In 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered numerous judgments that had a significant impact on Indian judiciary and politics. From the verdict on demonetization to the abrogation of Article 370, the year was filled with landmark decisions that will go down in history. Let's take a closer look at some of the most important case laws of 2023.

General Insights

In 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a total of 1067 judgments, slightly less than the previous year. However, the year was marked by impactful and landmark decisions. The Court issued 11 Constitution Bench verdicts and 5 Larger Bench verdicts, highlighting its dedication to resolving complex legal issues.

The strength of the Supreme Court also underwent changes in 2023. The Court achieved a total strength of 34 Judges with the appointment of 14 new Judges. Notably, the Court now has 33 sitting Judges, with Justices Hima Kohli, B.V. Nagarathna, and Bela M. Trivedi being the only three sitting women Judges.

New Initiatives

The Supreme Court introduced several new initiatives in 2023 to enhance transparency and efficiency in the justice delivery system. Some of these initiatives include:

Top Supreme Court Judgments of 2023

The Supreme Court delivered several groundbreaking judgments in 2023, addressing a wide range of legal issues. Let's explore the top 50 judgments that left an indelible mark on the Indian legal landscape.

Demonetization Verdict: Upholding the Center's Scheme

The year 2023 commenced with a significant judgment on demonetization. In the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench, consisting of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, upheld the legality of the Center's 2016 demonetization scheme. The majority opinion, written by Justice Gavai, held that demonetization was proportionate to the Union's objectives and implemented reasonably. However, Justice Nagarathna dissented, stating that while demonetization had good intentions, its implementation was improper and unlawful.

Ministers and Their Freedom of Speech

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, examined the issue of freedom of speech of public functionaries and its intersection with the right to life and personal liberty. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, B.R. Gavai, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, ruled against imposing further restrictions on the freedom of speech of ministers. The Court emphasized the importance of striking a balance between freedom of speech and the dignity and reputation of individuals.

Euthanasia: Simplifying the Process of Withholding Life Support

In a significant judgment modifying the guidelines for living wills and advance medical directives, the Supreme Court simplified the process of withholding life support for terminally ill patients. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar, allowed a two-tiered process for authorizing passive euthanasia. This judgment provided clarity on the procedure and safeguards for withholding life support in cases of terminally ill patients.

Appointment of Election Commissioners: A Three-Member Committee

The Supreme Court resolved the long-standing dispute over the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India. In the case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar held that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President on the advice of a three-member committee. The committee includes the Prime Minister of India, the leader of the opposition (or the leader of the largest party in the opposition), and the Chief Justice of India.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Dismissing the Plea for Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, dismissed the curative petition seeking enhanced compensation for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, upheld the previous settlement reached between the Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation. The tragedy, one of the world's largest industrial disasters, claimed thousands of lives and left a lasting impact on the victims and their families.

Grant of Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, held that the court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, emphasized that the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage when it is irretrievably broken. This judgment provided clarity on the court's authority to grant divorce based on the breakdown of a marriage.

The Mega Political Crisis in Maharashtra

The Supreme Court played a pivotal role in resolving the political crisis that unfolded in Maharashtra. In the case of Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra, a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha upheld the Governor's decision to invite Eknath Shinde to form the government in the state. The Court refused to quash Uddhav Thackeray's resignation, as it was voluntarily submitted before the floor test. This judgment brought stability to the state government and reaffirmed the constitutional principles regarding the formation of governments.

Abrogation of Article 370: Upholding the Union's Action

One of the most significant judgments of 2023 was the verdict on the abrogation of Article 370. The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, unanimously upheld the Union's action in abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution. The Court directed the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir at the earliest. This judgment clarified the constitutional validity of the Union's actions and set the stage for the restoration of normalcy in the region.

Credible Evidence in Arbitration Awards

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of credible evidence to substantiate a claim of loss of profitability in arbitration awards. In the case of Unibros v. All India Radio, the Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta set aside an arbitral award that conflicted with the public policy of India. The Court held that an increase in the tribunal's fee does not render the appointment void and ineligible, but it must be based on credible evidence and not be arbitrary.

Same-Sex Marriage: Leaving the Decision to Parliament

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of same-sex marriage and its recognition by the law. In a case involving multiple opinions, the Constitution Bench, including Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. The Court emphasized that any legal recognition of same-sex unions should be enacted by Parliament, as it falls within the legislative domain. This judgment highlighted the need for legislative action to ensure equality in marriage rights.

Delhi LG vs. Delhi Government: Clarifying the Governance Structure

The Supreme Court provided clarity on the governance structure of Delhi in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India. The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, held that the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) is not similar to other Union Territories. The Court clarified that the Legislative Assembly of NCTD has competence over entries in List II and List III, except for the expressly excluded entries. This judgment emphasized the unique status of Delhi and its governance structure.

Animal Cruelty vs. Jalikattu: Allowing Animal Sports in Certain States

The Supreme Court, in a judgment concerning animal cruelty, allowed the conduct of animal sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and bull-cart racing in certain states. The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar, upheld the constitutional validity of state amendments made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This judgment recognized the cultural significance of these sports while ensuring the welfare of the animals involved.

Dowry Death: Clarifying the Requirement of Proof

The Supreme Court clarified the requirement of proof in dowry death cases in the case of Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal held that the mere unnatural death of a woman in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the accused for dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that cruelty or harassment must be proved to have occurred "soon before her death" to secure a conviction.

Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

In an appeal by Unibros against an arbitral award, the Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of unstamped arbitration agreements. The Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta held that while the unstamped agreement is inadmissible under the Stamp Act, it cannot be rendered void ab initio. Therefore, arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements remain enforceable. This judgment clarified the legal position on arbitration agreements that lack proper stamping.

Application of the Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration

The Supreme Court, in a reference case, determined the validity of the "Group of Companies" doctrine in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, upheld the application of the doctrine in the Indian arbitration regime. This doctrine allows an arbitration agreement signed by one entity within a group to bind non-signatory entities within the same group. The judgment provided clarity on the applicability of this doctrine in Indian arbitration.

Unilateral Revision of Fee in Ongoing Arbitration Proceedings

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the unilateral revision of an arbitral tribunal's fee in an ongoing arbitration proceeding. In the case of Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons (JV), the Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that an increase in the tribunal's fee does not automatically render the appointment void. The Court emphasized that the increase in fee does not reach the level of terminating or voiding the tribunal's appointment.

Court's Inability to Modify Arbitral Awards

In an appeal against a High Court decision modifying an arbitral award, the Supreme Court clarified that the Court cannot modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta set aside the High Court's decision, reiterating the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards. This judgment emphasized the finality and binding nature of arbitral awards.

Barred Claim: Seeking Appointment of Arbitrator Beyond Three Years

The Supreme Court, in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, addressed the issue of seeking the appointment of an arbitrator beyond three years. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala rejected the petition, holding that the claim was barred as the petitioner had slept over its right for more than five years. This judgment clarified the limitation period for seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

Constitutional Validity of Provisions of Personal Guarantors in IBC

The Supreme Court, in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, addressed the issue of personal guarantors. The three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra held that the provisions are not unconstitutional and do not violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment upheld the validity of the provisions related to personal guarantors in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Streamlining the Adoption Process Under the Juvenile Justice Act

The Supreme Court, in an ongoing matter regarding adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act, issued several directions to streamline and expedite the adoption process. The Bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra issued guidelines relating to diagnostic facilities, antiretroviral therapy, opportunistic infection management, and welfare schemes for people affected by HIV/AIDS. These directions aimed to ensure a smooth and expeditious process of adoption.

Constitutional Validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act

The Supreme Court addressed the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, which deals with the removal and resignation of auditors. The Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and MM Sundresh held that the provision is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court further clarified that subsequent resignation of an auditor does not terminate the proceedings under Section 140(5) of the Act. This judgment provided clarity on the application of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act.

Applicability of the Arbitration Amendment Act 2015

The Supreme Court, in a case involving the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, clarified the law regarding notices invoking arbitration. The Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and CT Ravikumar held that if a notice invoking arbitration is issued before the Amendment Act, 2015, and an application for the appointment of an arbitrator is made after the Amendment Act, 2015, the provisions of the pre-Amendment Act shall apply. This judgment provided clarity on the retrospective application of the Amendment Act, 2015.

Validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, which deals with the designation of senior advocates. The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CT Ravikumar, and Sudhanshu Dhulia dismissed the petition challenging the designation of senior advocates under Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act. The Court upheld the validity of the Act and the senior advocate designation. This judgment affirmed the legal framework for the recognition of senior advocates.

ED Probe Against TN Minister in Cash-for-Job Scam

The Supreme Court, in a batch of appeals by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), addressed the issue of an investigation into a cash-for-job scam involving a Tamil Nadu Minister. The Division Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian allowed the appeals, setting aside the directions for de novo investigation. This judgment clarified the scope of the ED's investigation and the appropriate legal remedies in such cases.

Directions for PoSH Act Implementation

The Supreme Court, in a bid to ensure effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, issued extensive directions. The Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli emphasized the importance of enforcing the law and the need for a proactive approach by all state and non-state actors. These directions aimed to provide dignity and respect to women in the workplace and promote a safe environment.

Stamp Duty Calculation: Market Value vs. Consideration

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of stamp duty calculation in the case of the Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal. The Court opined that stamp duty on a conveyance should be payable as per the market value prevailing on the date of conveyance, according to Article 23 of Schedule IB of the Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The judgment clarified that stamp duty is payable based on the market value and not on the consideration mentioned in the document.

Reliability of Dying Declarations

The Supreme Court, in an appeal against a conviction for murder, addressed the evidentiary value of dying declarations. The Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra acquitted the appellant, expressing grave doubt about the voluntary nature of the dying declaration recorded by an executive magistrate. This judgment emphasized the need for trustworthy and reliable dying declarations to secure a conviction.

Unconstitutionality of Section 6A of DSPE Act

The Supreme Court, in a case concerning the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, held that its previous decision declaring the provision unconstitutional would have retrospective effect. The Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, clarified that the provision would be ineffective from the date of its insertion. This judgment reaffirmed the Court's power to declare legislative provisions unconstitutional.

Evidentiary Value of Disclosure Statements

In a case involving multiple convicts, the Supreme Court clarified the evidentiary value of disclosure statements made by accused persons. The Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta set aside the impugned conviction orders, holding that while recoveries made by investigating officers upon disclosure statements may be admissible, they must be credible and supported by other evidence on record. This judgment emphasized the need for reliable evidence to secure convictions.

Solemnization of Self-Respect and Secular Marriages

The Supreme Court, in a case challenging the requirement of public declaration for the solemnization of marriages, held that such a condition is unconstitutional. The Division Bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that imposing a public declaration requirement absent in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would be violative of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment overruled a previous decision and emphasized the importance of personal autonomy in marriage.

Purpose of Inclusion of Section 10-A of MMDR Act

The Supreme Court, in a case concerning the validity of Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, discussed the purpose of its inclusion. The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Aravind Kumar opined that the amendment aimed to ensure the allocation of mineral resources through auctioning. The Court clarified that applications received before January 12, 2015, became ineligible, except in specific situations specified in Section 10-A(2) of the Act. This judgment shed light on the legislative intent behind the amendment.
 

Conclusion

The year 2023 witnessed a series of landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India. From upholding demonetization to deciding on the abrogation of Article 370, these judgments have shaped the legal landscape of the country. The Court's new initiatives and reforms have also contributed to enhancing transparency and efficiency in the justice delivery system. As we move forward, it is essential to stay updated with the latest developments in Indian law. For the most recent updates, visit LegalStix Law School.