The Supreme Court was in the centre of an intense debate and discussion throughout the year not for its judgments alone but also for the developments that happened outside the court.
While its lack of activism came for criticism from several quarters in the recently held ruling on gay sex under IPC Section 377, it took a bold position against criminal elements in politics, sought an end to the colonial legacy of red beacons and sirens attached to cars of so-called VIPs even as it stood up to the might of corporate world, particularly the Ambanis and the Sahara group, showing that law applied equally to the haves and have not’s.
The year marked many firsts in the history of the apex court, one being the landmark decision to form an Internal Committee to deal with complaints of sexual harassment against judges, lawyers and staff of Supreme Court. Paving way for all courts to set up such Committee, the Supreme Court implemented the law it introduced in 1997 by forming a 10-member panel headed by a lady judge.
The year saw a change of guard with Justice P Sathasivam taking over the reins from Justice Altamas Kabir, who left a trail of controversial decisions, notable being the order cancelling a common test for admission into medical and dental courses across all colleges in the country, that came to be referred as NEET judgment.
For the first time, a former CJI defended his decision in a TV interview and accused the lone judge who dissented to be lying on facts. This triggered an unsavory trend where judges poured rancour on fellow judges and even defended their decisions openly in front of camera. This was the result that soon after the apex court made gay sex punishable again under IPC Section 377, the High Court judge Justice AP Shah came on a TV interview to express solidarity with the gay community and donned the mantle for the gay activists to oppose the SC decision.
This year also witnessed several review petitions being entertained in open court as opposed to the usual practice of judges deciding it in chambers. Two reviews are due for hearing in the new year, which pertain to gay sex ruling and NEET. In addition, the Court conducted open court hearing against its ruling giving Mayawati a clean chit in DA case and the decision striking down protection to convicted netas to remain in office.
The pro-activeness of the superior court was felt with its diktat making FIR compulsory on a complaint disclosing serious offence. This became a handle for aam aadmi to require police not to delay registration in cognizable offences as Court directed erring police officers to be punished for non-filing of such complaint. It added teeth to deal with acid attacks by making it non-bailable.
Another landmark was created when Court empowered the bureaucracy of the country to stand up against the whims and fancies of their political masters. It framed guidelines for Centre and State that made it mandatory for every instruction from the Minister or superior to be in writing and not oral. Besides, a fixed tenure for bureaucrats and a Civil Services Board headed by Chief Secretary in State and Cabinet Secretary at Centre to deal with transfer, posting of officers, allowed the country’s civil servants to no longer remain under the politicians’ thumb.
Another facet of Court’s activism was witnessed from its desperate attempts to free the “caged parrot” CBI, persuading the Centre to allow many concessions in order to make CBI functionally autonomous. But the CBI suffered a huge embarrassment from Gauhati High Court which struck down the order setting up CBI as unconstitutional. The apex court has currently stayed the decision and the final word is pending consideration with apex court.
Three other issues are expected to dominate headlines in the New Year - treating juveniles accused of serious crimes to be tried in ordinary court, validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act that gives arbitrary powers to arrest and jail any citizen who innocently tweets or posts a message on social networks, blogs or websites, and finally the legal basis for Aadhaar card scheme, that permits Government to collect personal information of citizens without any law being in place which amounts to infringement of the most valued Constitutional freedom of privacy.