“Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due”- proved by the Supreme Court of India through the Landmark verdicts last week

The Supreme court passed various historic verdicts comprising Goan personal laws enfolding rights of an heir in property to modified abortion laws for women. Out of various cases decided this week by Hon'ble the Supreme Court few can be said to be landmark judgments following are the top verdicts in brief:

1. 'Sikhism ingrained in India, can't compare with Islamic practices', The Supreme Court on Karnataka hijab row: The Supreme Court said that wearing a hijab within the street might not offend anyone, however, doing so during school might raise an issue on what reasonably public order the authorities would want to keep up. The top court also said it had been improper to create a comparison of the hijab with a turban because the Sikh religion has been ingrained in Indian culture and its validity has been upheld by the five-judge bench earlier.
2. All women, married or unmarried, have the right to safe and legal abortion- Supreme Court: In this breakthrough ruling, the bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice AS Bopanna recognized all women are entitled to safe abortion there will be no distinction between married or unmarried women. 
3. Rape includes “martial rape” for MPT act, wife conceiving out of forced sex can seek an abortion- Supreme court:  The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules must be interpreted to cover "marital rape," according to the Supreme Court panel chaired by Justice DY Chandrachud. According to the Court, wives who became pregnant as a result of their husbands forcing them into sexual activity will also fall under the definition of "survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest" as stated in Rule 3B(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. To provide context, Rule 3B(a) lists the types of women who may request pregnancy termination between 20 and 24 weeks.
4. Video of confession made before police inadmissible in evidence supreme court sets aside concurrent conviction in the murder case: The bench comprising of justice According to the Supreme Court, confessions given to police on camera cannot be used as evidence. The bench, which was made up of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, observed. A police statement made by Section 161 of the CrPC is not admissible as evidence.
5. By not conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution caused injustice to the family of the victim- Supreme court of India: the court observed that the prosecution had not even bothered to have the accused undergo a medical exam. This was deemed "fatal" to the prosecution's case because, according to the supreme court, medical evidence often serves as the deciding factor in cases involving circumstantial evidence. The court concluded the statements of the witnesses were “untrustworthy”. 
   • It was further added, “the court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim.” Thus, the analysis of the evidence must take place with utmost responsibility. The accused was realized immediately. 
6. Narayan Rane’s Aadish Bungalow: Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking to continue demolition order: The Supreme Court on Mon pink-slipped Union Minister Narayan Rane’s plea, seeking a continue the Mumbai judicature order to demolish the alleged unauthorized structures at his ‘Aadish house.’ The court additionally granted him a three-month time to bring it in compliance with applicable laws, failing that the highest court ordered to implement the High court’s judgment.
7. Reinstrainment of watchman terminated from services wrongfully: Supreme court ordered relief to a watchman wrongly framed and terminated from duty the case dates back to 2002. This petition was submitted by Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja, a watchman who was hired by the Kutch district panchayat in 1992. The supreme court also orders to give back wages from 1 January 2020 to 1 January 2022.
8. Supreme court held leave encashment part of the salary: The clause of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, which prohibited carrying over of privilege leave, was found to be arbitrary and unconscionable by the court and could not be implemented.
9. The apex Court observed employ termination ground for providing false information: The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala noted that the omission of important facts and the making of a false statement in the verification form relating to an employee's arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc., have a demonstrable impact on the employee's character, behavior, and background.
10. The right to property of the highest bidder is heritable and not a personal right- Supreme court:   The apex court here ratified the decision of the Bombay high court that had been challenged, and the court rejected the application for reauctioning case of the disputed property. The supreme court of India noted that under the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, an heir's right to take part in licitation and make a claim to a particular piece of property "at the appropriate stage - when owelty was to be demanded" was not just a personal right that would expire upon the heir's death. As per the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, the heir’s death offers a bid. The bench here is comprised of justice s. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia. 
11. The Pinnacle court deferred pleas against Demonetization to 12th October: The Supreme Court stated on Wednesday, September 28, 2022, that it will decide on October 12, 2022, if the Center's 2016 decision to conduct demonetization has become academic. A constitution bench chaired by Justice S. A. Nazeer questioned whether the matter still required review at the start of the hearing.
12. The suit is liable to be dismissed if a necessary party is not impleaded-supreme court: These appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd July 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The supreme court observed that suit is liable to be dismissed if a necessary party is not impleaded. According to the court, two conditions must be met in for a party to qualify as a required party: 
    1. the party must have a legal claim to relief concerning the issues at issue in the proceedings; and 
    2. no effective decree can be issued without the presence of the party.