2017 in Retrospect: How Supreme court strengthened the Constitution with its ruling

2017 in retrospect
2017 in retrospect

Supreme Court plays an important role in strengthening the democracy of a country. Its every ruling is considered as a step towards a justiciable society. In the year of 2017 the Supreme Court of India went through several arguments, debates and discussions which not only gave Indian Constitution a powerful future but also reminded that when it comes to justice only one book has the capability to look at every aspect of Human life and do justice with it.
Here’s a look at some important Ruling by Supreme Court of India in 2017.

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen
In the very first week of the year on January 2, 2017, the Apex court delivered its judgment and prohibited any kind of appeal to caste, community, language, and religion during an election campaign. Pointing out the secular nature of Indian Constitution the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:3 broadened the context of People’s representation act. However, 3 judges out of 7 were not considering the judgment necessary as they thought that sometimes the context in which some caste or religion-related words are used than it is because it wants to address a particular community’s problem. They also stated that expanding of section 123 of the People’s Representation Act could violate article 19 of the Constitution which provides freedom of speech.

Shayara Bano vs the Union of India
The ruling of this case which is popularly known as Triple Talaq came as a relief for Muslim women who had to go through an instant talaq process even if they don’t want the divorce. Announcing Triple Talaq as an illegal practice the Supreme Court of India somewhere affected the fundamental right of practicing a religion but as the 3 members of 5 judges bench ruled out that it is violating the fundamental right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The five judges from five different communities Chief Justice JS Khehar, a Sikh, Justices Kurian Joseph a Christian, RF Nariman a Parsi, UU Lalit a Hindu and Abdul Nazeer a Muslim.
In a 397-page ruling, though two judges upheld validity of Instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), the three other judges held that it was unconstitutional, thus barring the practice by 3–2 majority. One judge argued that instant triple talaq violated Islamic law. The bench asked the central government to promulgate legislation within six months to govern marriage and divorce in the Muslim community. The court said that until the government formulates a law regarding instant triple talaq, there would be an injunction against husbands pronouncing Instant triple talaq on their wives.

 K.S. Puttaswamy vs the Union of India

The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench on August 24 held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and is an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty.

The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice J S Khehar, met on July 18 to decide the issue, but was told by the Centre that the strength of the bench was inadequate as an eight judge bench in the M P Sharma case in 1954, and a six judge bench in the Kharak Singh case in 1962, had ruled that right to privacy was not a fundamental right. The bench was quick to refer the matter to a nine-judge bench, which began hearing arguments from July 19 and concluded hearing on August 2, after a lively debate involving renowned lawyers to greenhorns.


Related Posts