Supreme Court : Important Judgments of 2023 : Part 1

Supreme Court : Important Judgments of 2023 : Part 1

It was not the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution to compromise on administrative inefficiency by culling the spirit of competition-after all, positions gained by promotions taper higher up. - RBI v. A.K. Nair [2023] GCtR 2353 (SC)

Right to enter into a union is also grounded in Article 19(1)(e) of Constitution of India. - Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India [2023] GCtR 1685 (SC) [page 167]

The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. - Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India [2023] GCtR 2356 (SC)

Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights, additional restrictions, over and above those prescribed in Article 19(2) of Constitution of India cannot be imposed upon the exercise of one’s fundamental rights. - Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP [2023] GCtR 13 (SC)

Under sub­clause (e) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.  However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19.  Therefore, the argument that non­Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area has to be rejected. - Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India [2023] GCtR 2354 (SC) [page 19] 

The reasons for denying a security clearance to a news channel, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to certain entity, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. - Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India [2023] GCtR 732 (SC) [page 131] 

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India has no applicability either to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1942. - CBI v. R.R. Kishore [2023] GCtR 1528 (SC)

What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act. His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency. The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. - Mukesh Singh v. State of NCTD [2023] GCtR 1423 (SC)

The second aspect of delay also assumes importance. It has been time and again observed that a “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial” - Sathyan v. State of Kerala [2023] GCtR 1374 (SC) 

Right to die with dignity was discussed and Court also was concerned with the question as to whether even in the absence of Advance Directives, when a person is faced with a medical condition with no hope of recovery and is continued on life support system/medicines, life support system should be withdrawn. - Common Case v. Union of India [2023] GCtR 2357 (SC)

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.