Vidhi Agarwal
Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land. It bifurcates and establishes the powers and functions of the three organs of the state – Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It also subdivides the powers between parliaments and state legislature. It prevents encroachment of powers as well as provides supplementation of the same.
It interprets itself and the minds of the constitution makers for the better delivery of justice and advancement of righteousness. Constitutional law regulated the administration of the State and lays down the relationship between the state and its citizen.
History has witnessed various landmark cases where constitutional law was in question and how justifiably it was interpreted. Some of them were- Keshvananda Bharti case, A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras, Golak Nath case and so on. However, this article focuses on the cases which were decided in the past five years.
The cases which will be discussed are as follows:
DR NOORJEHAN SAFIA NIAZ AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
This case was decided on 26th August 2016.While attempting to deal with a petition lodged pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution of India accusing gender inequality and unconstitutional inaccessibility to women in the Haji Ali Dargah sanctum sanctorum, the division bench constituting of V.M. Kanade and Revati Mohate Dere JJ decided that the ban was in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 25.
The petitioners claimed in the current petition that they are the authority holders of the organization of Muslim Mahila Andolan’, a Muslim women’s national secular autonomous mass movement with over 50,000 members in 15 states. According to the petitioners, when Petitioner No. 1 explored the Dargah to give prayers in June 2012, at the entrance of the sanctum sanctorum, she found a steel barricade set up, thus prohibiting women devotees from entering the sanctum sanctorum of Haji Ali Dargah.
In compliance with the aforementioned limitation placed on women devotees, the petitioners have contacted the officials of the respondent No. 2 Trust, seeking answers to the imposition of such a ban/rule.
It is reported that the President of the Haji Ali Dargah Trust revealed that the reasons for implementing such a ban/rule were: (i) women wearing wide-necked blouses bending on the Mazaar, thus exposing their breasts; (ii) for women’s protection and security; (iii) and that they were previously unaware of the Shariat regulations and had made a mistake and hence, they were restoring and correcting the same.
After analyzing the arguments put forward, the Court claimed that respondent No. 2 could not justify the permanent moratorium and bar women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah under the pretext of providing protection and securing the safety of women from sexual harassment.
Respondent No. 2 The Trust is still free to take action to discourage sexual abuse of women, not by barring them from accessing the sanctum sanctorum, but by taking appropriate steps and in making arrangements for their protection and security by providing, as has been done previously, segregated lines for men and women. The Court subsequently claimed that it is also the responsibility of the State to ascertain that women are safe and protected in such places.
The State is equally obliged to check that the constitutional rights secured in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution are preserved and that women are not deprived the privilege of entry to the Haji Ali Dargah sanctum sanctorum. The Court held that the defendant No. 2 Trust prevented women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of Haji Ali Dargah in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution and, therefore, reinstated status-quo ante- women shall not be prohibited from entering the sanctum sanctorum and shall be permitted to enter at the same level as men.
The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust is responsible for taking appropriate measures to secure the safety and protection of women at the place of worship in question.
SHAYARA BANO VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
In the aforementioned case, the petitioner Shayara Bano was given talaq by her husband pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ numerable times. Hence, contention was raised by the petitioner against three Islamic practice- triple talaq, polygamy, and nikah halala.
Triple Talaq was a practice carried out by the Hanafi School of Muslims where a man is enables to singularly enforce and manifestly affect moment and permanent separation by verbalizing the word ‘talaq’ numerous times in oral, composed or, more than ever, electronic structure without a moment’s delay.
Nikah halal was the tradition of expecting ladies to marry and separate another man with the intention of re-wedding her after triple talaq by her past spouse. Polygamy was the practice of Muslim men marrying more than one wife.
She further argued that a few constitutional rights were violated under the Indian Constitution, such as Articles 14 (collaboration under the vigilant eye of the law), 15(1) (disallowance of gender-based segregation), 21 (right to life) and 25 (opportunity of religion). The request also related to how these traditional techniques of Islamic men also obstruct the rights of Muslim women.
The 3:2 ratio court, in which the majority ruled that the practice of Triple Talaq is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women. It found that the practice of Triple Talaq is not central to religion.
Consequently, as the greater part suggested, it was held that triple talaq was not to be guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution because it was nothing but a fundamental element of religion.
This is considered to be a wicked practice on the part of the Hanafi school of Muslims. In addition, it was assuaged by the apex court that this form of Talaq is arbitrary and defies the fundamental rights as revered under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Upholding this, it was banned.
The case was decided on 22nd August 2017 by 5 judge bench – The then Chief Justice of India JS Khehar (a Sikh), and Justices Kurian Joseph (a Christian), RF Nariman (a Parsi), UU Lalit (a Hindu) and Abdul Nazeer (a Muslim) – all from distinct communities.
K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS UNION OF INDIA
Judge K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Justice Anr. Vs Union of India is a landmark case and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India released the judgment. The judgment given by the Bench in the case gave the Right to Privacy of People a fresh outlook. It has been held that, under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
The Hon’ble Court upheld the Aadhaar Act and laid down the discriminatory clause of the Act. The Court held that the right of people to privacy had to be protected as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty referred to in Article 21 and as part of the freedoms promised by Part III of the Constitution.
The Court expressly overruled the Supreme Court’s previous landmark judgments, Kharak Singh v. UP State and M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, in which it was established that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right of people under the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court, the Aadhaar Act was held to be legal. The Hon’ble Court claimed that the Government had taken appropriate security methods to ensure the data that the people were asked to disclose to Aadhaar secure.
The case was decided by a five-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra. In order to safeguard the data collected by the citizens, the Bench asked the Government to take steps to ensure more protection.
The Court also held that the data which Aadhaar had obtained should not be revealed to commercial banks, payment banks and e-wallet companies. E-wallet companies such as Paytm have asked their clients to use their Aadhaar Card to get their KYC completed. The Court ruled that this knowledge from Aadhaar should not be revealed to them.
Bench also claimed that when they purchase a new sim card, telecom companies cannot request Aadhaar information from their customers and even schools will not ask students to provide their Aadhaar number for being in board tests or for admissions.
The Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar’s legitimacy and made it obligatory to take advantage of the government’s perks and discounts. The Act guarantees that the government’s privileges and grants are received by the people for whom it is intended. Section 57 of the Act was held by the Court to be unconstitutional and was, thus, struck down.
The court held that the Aadhaar card is compulsory for the purpose of the government’s welfare programs, incentives, and subsidies as it empowers the vulnerable and ensures that the benefits and subsidies are earned by the segments of the population for which it was intended.
The Aadhaar Act, section 57, was held to be unconstitutional and struck down. The Supreme Court held that the advantages of any government program would not be refused to children if they did not have an Aadhaar card. The national security exemption under the Aadhaar Act was also struck down by the Supreme Court Bench.
The Court also clarified the distinction between an Aadhaar and an identity card. Aadhaar has a distinctive identity and can therefore not be reused like other identity cards. In addition, the Court also claimed that Aadhaar’s purpose is to provide identification and motivate society’s poor by ensuring that they are empowered to take advantage of the advantages and discounts given to them by the government. The Aadhaar was then made mandatory for the welfare schemes of the government to be used.
SITARAM YECHURY VS UNION OF INDIA
After Parliament revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, a state-wise suspension was levied on the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Since August 5, 2019, when the Centre passed an Act withdrawing the special status that was given to the State, a virtual lockout has been enforced and numerous political leaders and non-political individuals have been detained.
On 19 August 2019, Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India, filed a habeas corpus petition with the Supreme Court questioning the illegality and constitutional legitimacy of the detention levied on Mohammed Yousuf Tarigiami, the chief of his party.
Moreover, the Supreme Court allowed only the complainant to meet the detainee and the judgment passed was strongly criticized as the bench did not challenge the Central Government’s reasons for detention. In addition, the applicant was the only one who was allowed to meet with his chief and his chief was not permitted to carry out any other political operations.
He was also expected to provide the Supreme Court with a report on his return. The Supreme Court allowed the chief to meet the detained person in response to the habeas corpus petition lodged by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India. However, limits on his meetings were enforced and no basis was given for the validation of the detention imposed by the central government. The judges decided the case on 28th August 2019 and the bench comprised the then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
ANURADHA BHASIN VS UNION OF INDIA
A Bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai on 10 January 2020 directed the Union to examine all restraints levied in Jammu and Kashmir on communications.
In doing so, it observed that, pursuant to Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g),‘ the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or to carry on in any trade, business or occupation on the internet enjoys constitutional protection.’ The judgment specifies that the internet functions as an essential means in which the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and occupation are realized.
This problem starts on 05.08.2019, the date on which the President issued Constitutional Order 272, extending to the State of Jammu and Kashmir all the provisions of the Constitution of India, and amending Article 367, the interpretation of which applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that it would be unconstitutional to enforce undefined limits on internet services and that internet shutdown orders would comply with tests of necessity and proportionality.
The Court encapsulates that the right to the internet comprised freedom of speech and expression and was thus secured under the constitution. It may, nonetheless, be limited only where there is a danger to civilians and in the interests of national security.
The court held that this order, which places a full ban on the internet, should be disclosed to the public and open to judicial review as well.
CONCLUSION
It is evident from the cases that at every step the court has upheld the constitutional rights of citizens as well as protected it with utmost equity.
REFERENCE
https://www.scobserver.in/beyond-the-court/2020-so-far-5-key-judgments