2020 has been a year full of surprises. While the world at large was fighting with a severe pandemic, India had a truckload of its own troubles besides the pandemic. The abrogation of article 370 and the internet shutdown in the state of Jammu & Kashmir had invited turmoil in the country. Moreover, the introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act and 3 Bills of farmer’s fate have had a lasting impact. The economy is dwindling and many migrant workers have walked miles in the scorching heat to reach their homes. The schools are colleges are struggling to reach their respective goals through online mode of teaching.

In this chaotic situation, the Supreme Court of India has proved to be the true guardian of justice in the country. The Supreme Court not only successfully adopted the online mode by enhancing the e-courts program but also ensured that justice is delivered on the important matters of the country.

This article aims at summarizing the top 10 landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2020.

1.     The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0194/2020

The Supreme Court marked 17 February, 2020 as an important date in the calendar of Indian Armed Forces. For the first time since independence, the females belonging to the Indian Armed Forces will be granted permanent commission to serve in the army. The females had been struggling to attain this right for more than a decade. Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgment, stated that: ‘At the stage of opting for the grant of PC, all the choices for specialization shall be available to women officers on the same terms as for the male SSC officers. Women SSC officers shall be entitled to exercise their options for being considered for the grant of PCs on the same terms as their male counterparts’.

The judgment upheld the directive principle of equality by providing access to permanent commission to the female populace.

2.     Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

Citation: MANU/SC/0022/2020

Another important judgment that upheld the rights of the citizens declares right to internet as a part and parcel of the right to freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right granted to the citizens of India under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. The hon’ble court thus concluded that the ban on the internet services in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is unreasonable and violative of the above-mentioned article. Justice NV Ramana ordered the relevant authorities to ‘review forthwith the need for continuance of any existing orders passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C in accordance with law laid down above’. The court believed that suspending telecom services (be it internet or any other services of this kind) is a drastic measure and that passing an order that suspends the internet indefinitely is highly impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services) Rules of 2017.

3.     Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 1

This case posed a typical question in front of the judiciary about whether anticipatory bail granted under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code should be limited to a fixed period of time or not and that whether such anticipatory bail is trimmed when the court summons the accused. The 5-judge bench unanimously agreed that anticipatory bail shall not be limited to a fixed period of time and in certain peculiar cases, can be extended till the end of the trial upon the order of the hon’ble court. Two separate judgments were pronounced by J. Shah and J. Bhat; however, both the judgments were synchronous with each other and were agreed upon by J. Mishra, J. Banerjee and J. Saran.

The court further overruled the following judgments: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors[1], Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra[2] and other subsequent decisions.

4.     Mukesh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0139/2020

Another landmark judgment booked for the year; it states that a state is not bound to make reservations to SCs and STs guaranteeing promotions in government jobs. The court further stated that it is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution thereby barring the courts from issuing a mandamus for the same. The hon’ble bench believed that collection of quantifiable data reflecting the representation of SCs and STs is not, mandatory for states if they seek to abstain from providing such reservations. Article 16(4) of the Constitution grants such discretionary power to the states.

The bench thus stated that: ‘As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, is a pre-requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services’.

5.     Prathvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India

Citation: MANU/SC/0157/2020

The court in this judgment tactfully upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. This amendment was brought forth to reverse the SC judgment of March 2018[3] that introduced safeguards that prevented the misuse of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also known as the PoA Act. However, this decision gave rise to massive protests among the SC, ST community, as a result of which the Parliamentary amendment was introduced.

The court thus settled its views in consonance with the Parliamentary amendment that aimed at nullifying the effects of the Kashinath Mahajan judgment of the SC which had diluted the provisions of the Act. Hon’ble judges held that the ‘Kashinath Mahajan directions placed an undue burden on SC/STs persons who had suffered a caste-based atrocity’. Whereas, J. Bhat delivered a concurring opinion warning that ‘a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament’.

6.     Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0172/2020

The court in the given case mandated political parties to follow certain directions laid down by the Supreme Court to ensure that criminalization of politics doesn’t take place. These directions include: 

1.  mandatorily updating their websites with the details of candidates that have pending criminal cases
2. grounds for the selection of such candidates (on the basis of merit and qualifications rather than ‘their ability to gather votes’)
3. such information to be published in a local vernacular newspaper as well as a national newspaper
4. the time limit for such publication to be within 48 hours of selection of the candidate
5. submission of a report of compliance of these directions to the Election Commission (EC) within 72 hours
6. failure in following these guidelines must enable the EC to bring a non-compliance notice against the party to the Supreme Court of India.

This judgment can be viewed as a major step towards curbing the alarming rise in criminalization of politics within the country.

7.     Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0448/2020

The petitioner (Arnab Goswami) alleged that a vindictive and malicious campaign was launched against him through social media by the states which owed their allegiance to the Indian National Congress. Multiple FIRs were lodged against the petitioner alleging that he was responsible for propagating views of communal nature. The Supreme Court defended the rights of a journalist by disallowing multiple complaints against him stating that it would hinder his freedom thereby quashing all identical FIRs except for the one lodged in Maharashtra.

However, the Supreme Court took a step back by refusing to interfere with the case by disallowing the plea to seek transfer to CBI probe by stating that, ‘Nothing contained in the present judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations contained in the FIRs’ and that ‘the transfer of an investigation to the CBI is not a matter of routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise that this is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances’. The court also stated that the accused has no right to determine the mode of investigation.

8.     Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0300/2020

After extensive debate, the hon’ble bench concluded that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will not lapse in a case where compensation has been deposited in the treasury. A 5-judge bench led by J. Arun Mishra provided clarifications for the ambiguities about the lapse of acquisition proceedings. It was held that the landowners cannot insist the deposition of amount in court in order to sustain the proceedings under the old act. Therefore, even if the state fails in depositing the compensation in a landowner’s account, it cannot account for a valid reason to lapse the proceedings going on under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The court re-affirmed the views of 2018 Indore Development Authority Case and over-ruled the judgment of Pune Municipality Corporation case of 2014.

9.     Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India

Citation: MANU/SC/0264/2020

Famously known as the cryptocurrency judgment, it is known for the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on regulated entities dealing with virtual currencies.

The court validated the ‘ground of proportionality’ by setting aside the circular issued by RBI preventing regulated entities from providing banking services to those engaged in the trading or facilitating the trading in Virtual Currencies. The court observed that, ‘when the consistent stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs and when the Government of India is unable to take a call despite several committees coming up with several proposals including two draft bills, both of which advocated exactly opposite positions, it is not possible for us to hold that the impugned measure is proportionate’.

The court also believed that the ‘lukewarm’ response of RBI in this regard was totally unjustified.

10.  Union of India & Ors. v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills & Ors.

Citation: MANU/SC/0714/2020

The given case holds vital significance in the presidential history of judgments. The case has been divided into 14 parts and contains a highly detailed judgment that analysis every minute detail. It revolves around a notification issued by the Union Government under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 that introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200% in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack. The issue at hand was whether a notification issued by the Union Government (upon which the legislative power was delegated) can issue a retrospective order or not.

The court held that rate of duty which was applicable was crystallized at the time and on the date of the presentation of the bills of entry in terms of the provisions of Section 15 read with Regulation 4(2) of Regulations of 2018. Therefore, it cannot be altered at a later stage. The court examined section 15 (1)(a) which clarifies that ‘once the goods are entered for home consumption under section 46, the rate of duty is supposed to be the rate of duty in force on the date on which the Bill of Entry in respect of such goods is presented’.

Hence, in the scheme of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the 2018 Regulations, the time at which the notification under Section 8A is published would indeed have relevance.

11.  Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh

Citation: MANU/SC/0908/2020

A very unique and Avant Garde judgment mandated installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations as well as other investigating agencies like NIA, CBI, NCB, etc. The hon’ble court ordered that in any circumstance that reflect human rights violations, the victim has a right to obtain a copy of CCTV footage of the interrogation and can approach the National/State Human Rights Commission for the same. The installation of CCTV has been mandated in any office that has the power to arrest and interrogate an individual.