If 2019 turned out to be a watershed moment for Indian polity as we witnessed Prime Minister Narendra Modi getting elected for a second term with a thumping majority and thereafter passing a series of historic legislations in Parliament, the Supreme Court too had its fair share of defining moments that will dominate the discourse for long. Though there were numerous important judgments in 2019, here are 10 worth a special mention.

1. Ayodhya dispute

On November 9, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi unanimously pronounced a verdict in a case that was keenly contested and closely watched for decades. After a marathon hearing stretching over 40 days, in which the Bench deliberated upon a host of arguments based on centuries-old empirical evidence and citations intersecting with matters of faith and belief, it came up with a comprehensive 1,045-page judgment. With this verdict, the SC paved the way for the construction of a Ram temple by awarding the title of the 2.77 acres in dispute to Ram Lalla, a deity recognised as a legitimate legal entity. The SC also directed the government to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Central Waqf Board within Ayodhya in addition to directing the government to create a trust within three months for the construction of the Ram temple and its operation and also to provide representation to Nirmohi Akhara in that trust.

2. CJI’s office and RTI

By recognising the CJI’s office as a public authority, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court verdict. While allowing for the CJI’s office to come under the purview of RTI, the SC judgment also talked about safeguards vis-a-vis the independence of the judiciary. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud opined about the selection and appointment of judges to higher judiciary and emphasised that the basis of their selection must be defined and placed in the public domain. Also, there are areas where confidentiality within the judicial system that is over the dissemination of information per se, the court observed, in a majority verdict of 3:2 in favour of bringing the CJI’s office under the ambit of RTI Act.

3. Rafale review

A bunch of review petitions was filed in the SC against its December 14, 2018, judgment where it gave a clean chit to the Union government in the Rafale deal, dismissing all petitions that alleged wrongdoings. This deal is a government-to-government contract between India and France for the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from French company Dassault Aviation at a negotiable price with an offset clause. The court then extensively went through the matter and said that it is satisfied with the process and has no objections to any part of the deal; hence, a court-monitored probe is not required. On November 14, 2019, the SC dismissed all the review petitions. The Rafale deal was made a focal point of discussion during the 2019 general election. The SC finally put an end to all controversies surrounding the deal by examining the matter. One contempt petition was also filed in this regard against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for misinterpreting the SC’s observations, for which he had to eventually tender an apology.

4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

A Division Bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman and Navin Sinha, vide its decision in the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd vs Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Part II of the IBC along with the constitutional validity of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had been subject to legal challenges. After directing the Gujarat High Court to not to deliberate upon the constitutionality of the Code as well as the NCLT, the SC heard a bunch of petitions challenging the vires of the Code. Having analysed the statement of objects and reasons of the Code, the SC held in its judgment that “the primary focus of the legislation is to ensure the revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate debt by liquidation. The Code is thus beneficial legislation, which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being mere recovery legislation for creditors”. The SC upheld the validity of the legality of settlement under Section 12A and Section 29A that is on a bar of related persons in participating in resolution bids. Apart from upholding the constitutionality of Section 53 of the Code, the SC also found that the Code does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as it provides for reasonable classification between operational creditors and financial creditors based on intelligible differentia.

5. Sabarimala temple

The Sabarimala temple remained in the news throughout the year after the SC allowed the entry of women of all ages into the temple. A batch of review petitions came before the SC against its judgment of September 2018. A five-judge Bench with a majority of 3:2 decided to keep the review pleas pending until a larger Bench addresses and settles questions related to essential religious practices. However, the SC did not overturn its earlier ruling allowing for women’s entry, while on the other hand, referred the matter to a larger Bench, which has now essentially placed the whole issue “open-ended”. The two dissenters, Justices Rohinton Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, opined that gender justice is very important and the “holy book” is the Constitution of India and all the issues raised in these review pleas had already been well-argued and dealt with in the 2018 judgment. While referring the matter to a larger Bench, the SC was of the view that a common policy on religious places needs to be evolved and all matters pertaining to women’s rights - be it Sabarimala, entry of women into mosques, religious rights of Parsi women and female genital mutilation practised in the Dawoodi Bohra community - should be decided by the larger Bench.

6. Finance Act and Aadhaar

The Finance Act, 2017, passed as a Money Bill, empowered the government to appoint and frame rules of service conditions for members of tribunals. The SC struck down provisions of the Act pertaining to tribunal members based on the reasoning that these rules lower parliamentary scrutiny, and since tribunals are similar to High Courts as held by the SC in 2014, matters of appointments and service rules of tribunal members extend beyond the executive mandate. A five-judge Constitution Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench to examine the validity of the Finance Act as a Money Bill. The SC also deliberated upon the correctness of the Aadhaar judgment and held that Speakers’ power to certify a Bill as a Money Bill is subject to judicial scrutiny. The SC Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi said, “The issue and question of Money Bill, as defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and the certification accorded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in respect of Part-XIV of the Finance Act, 2017, is referred to a larger Bench.” Taking a cue from the Aadhaar judgment, the Union government made its case for constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017, that dominant provisions of the Act fall within the provisions of Article 110. But the SC had a different view and said, “As per such interpretation, provisions ought not to be read in a piece-meal manner, and judicial review ought to be applied deferentially”. Also the majority Aadhaar judgment did not clarify and explain the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (f) to clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution. Hence, a need to refer the matter to a larger bench to look into the aspects of Money Bill in its entirety, the SC observed.

7. Electronic records

In the P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs State of Kerala case, a Division Bench of the SC held that the content of a memory card or pen drive are electronic records and must be treated as document and not a material object under the Indian Evidence Act and the cloned copy of the document should be given to the accused to prepare his defence under Section 207 of the CrPC, 1973. The Bench added that in matters involving privacy, the court can restrict the availability of such documents with necessary safeguards to mere inspection by the accused, his / her lawyer or expert for them to present an effective defence during the course of the trial and the court may issue directions to ensure a balance between the right to a fair trial of the accused and the right to privacy of the witness / victim.

8. Govt funded NGOs

In response to the contention of some schools and colleges that they are not a public authority as defined in the RTI Act, an SC Bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that substantially funded NGOs - directly or indirectly by the government - fall well within the ambit of the RTI Act and is a public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. On what constitutes “substantial financing”, the Bench said, “in our view, ‘substantial’ means a large portion. It does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50 per cent”. The Bench further added that whether an NGO or body is substantially financed by the government is a question that warrants a case-to-case basis examination based on facts. This judgment essentially means NGOs or bodies qualified on the basis of “substantially financed” directly or indirectly by the government now will have to maintain a record as per the provisions of the RTI Act and are hence subject to citizens’ scrutiny.

9. SC/ST Act

After passing a Bill in Parliament to overturn the apex court’s March 2018 judgment providing safeguards against arrest as per provisions of the SC / ST Act, the government filed a review petition. In addition to this, pleas were filed in the apex court challenging the amendments to the SC / ST Act passed by Parliament, claiming it to be arbitrary. Amid all this, the apex court in October recalled its two directions given in the previous verdict and restored the earlier position of the law while reserving its verdict on the pleas challenging amendments to the SC / ST Act passed by Parliament in 2018. The apex court said it would not “dilute” the provisions of the SC / ST Act, and made it clear that its Constitution Bench had already held that anticipatory bail could be granted in such matters if the courts feel that no prima facie case is made out. Sticking purely to the legality of the matter, the Bench said, “We are not diluting these provisions. We are not striking them down. These provisions will stand as it was earlier.” Refraining from discussing individual cases, the Bench emphasised upon the importance of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and observed that there cannot be an absolute bar on either grant of anticipatory bail or holding of preliminary inquiry under the SC / ST Act. As per Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court’s power to pass directions in this matter was not required. And framing guidelines is a legislative prerogative and the protective nature of the Act is well justified, the apex court observed.

10. Amrapali Group

In a major relief to more than 40,000 homebuyers, a two-judge SC Bench delivered a historic judgment in the Bikram Chatterjee & others vs Union of India & others case. Having gone into the matter in great detail with the able assistance of lawyers, NCLT and forensic auditors, Justices Arun Mishra and Uday Lalit decided to cancel the registration of Amrapali Group under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (RERA) Act, 2016. To safeguard the interest of homebuyers, the Bench asked the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete all pending projects of the group, appointed senior advocate Venkat Ramani as court receiver and said all rights of Amrapali projects will vest in the person. Working upon the modalities, the Bench said the buyers will pay the balance sale consideration to the SC, which will be kept in a fixed deposit and shall be used by the NBCC for completing the projects. Homebuyers will deposit the dues in an escrow account. The NBCC’s commission was fixed at 8 per cent and the court receiver was asked to ensure that the possession is given to buyers. Perhaps, this judgment holds the potential to reform the entire real estate sector if followed in true letter and spirit. The judgment to protect people’s hard-earned money demonstrated the SC’s institutional strength and wisdom when it comes to dealing with matters of public importance.

Meenakshi Lekhi is a BJP MP who represents New Delhi constituency in the Lok Sabha and is a lawyer in the Supreme Court. The views expressed here are personal.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store