File photo, taken on May 26, 2016, the Indian Supreme Court building is seen in New Delhi. (Sajjad Hussain/AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court (SC) of India has had an inordinately busy week as of late it has been on a spree of pronouncing judgments on key issues ranging from land to faith, defense deals, business and legal, and with a potential to bear upon future judgments.

Sharing the credit for this increase in productivity with the rest of the eminent apex court judges is the incumbent Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi, who is due to retire on the Nov. 17, and, Nov. 15 is to be his last working day, writes Priyanka Bhardwaj.

Ayodhya Verdict, November 8, 2019

November 8, 2019, was a historic day as the centuries old tussle between Hindus and Muslims over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case was brought to a conclusion by a SC ruling.

Though a whole lot is already out in the public domain, a quick recap of it is that while the decree came in favor of Ram Lalla plaintiff of the Hindus, who were given the entire 2.7 acre of disputed site in Ayodhya, for the establishment of a Ram Mandir, under the aegis of a trust to be instituted by the Government of India, the Muslims’ Sunni Waqf Board was awarded a 5 acre plot at an alternative site in the holy city, for a mosque, as “an act of restitution” for a wrong (‘destruction of the mosque in 1992  was  an egregious violation of the law,’  as stated in the ruling), thereby negating any attribution of  “charity emanating from a sense of majoritarianism,” thus laying the way for peace and reconciliation.

The unanimous decision, arrived at after a daily 40-day hearing, reduces worries of it being legally weak and was welcomed in equal measure by all sections of society, manifest in the calm that prevailed over the length and breadth of the country, considering the sensitive and contentious nature of the matter, competing interests and claims thereof.

The sudden announcement of the judgment was essentially to not allow time to anti-social elements to conspire and create havoc of any sort, aided with imposition of restrictions of Section 144, security arrangements and law enforcers directed to keep a vigil on social media activity.

In a break from the past, the major ruling concealed the identity of the author of the 1045 page judgment, in which the SC laid emphasis on “fact over faith,” upheld the  1991  Act that prevents conversion of religious  places of worship from the shape and form they were in at the time of Independence, its inability to correct historical wrongs and outright rejected the plea to correct the demolition of several  temples  by Mughal emperors.

Right to Information, November 13

November 13, a five member bench of the SC voted for public interest and transparency over judicial independence, but under the condition that it does not lead to destruction of judiciary, by ruling that the office of the CJI is a “public authority,” coming under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

This verdict flows from the January 10, 2010 judgment that was passed by the Delhi High Court, in response to the litigation case by Prashant Bhushan, lawyer for RTI activist S.C. Agrawal, bringing the office of CJI under the RTI, one which was in opposition to the views of the then CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan.

Aadhaar Judgment, November 13:

A 5-member constitution bench questioned the correctness of the Aadhaar judgment with respect to the question of passage of Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill (Finance Act, 2017 as a Money Bill), and have referred the matter to a larger 7-judge bench, after examining the Aadhaar Act and Article 110 of the constitution which defines “money bills.”

Rafale Case, November 14:

November 14, the top court closed a contempt case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Meenakshi Lekhi against the then Indian National Congress President Rahul Gandhi, for “wrongly attributing to the court his remarks, “Chowkidar Narendra Modi Chor Hai” (Security Guard Is The Thief), against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the run up to the General Elections of 2019.

The remarks were made when the court had dismissed center’s preliminary objections to admissibility of specific documents pertaining to supporting the review petitions against the December 14, 2018 verdict that had ruled that there was no reason to doubt the decision-making process behind the Rafale fighter jet deal or that the centre played commercial favoritism by venturing into an overpriced deal to help industrialist Anil Ambani’s company bag an offset contract with French firm Dassault Aviation case.

This deal had kicked up a political controversy with regard to the purchase of 36 multirole fighter aircraft for a price estimated at Euro 7.8 billion by the Defense Ministry of India from the French firm.

The court however warned Gandhi “to be more careful in the future” even as the latter urged his comments to be viewed in the light of “political heat” during electoral campaigning, primarily aimed at countering the “misinformation campaign” of BJP leaders who were alluding to the verdict as a clean chit for the NDA government, but without the “slightest intention to insinuate regarding the court’s proceedings.”

Though the verdicts stand to buttress the image of the BJP, it seems to be in no mood to let Gandhi off the hook this easily.

And while on one hand Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Gandhi’s advocate and senior Congress member, briefed media persons about Gandhi tendering an apology, the party spokesperson, Randeep Surjewala reacted to the bench led by Gogoi’s categorical rejection of the batch of review cases, by former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, along with activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, as an opening to a Joint Parliamentary Committee that could investigate into the decision-making process in the procurement process.

Sabarimala, November 14:

Just a couple of days before the yearly pilgrim to the Hindu Sabarimala Temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, situated at Sabarimala in Kerala, takes off, the five member bench of the apex court referred the review plea of its last year’s judgment to a larger bench of seven judges without staying its previous ruling.

This Hindu shrine traditionally, barred entry of women devotees of menstruating age, out of respect to the Akal Brahmachari (eternal celibate) nature of the deity, as was also upheld in the 1991 Kerala high-court judgment.

However, the SC, last year, overturned the ban on entry of all genders, including women in the menstruating age group, to the temple.

Interestingly, while the Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of Left Democratic government is aligned with those who advocate entry of women, Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev of Isha Foundation and the BJP, among a host of several religious gurus are batting for safeguarding religious sanctity and ritual.

An issue that has provoked violent protests, immolation bids and seven hartals (lockdown) since 2018, negotiation of peace with protestors till a verdict ushers in clarity will be an uneasy task for the state government.