supreme court of India flared up with decades of improvement and has earned the title of “The most powerful court in the world”. It conferred its primacy in judicial appointments by way of the collegium system and expanded its horizons using its power of judicial review thereby intervening in the arbitrary use of power by the executive. With time the Supreme Court emerged as the last ray of hope in the eyes of the public, who were earlier blindly trusting the political leaders. Judiciary in turn came out as an activist to compensate for the inactiveness of the executive. Recently Supreme Court also introduced an Artificial Intelligence Portal named SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficiency) aiming at equipping the machines to deal with a vast amount of data that is received at the time of filing of cases. It would reduce manpower and would result in the speedy and effective delivery of justice to those decades of pending cases. In 2020, the Supreme Court developed software called, SCI-Interact, to make all its 17 benches paperless. This software helps Judges access files, and annexures to petitions and make notes on computers. In November 2019, the Apex Court launched an indigenously engineered neural translation tool, SUVAAS, to translate judicial orders and rulings from English to vernacular languages faster and efficiently. 

MAJOR LANDMARK DECISION TAKEN BY SUPREME COURT TO IMPART JUSTICE

1. Kerala Union of Working Journalists V. Union of India. (2021 SC)- SC held that even an Undertrial Prisoner has an unconditional fundament right to life.
2. Satbir Singh V. State of Haryana (2021) Guidelines drafted for Dowry Death Trials. The Court held that while interpreting Section 304-B IPC, the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand should be kept in mind. The Bench, therefore, laid down guidelines for Dowry Death trials in the lower courts.
3. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru V. State of Kerala, 1973- The Basic Structure Doctrine was founded by the largest bench of the Supreme Court.
4. Shayara Bano vs Union of India & Others, 2017- the Apex Court declared Triple Talaq to be Unconstitutional and imposed a ban on its usage. Its use in any form would be considered illegal.
5. Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India, 2018- The court allowed consensual relationships among the individuals of the LGBT community which made it one of the historic Supreme Court judgments. Supreme Court also made it clear that the choice of LGBT persons to enter into physical relationships with persons of the same sex is their choice. They are equally entitled to the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. 

• Subhash Kumar V. State of Bihar– The right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 and includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air.

• The Nibhaya gang Rape wherein justice was imparted after 8 years of legal battles and struggles faced by the victim’s family.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court is seen as a final and last resort when aggrieved party losses all its hope and yet strives to keep within itself a ray of justice. The Indian Legal System is so complicated and diverse that justice is not easily sought. It takes decades of procedural work and several recourses are available to the accused which many a time acts as a hurdle in imparting speedy justice yet the judiciary is all about maintaining balance. Courts are examples of weighing both parties at par until one is proven guilty. Supreme Court consists of intellectual minds that believe in imparting justice with a rationale. An emotional bent of heart or keeping in sight the devastating condition of the party must not become a factor while deciding a case as it might be wrong. The principles of Natural Justice must be followed to impart justice and to set a landmark for the society at large.

The Supreme Court has never failed us to illustrate its supremacy by giving major landmark decisions such as the Aadhaar Case ( Right to Privacy of an Individual is a Fundamental right), and the Sabrimala Temple Case whereby even the women irrespective of age were allowed entry into the temple, thus bringing them onto the same platform as men. The Supreme Court always moves one step ahead and in case of major public outrage, it even interferes in the matters of legislative or executive matters by way of forming committees headed by Supreme Court Judges. Justice is one of the goals of the Indian Judiciary and the same is paramount. Though in a country like India where there is so much diversity, at times justice gets delayed but the proactive role of the Supreme Court and other Courts aims to furnish quick, efficient and speedy justice to the aggrieved.

This article is written by Ajita Dixit, who graduated from ILS, Dehradun and is currently pursuing her Master’s in Law.