TUTORIALS

JUDEX
RECENT
JUDGMENTS OF
SUPREME
COURT(2021-22)
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal (2022) (3 Judge Bench)
 Prostitution is not illegal in India
 Prostitutes are entitled to right to equal protection of law, right against harassment,
right to non disclosure of identity and right to bodily integrity under Article 21.

JUDEX TUTORIALS
Janhit Abhiyan v UOI (2022) (5 Judge Bench) (3:2)
Majority Judgment – Justice Pardiwala, Justice Trivedi and Justice Maheshwari
Dissenting Judgment – Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bhatt.
 103rd Constitutional amendment(EWS Reservation) was challenged for violation of
ceiling limit of 50% as laid down in Indira Sawhney Judgment.

 Majority held that 50% ceiling limit as laid down in Indira Sawhney Judgment does
not apply to EWS Reservation.

 Court also suggested that reservations cannot continue for indefinite period. Certain
time limit must be prescribed by the legislatures.
Aishat Sifha v State of Karnataka (2022)
 Division bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
gave split verdict.

 Justice Hemant upheld the hijab ban on the ground that it is not an essential religious

JUDEX TUTORIALS
practice under Article 25.

 Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia opposed the Ban.

State of Jharkhand v Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022)

 Performing two finger test on rape victim violates her bodily integrity under Article
21 and is an unreasonable act.
 There is no relation between rape of a victim and her being sexually active.

X v Principal Secretary,Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT Delhi

(2022)
 Both Married and Unmarried women have right over their bodies and have right to
safe abortion.
Jacob Puliyel v UOI (2022)
 No citizen can be forced to be vaccinated as Article 21 protects one’s bodily
integrity.
 Right to life under Article 21 includes right to refuse medical treatment.

JUDEX TUTORIALS
High Court of Delhi v Devina Sharma (2022)
 35 Years minimum age limit prescribed by High Courts not against Article 233 of the
Constitution.

 Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate

should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District Judge and this does
not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement.

Bhola Kumhar v State of Chattisgarha (2022)

 Detention beyond release date violates Article 21. Hence, the concerned person
must be adequately compensated.
Md. Latif Magrey v UT of Jammu and Kashmir (2022)
 The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not
only available to a living person but also to his body after his death.

JUDEX TUTORIALS
Trimurthi Fragrances v NCT Delhi (2022)
 Judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of
judges constituting the majority.

KC Cinema v The State of Jammu and Kashmir (2022)

 Cinema theatre can prohibit outside food articles as imposing such conditions
falls with the ambit of their right to freedom of trade and business under Article
19(1)(g).

 However hygienic drinking water must be provided for free.

State of Punjab v Anshika Goyal (2022)
 The Courts cannot issue writs of Mandamus to the State to provide reservation to
any class/ category.

 Article 15 (4) of the Indian Constitution provides State with the sole authority to
decide on the classification of reservation.

State of MP v RD Sharma (2022)

 The Hon’ble SC has held that ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is not a fundamental right
vested in any employee, but is certainly a constitutional goal which is to be achieved
by the Government.
Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana Vs State Of Haryana (2021)
 Identification and exclusion of Creamy Layer solely on the basis of economic
criteria is not permissible.
 As per the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney v UOI, identification and
exclusion of creamy layer should be based on the social, economic and other
relevant factors.
UOI v Rajendra N Shah (2021)
 The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 was partially struck down.

 The 97th Constitutional Amendment made changes to Article 19(1)(c) by the

addition of the word ‘co-operative societies’ under Article 19 (1)(c) and insertion of
Article 43B for ‘promotion of cooperative societies. A new part IX B dealing with
co-operative societies, by inserting Article s 243ZH to 243ZT, was added to the
Constitution.

 The court applied the doctrine of severability and held insertion of part IX B to
the Constitution is ultra vires as it falls short of the requisite ratification, that is
by half of the states as per Article 368(2)because the exclusive power to make laws,
with respect to co-operative societies lies with the State Legislatures under Article
246(3) read with Entry 32 of List II.

 However, the judgement did not impact the amendments made under Article 19(1)
(c) and 43B of the Indian Constitution.
Mohammad Salimullah v UOI (2021)
 The Supreme Court held that “Right, not to be deported, is ancillary to right to
reside or settle in any part of the territory, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(e) of the constitution only available to citizens.”

State of Kerala v Leesamma Joseph (2021)

 The Supreme Court held that Persons with Disabilities should have the right to
reservation in promotions.

 Court made the expansive reading Article 16 of the Constitution of India with the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and stated that reasonable
accommodations must be made for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodation would include reservations in promotions.
Kaniz Fatima & Ors. v Commissioner of Police (2021)
 Right to Protest and Dissent is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) but it not
an absolute.
 Right to Protest cannot be exercised at anytime and anywhere. There cannot be
continued occupation of public places affecting the rights of others.

Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v C.M. of Maharashtra (2021)

 The Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra’s Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes Act, 2018, which grants reservations to the Maratha community for
violating the 50% limit on reservations and the 102nd Amendment of the
Constitution.

 The Court reiterated that 50% ceiling limit on reservation set by the Supreme
Court in its Indra Sawhney judgment cannot be exceeded.

 The Court further laid down that after the enactment of 102 nd Constitutional
Amendment Act, State does not have the power to identify socially and
educationally backward classes. The authority to do so lies with the President.
UOI v KA Najeeb (2021)

 Gross delay in trial violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. A
fundamental right violation could be used as a ground for granting bail even if the
case is under stringent criminal legislation including anti-terror laws; prolonged
delay in a trial necessitates granting of bail.
 While giving this judgment SC referred the landmark decision in Shaheen Welfare
Association v Union of India (1996).

Ashok Kumar v State of Jammu and Kashmir (2021)

 Prescribing higher education as a qualification for promotion is not violative of

Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

The Chief Election Commissioner of India v Mr.Vijayabhaskar (2021)

 "Article 19(1)(a) covers freedom of press. Freedom of speech and expression covers
freedom to cover court proceedings too and therefore it extends to reporting the
proceedings that happen in courts including oral observations made by judges.
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v Commercial Steel Limited (2021)
 The Supreme Court held that when an alternate remedy is available, a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained by a High Court
only in following exceptional circumstances:
a) a breach of fundamental rights;
b) a violation of the principles of natural justice;
c) an excess of jurisdiction; or
d) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. V State of Bihar (2021)

 The Supreme held for want of authority or jurisdiction, the High Court can
exercise its writ jurisdiction even if alternate remedy existed.

High Court of Judicature for Rahasthan v State of Rajasthan and ors.(2021)

 The Supreme Court observed that though right to bail is not a fundamental right
but right to apply for bail is fundamental right implicit under Article 14, 20 and 21
of the Indian Constitution.