Outside the courtrooms, allegations of judicial activism, and run-ins of the judiciary with the legislature and executive, can be expected to continue.
Written by ANANTHAKRISHNAN G | Updated: December 27, 2017 12:33 am
2018 promises to be another action-packed year for the Supreme Court — cases with major political and social ramifications are listed for hearing, apart from an expected flood of public interest litigation (PIL). Attempts to rein in alleged judicial corruption, and to bring about greater transparency in appointments to the higher judiciary through implementation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), and allowing audio and video recording of proceedings, will be closely watched. Outside the courtrooms, allegations of judicial activism, and run-ins of the judiciary with the legislature and executive, can be expected to continue.
Ayodhya
On February 8, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra will commence hearing on appeals against the September 30, 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site, giving a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, UP, and Ramlalla Virajman, the infant Lord Ram who sits where he was placed under a tarpaulin canopy by the kar sevaks who demolished the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.
On May 9, 2011, the apex court had stayed the operation of the order during the pendency of the appeals, and ordered status quo at the disputed site and adjoining 67.7 acres of land acquired by the Centre in 1993. The proceedings will likely provoke political posturing, and could impact the campaign for the state elections in 2018, as well as the Lok Sabha election of 2019.
A batch of petitions is pending in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and the government’s decision to link bank accounts, mobile phone numbers and other services to Aadhaar, and to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various welfare schemes of the state. The petitioners have argued that Aadhaar infringes upon citizens’ fundamental right to privacy. They have alleged that making it mandatory, even though the Act says it will be voluntary, opens the door to unauthorised surveillance.
According to the petitioners, Aadhaar’s use of biometric details like fingerprints and iris scans violates bodily and informational privacy, and carries with it the possibility of the collected data being misused. The government has, however, contended that Aadhaar is needed to plug leaks in state subsidy programmes, and to check corruption and black money. The first petition challenging Aadhaar was filed in 2012, long before the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was notified. The petition was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2015, and a five-judge Constitution Bench was set up this year. The final hearing on the petitions will begin on January 17, 2018.
Living Will
The Supreme Court will deliver its verdict next year on whether a person can be allowed to execute a Living Will, and on the question of legalising passive euthanasia. Also known as an advance directive, a Living Will is an instrument that tells a physician in advance what end-of-life medical care the executors of the Will have chosen for themselves. It helps the individual control and influence decision making on his/her healthcare in situations in which he/she cannot make or communicate such decisions. The petitioner NGO Common Cause has pleaded that the right to execute a Living Will is associated with the right to privacy and right to life and personal liberty, and argued that it is legal in many countries. It has contended that allowing such a Will with necessary safeguards would enable people to opt for death without prolonging their suffering. The Centre has said that it is already vetting a draft law to allow passive euthanasia, but that it is opposed to allowing Living Wills because of the scope for their misuse.