By Ayushi Budholia
Published on: June 25, 2022 at 17:08 IST
THE CLOGGED STATE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY
In Indian judiciary faces the problem of the pendency of cases since a long time. A study by PRS Legislative Research says that there are 4.5 crore pending cases across all courts in India, with nearly 9 out of 10 pending cases stuck in subordinate courts.
There are various causes behind the pendency of cases. It includes, low strength of judge, absenteeism of judges, lack of infrastructure, etc. The result of such causes is that there are a number of cases, including some of the important cases pending before the Supreme Court of India.
IMPORTANT CASES PENDING BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Abrogation of Article 370 : Dr. Shah Faesal Vs Union of India
The case consists of the constitutional validity of the two orders issued by the president of India in exercise of his powers under Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The Article 370 was entered into the Constitution of India after the late Maharaja of Kashmir had entered into a treaty of accession with the Indian State. This Article provided special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It conferred on it the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag, and autonomy of internal administration.
After the state constituent assembly was convened, it recommended the provisions of the Indian constitution that should apply to the state, based on which 1954 Presidential Order was issued. Since the state constituent assembly dissolved itself without recommending the abrogation of Article 370, the article was deemed to have become a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution.
On 5th August 2019, two Constitutional Order were issued by the president by exercising his power under Article 370 of the Constitution of India. The result of those constitutional order was that they superseded the 1954 Presidential Order, thus made all provisions of the Constitution of India applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
On 6th August 2019, another constitutional order was passed by the President of India by exercising the powers Article 370(3) read with Clause (1) of Article 370. The Order made all clauses of Article 370 except clause 1 inoperative.
Further, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 was passed by the parliament, enacting the division of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories to be called Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh. The reorganisation took place on 31 October 2019.
Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Constitutional validity of the Presidential Order. A five-Judge bench was constituted for the same comprising of NV Ramana (now Chief Justice), SK Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ. The first petition was filed on 9th August 2019. Since then, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India.
The Last hearing happened on 2nd March 2020, where the Petitioners’ concern was to refer the matter to a larger bench of seven Judges. This was done in the light of the facts of the case Prem Nath Kaul v State of Jammu and Kashmir, where the court after considering the various issues, held that Article 370 was temporary in nature, however, the subsequent judgment of Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reversed the aforesaid position, recognizing Article 370 as a permanent provision giving perennial power to the President to regulate the relationship between the Union and the State.
The court observed that – “the Constitution Bench in the Prem Nath Kaul case did not discuss the continuation or cessation of the operation of Article 370 of the Constitution after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the State.”
“This was not an issue in question before the Court, unlike in the Sampat Prakash case where the contention was specifically made before, and refuted by, the Court. This Court sees no reason to read into the Prem Nath Kaul case an interpretation which results in it being in conflict with the subsequent judgments of this Court, particularly when an ordinary reading of the judgment does not result in such an interpretation.”.
- Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018 : Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs Union of India &Ors.
One of the mode through which political parties receive their finances is electoral Bonds. It was announced in 2017 by former Finance Minsiter Arun Jaitley in his Union Budget speech. Such bonds, which are sold in multiples of Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, and Rs 1 crore, can be bought from authorised branches of the State Bank of India.
The doner is required to pay the amount through cheque or digital mechanism receive the bond. He can then give this bond to the political party of his choice. The political parties can choose to encash such bonds within 15 days of receiving them and fund their electoral expenses. On the face of it, the process ensures that the name of the donor remains anonymous.
The scheme was introduced by way of five amendments made to different statutes through Finance Act 2017 and Finance Act 2016. Those amendments are –
- Section 31, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 through Part III, Section 135 of the Finance Act, 2017,
- Section 29C, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 through Part – IV, Section 137 of the Finance Act, 2017
- Section 13A, the Income Tax Act, 1961 through Chapter III, Section 11 of the Finance Act, 2017 and in
- Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 through Part-XII, Section 154, the Finance Act, 2017.
- Section 2 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA) through Finance Act, 2016.
A Public Interest Litigation was filed by two NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties.
The case is pending in the Supreme Court. It was last heard in March 2021, where the Supreme Court declined to stay the issuance of a fresh tranche of electoral bonds from April 1 to 10. In April 2022, the Supreme Court agrees to urgent listing of electoral bonds case.
- Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 : Indian Union Muslim League v Union of India
In 2019 the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India. the Act aims to grant Citizenship to illegal migrants belonging Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from the neighbouring countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. It applies to migrant entered in India on or before 31 December, 2014.
When the Act is viewed together with the proposed all-India National Register of Citizens (NRC), it has potential to to deprive many Muslims residing in India of full citizenship. While excluded non-Muslims will have the opportunity to regain citizenship via the CAA, this will not be the case for Muslims. So, the NRC in combination with the CAA may disproportionately exclude Muslim residents of India.
Petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality of the said Act.
- Gyanvapi Mosque case : Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Varanasi Vs Rakhi Singh & Ors.
The case is relating to land on which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated in Varanasi. The suit was filed in 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge Varanasi with Anjuman Intezamiya Masjid Varanasi as the respondents. It was contented that the Mosque was built after a Lord Vishweshwar’s temple was destroyed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
The case revived in 2021 when a Varanasi based lawyer, filed a petition in the lower court claiming illegality in the construction of the Gyanvapi Masjid and sought an archaeological survey of the mosque. The court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out the survey and submits its report.
The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee that runs the Gyanvapi Mosque opposed the decision of the lower court and approached the Allahabad High Court. The Court ordered an interim stay on the direction to the ASI for conducting the survey.
The high court in its order said that as per the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the law prohibits any change in the religious character of a place of worship from as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The dispute has now reached the Apex Court. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha will hear the petition on 17th May 2022 filed by Committee of Management Ajnuman Intezamia Masjid Varanasi.
- Counting Votes & Credibility of the Election Commission
After the announcement of 2019 general elections, discrepancy was found between the voter turn-out and the EVM votes counted on the Election Commission website. The Association of Democratic Reforms and the Common Cause filed petitions in the Supreme Court against such discrepancy.
The matter raised serious questions of integrity in the counting process, and the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission to explain this in December 2019. But there has been no hearing since. Counting votes fairly and transparently is critical to the credibility of the system of elections.
CONCLUSION
There are various reasons behind the long pendency of cases in India. It includes, low strength of judge, absenteeism of judges, lack of infrastructure, etc. As a result, there are various important cases which are pending before the Supreme Court of India. It includes the cases related to the Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018, Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, Gyanvapi Mosque, and the counting of votes case.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ayushi Budholia is a third-year, B.A.LL.B Student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.