© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the electoral bonds scheme for political funding introduced by the Narendra Modi government as unconstitutional. It was not the first policy decision of the Modi government to be challenged in court, with a majority of the rulings going the government’s way. A few cases are still pending in the apex court.
The Aadhaar scheme was introduced by the UPA government through a notification of the erstwhile Planning Commission. It was not backed by a legislation which led to a challenge before the Supreme Court.
In 2016, the Modi government introduced the project through a legislation in the Lok Sabha and was got it passed as a Money Bill — which was seen as a move to circumvent the Rajya Sabha, where the NDA did not have the numbers, as the Upper House has only limited powers when it comes to a Money Bill.
This was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2017 by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, who said the Centre’s decision to treat the Bill as a Money Bill was wrong.
In January 2018, a five-judge Bench began hearing the case and in September upheld the constitutional validity of the law, but struck down provisions that required linking of Aadhaar to mobile phones and children’s’ school admission.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed in the Lok Sabha, making it easier for immigrants belonging to minority religions from neighbouring countries, who had entered India on or before December 31, 2014, to get Indian citizenship — thus covering the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and essentially leaving out Muslims.
After the Act was notified in 2020, its constitutional validity was immediately challenged by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in the Supreme Court, claiming it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons (not only citizens) before the law and equal protection of law.
The CAA also led to widespread protests across the country. The Court is currently hearing 200 similar petitions in the case.
In August 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill was passed in Parliament. The Act abrogated Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Its constitutional validity was challenged in the Supreme Court in the same month. A three-judge Bench referred the case to a five-judge Bench. In 2023, the case was listed before a new five-judge Bench. In July 2023, the Bench started hearing the case and in December upheld the constitutional validity of the law.
The Centre and Delhi government’s tussle over control of ‘services’ in the National Capital Territory reached the Supreme Court after the Centre, in March 2021, enacted the Government of National Capital Territory (Amendment) Act, which diluted the Delhi government’s administrative powers and placed them with the Lieutenant Governor. The Act effectively overruled the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict, which had said the Chief Minister was the executive head of the NCT and not the L-G.
The Delhi government in August 2021 challenged the Act in the Supreme Court. In 2023, the Court held that the Delhi government has administrative control over ‘services’.
Soon after, in May 2023, the Centre promulgated an ordinance restricting the control of the Delhi government on ‘services’. This was challenged again in the apex court, which in July 2023 referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The NJAC Bill was introduced in Parliament in August 2014, soon after the Modi government’s first term had begun, and received the President’s assent on August 15, 2014. It aimed to replace the existing collegium system of appointment of judges with a panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, CJI and two eminent persons, to be selected by the panel. The Centre also argued that the NJAC would ensure transparency in the selection and transfer of judges.
However, the petitioners argued that the NJAC will lead to excessive role of the Executive in the Judiciary. The Supreme Court advocates-on-record moved the apex court against it, and the law was struck down in October 2015.
The three contentious farm laws, which were repealed by the Centre, following a year-long protest by farmers, also had to face legal challenges.
The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020, and The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020, were passed by Parliament in September 2020 and were challenged by several petitioners, alleging that they would adversely impact the farmers and create a private market. Allowing of trade outside of APMCs, the farmers asserted, would enable private and large companies to procure produce at incidental prices.
In January 2021, the apex court ordered an interim stay on their implementation.
In December 2023, the Centre moved the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill and passed it in Parliament amid a walkout by the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The Act, among other things, said that the three-member panel to elect the chief election commissioner and election commissioners would comprise the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Minister. Before this, while there was no law to govern the selection, the Chief Justice of India was part of the panel.
The Act was challenged in the Supreme Court by Congress leader Jaya Thakur. Recently, ahead of the panel’s meeting to select the new CEC, lawyer Prashant Bhushan moved the apex court seeking an interim stay on the law. However, the Supreme Court refused a stay and said the matter would be heard when Thakur’s plea comes up for hearing in April.
The NDA government passed the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021, in December last year, a month after it promulgated ordinances on the same. The law allows the government to extend the tenures of the ED and CBI chief by one year three times, as against the previous provision of extending it only once.
The Bill was challenged in the Supreme Court, with petitioner Jaya Thakur alleging that “piecemeal” tenure extensions would be detrimental to the overall independence of the investigative bodies as it permits a ‘carrot and stick’ policy. This would potentially violate the right to fair investigation and trial.
While the apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the law, it declared the extension given to ED chief S K Mishra as unconstitutional. However, it allowed him to continue, in “national interest”.
On November 8 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an address to the nation, made the shock announcement which made Rs 500, Rs 1,000 currency notes illegal.
The government said the move was necessary to tackle the problem of black money. It resulted in chaos among people, who lined up at banks to exchange the notes.
The move’s validity was challenged the very next day in the Supreme Court and was referred to a five-judge Bench
In December 2022, the apex court reserved its verdict and directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to make public records. In January 2023, the Bench, in a 4-1 ruling, upheld the validity of the Centre’s decision noting that the decision making process was not flawed.
Some other policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Central Vista Redevelopment Project have been challenged in the apex court at various times during the Modi government’s two tenures. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of all these decisions of the Centre.
