Top 10 Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court in 2020 – All that you must know

221

“Indian Judicial system has always set its benchmarks high in all situations. When the entire world was caught amidst this pandemic situation, the judicial system had been on its foot to render justice to the citizens of the country. Embracing the technology, courts have begun to solve the cases virtually and have delivered various landmark judgements in the year 2020.” 

Various landmark judgements that are worth reading are given below:

  1. Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India – Right to Access the Internet is equivalent to a fundamental right.

4 main propositions were laid down in this case:

  • The Internet as a mode of communication serves as an important medium through which citizens can actualize fundamental rights concerning the Right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).
  • There is a need to strike a balance between liberty grants and security concerns by the state to secure the Right to Life under Article 21.
  • If any restrictions are imposed on rights conferred under Article 19(1), it should be done under the reasonable exceptions laid down under Article 19(2)Article 19(6)
  • It should be based on the test of proportionality and should not exceed beyond a reasonable doubt.
  1. Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI and Others – Interest of Public Justice always prevails 
  • Documents governed under the Official Secrets Act can be used as evidence in the Court to support the arguments.
  • Such evidence is allowed only in cases in the interest of public justice.
  • Any unauthorized publication of these documents does not vitiate the evidentiary value attached to these documents.
  1. Sushila Agarwal vs. the State of NCT, Delhi – Anticipatory bail cannot be limited for a period.
  • No time limit can be set for the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • The protection granted should not invariably be limited.
  • An order of anticipatory bail does not restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate the charges against the person who seeks or granted pre-­arrest bail.
  • But, if there are circumstances in which the Court has to reduce or limit the period, it can do so- based on special facts and circumstances only.

4.Vidya Drolia And Others(S) Versus Durga Trading Corporation (2019 Scc Online Sc 358) – Tenancy Issues can be resolved by Arbitration

  • All tenancy matters can be solved by arbitration mode of dispute resolution”.  However, certain matters relating to the tenancy will still be outside the arbitration scope. Parties will have to knock on the doors of tribunals or concerned courts to resolve the disputes. 
  • In the cases where no designated courts are appointed to deal with rent and tenancy matters, arbitration shall be allowed. 
  • If we give any particular court exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the rent matters, the tenancy case shall be considered non-arbitral.

5.Mukesh Kumar and Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors – Governments Jobs for Reservations is not mandatory

  • Grant of reservations in public jobs is within the State Government’s sole discretion to decide, and there is no mandatory obligation on the government to provide reservations.
  • There is no fundamental right to claim reservation in public jobs under the law.

6. Christian Medical Vellore Association v. Union of India – Private Institutions cannot conduct separate medical entrance test.

The Court laid down that to get admission in the medical field in the country, National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) shall be the uniform entrance test and that no institution could hold its separate exam.

7.Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma– Daughter’s Right over Property is indisputable in all cases.

  • The presence of the father, alive or not on the date before 2005, will not affect the daughter’s rights in a succession of the property.
  • A married daughter’s eligibility rights must be placed on the same footing as that of an unmarried daughter to claim the benefits; otherwise, it would be unfair, gender-biased, and unreasonable.

8. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlalland acquisitions proceedings cannot lapse due to the state’s inability to deposit dues.

  • Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse merely due to a failure to pay compensation to landowners.
  • If the state also fails to take possession of the land, then in such situations, the chances of the possibility of lapse are higher.
  • The term “Payment” does not mandate the State to deposit money in a landowner’s account. The mere issue of notice of compensation is sufficient to conclude the acquisition.

9.Pandurang Ganpati v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank LtdThe Sarfaesi act will govern co-operative banks in the same way as commercial banks

  • All the banks enlisted under the State legislation and Multi-­State level Co-operative Societies enrolled under the MSCS Act, 2002 falling under the term ‘banking’ will be governed by the SARFAESI ACT.
  • All the aspects dealing with “commencement, incorporations, daily affairs of the business, winding up and registration regulations of the co-operative banks owned or managed by the co-operative societies registered under the State legislation will be governed by the Act.
  • The co-­operative banks as per State legislation and Multi­-State co-­operative banks will fall under the purview of ‘banks’ as per Section 2 (1) (c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
  1. Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine SC 990
  • The Court held that the “sale of lotteries” will fall under the definition of goods and will be covered by the provisions of the GST Act, 2017.
  • The Notification bringing the “lotteries” under the Act is completely valid and cannot be questioned.
  • The Act does not confine the meaning of “goods” under Article 366 (12) of India’s Constitution, and no restrictive meaning is given to the same.