Important judgments of 2018

Important judgments of 2018,

Shyam Chouksey v. Union of India

If You are in a Movie hall and national anthem starts playing at this point, you are faced with 2 questions
  1. Should the national anthem be played in cinema halls?
  2. Do you need to stand up for national anthem in the cinema hall ?
These two questions were discussed in Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India which is also known as the National Anthem Case. First we have Article 51 A which says that every citizen is duty bound to respect national symbols, national emblems, and national anthem, all of these. But while hearing this case, SC said that cinema halls are not suitable places to test anyone’s patriotism. People go to cinema halls for unobstructed entertainment so you cannot check patriotism there. After this case, playing of national anthem in cinema halls went from mandatory to discretionary. Though even now, whenever the national anthem is played in a cinema hall, it is your duty to respect it

Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M and others case 2018 (Hadiya’s marriage case)

Two issues were raised in this case 
  1. related to religion/faith conversion
  2. related to inter religious marriages
Supreme Court, while answering these two issues very simply, said that when two consenting adults choose each other as life partners with mutual consent, this right to choice is protected under Art. 19 & 21. After this decision of the Supreme Court, two manifestations of right to choice
  1. Right to choose faith meaning religion conversion,
  2. Right to choose life partners, both of these rights have been extended the protection of Article 19 
In similar lines and similar reasons is based our next case In Shakti Vahini vs Union of India 2018 in this case SC said that right to choose a life partner is a right that is recognized by the constitution, and for that, you don’t need permission of your family, community or clan

Common Cause v. union of India

Before we this explain this Judgment, lets brief about Article 21
Article 21 of Indian Constitution gives Right to life and personal liberty which also has an important component that is right to live with dignity. In case of Common Cause v. union of India, the SC held that right to live with dignity, within itself incorporates - smoothening of the dying process This case is also known as Euthanasia case because in this case right to die for the terminally ill patients or the patients in persistent vegetative state, was recognised the supreme court set detailed guidelines and directives. If you wish to separate 2 persons, you need some solid reason, This is what the SC said in the case of Navtej Singh Johar. That to criminalise sexual acts between two consenting adults, just because they are homosexual is violative of Article 14

Under Article 19, every citizen has right to express their personal identity, meaning that right to express sexual orientation is also granted. In addition, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The word “sex” includes alongside biological sex, sexual orientation as well. This approach reflects improved understanding of our country. After this case, the consensual homosexual acts that were criminalized under section 377 of Indian panel code have been decriminalized.

Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay & Saumitra Vishnu vs Union of Indain

In this case, we will talk about adultery; There are already two famous judgments of SC in respect to adultery. In both of these cases, the Section 497, which is a law related with adultery, had been held valid for the reason of protecting the sanctity of marriage. But in Joseph Shine vs Union of India , SC held that the primary purpose of Section 497 is to protect men’s property So, in this case, while declaring Section 497 as invalid, SC says that any law or provision that attacks of individual dignity or equality, is unconstitutional. Rejecting Old norms of the society and SC’c previous decisions, SC in this case held that Husband is not the master of wife. After this case, adultery is only a ground for divorce and not a criminal offence. Yes, but if for the reason of adultery, the other spouse commits suicide, the adulterous spouse can be prosecuted under section 306 for Abetment to suicide.

Sabrimla Verdict.

In this case the rules that were there to manage or administer the Sabrimla temple, Specifically Rule 3(b) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act; this rule banned the entry of women in the age group from 10-50 years in the temple. Supreme court in this case, while ending gender discrimination said that any such law which excludes or discriminates a woman shall be unconstitutional. SC in this judgment said that Women of all ages can enter the Sabrimala temple.

Comments