TOP 10 Landmark Judgments Of 2018

TOP 10 Landmark Judgments Of 2018


  1. Decriminalization of Sec.377 and Sec.497 of IPC

(Adultery and homosexuality no longer a crime)

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case which was heard on September 2018, it was held by the Supreme Court that Sec.377 which punishment for the Buggery demonstrations carried out by an individual was made unlawful just to the degree of homosexuality and the sex with minors and non-consensual sex is as yet wrongdoing. The explanation behind allowing homosexuality was that Sec.377 has banned the consensual sex simultaneously, subsequently any consensual sex between gay people is therefore not a wrongdoing any longer as indicated by this judgment.


Joseph Shine v. Union of India

On 27th September 2018, a Five judge Supreme Court bench was held Sec.497 which punishes male individuals for committing Adultery to a pre-married wife of another to be unconstitutional, as it is a one-sided law which tends to have a partiality towards women. This judgment upturned three previous judgments and held that Adultery is no longer a crime but it can still be claimed as a ground for Divorce. Thus apart from being a ground for Divorce no man can be punished for the commission of adultery.


2. Reservation for the backward classes

Reconsidering M Nagraj Verdict

Yet another judgment where the Supreme Court turned out the intrigue to rethink the grant of Reservation for the Backward Classes, particularly the SC’s and the ST’s under Art.16(4A) and Art.16(4B). SC unmistakably held that the booking for government jobs won’t be turned down and furthermore that the State Government can utilize the above Articles to allow reservation in their particular states. Additionally, the income bar which is likewise called as the creamy layer was expanded for every competitive exams and employment. Thus, this year under Chief Justice Dipak Misra it was clearly held that reservations or promotions will not be declined for the SCs and STs.


  1. Bhima-Koregaon judgment

The decision takes us back to sixth June of current year where prominent individuals including Sudhir Dhawale were arrested as suspects for being a part of caste violence in Sanaswadi. Interference by the  Supreme Court regarding their arrest and also declined appointment SC after extending the House Arrest of these people finally on 28th September held that there will be no SIT for the purpose.


  1. Aadhar validity case

There was an extraordinary debate with regards to the legitimacy and obligatory connecting of Aadhar and concerns identifying with its security after a programmer released the Aadhar card of noticeable individuals. In this manner, this has built up a faltering over individuals about connecting them for Bank Account and submitting it as an obligatory evidence in instructive organizations.

The answers to all these questions came through a verdict by a Five Judge Bench, which was led by CJI Dipak Misra on 26th September 2018 where they made Aadhar constitutionally valid and asked the Government to have more security towards securing the data and suggested the center to bring out data protection law as soon as possible.

Most importantly, the Aadhar was not made mandatory for an opening bank account, getting a mobile connection and also for getting admission in schools and other educational institutions. But there was also a clear mention that linking of Aadhar is mandatory for filing income tax returns. Also, it was given in the verdict that private companies cannot ask for Aadhar details.


  1. Live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings

On 26th September 2018 SC passed an order, expanding straightforwardness in the court continuing by requesting the plan of live-gushing to all, for cases which are of sacred significance. This judgment gone by three Bench Judge passed a request asking for the Attorney General to make essential rules for this live-gushing who thus has made proposal to the middle to set up a TV channel close by the Rajya Sabha TV for spilling SC cases live for everybody’s view except with the confinement of cases identifying with individual issues.


  1. Sabarimala verdict

According to the customary practices of the Sabarimala temple, ladies within the age of 50 were not permitted to enter the sanctuary premises until the most recent Supreme Court Judgment this year on 28th September given by a Five judge Bench on the proportion of 4:1 enabling ladies of all ages to enter the temple premises supporting the ladies since the standard practices discriminatingly affected the ladies and therefore it was on the infringement of the central rights. Subsequently, the Supreme Court passed a Judgment allowing section to all ladies regardless of their age.


  1. Setting stone for Democracy:

In a judgment given by a 5 Judge Supreme Court Bench under the Heading of CJI Dipak Misra the court mandated all the politicians contesting for elections to furnish and provide full details of their past criminal records. And this law suggested that these criminal antecedents of the politicians contesting for elections to be published to the public at large. It was clarified that these criminal records would not debar them from contesting in an election unless there was a conviction/judgment given against them by any criminal court. Thus, unless they are convicted they cannot be barred from contesting the elections, but this judgment mandates the politicians to furnish the details of all pending criminal cases against them.


  1. Mohammad Salimullah & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (Verdict on Rohingya Crisis)

The SC declined the plea to stop the deportation of 7 Rohingya immigrants to Myanmar from Assam. The 3-judge bench lead by CJI Ranjan Gogoi declined the plea saying that the seven were found out to be illegal immigrants by the court earlier and that Myanmar is also ready to accept them as their nationals. “We are not inclined to intervene on the decision taken,” the Supreme Court said.

The plea filed by two Rohingya immigrants challenged the Union’s decision to deport over 40,000 refugees who came to India after escaping from Myanmar because of extensive discrimination and violence against the community. The fresh plea said that the decision to deport was in “grave violation” of India’s international duties and moreover, the situation in Myanmar was extremely threatening for the Rohingyas to deport and they are likely to be subjected to torture and even killed.


  1. Common Cause (A regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr. (Verdict on Passive Euthanasia)

SC of India has upheld that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution. The Bench also stated that passive euthanasia and a living will also be legally valid.

The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. “The right to life and liberty as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution is incoherent unless it encompasses within its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty”.

The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity also incorporates the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a chronically ill patient or a person in Persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.


  1. Triple Talaq

The Supreme Court on August 22, 2017 banned a disputable Islamic practice of instant divorce as ultra-vires, in a landmark judgment for gender justice that will stop Muslim men calling off a marriage on their will. The top court said Triple Talaq violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women as it irrevocably ends marriage without any chance of reconciliation.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *