National anthem to BCCI: SC verdicts that stirred the nation in 2016

Of the several judgments delivered, most were monumental, though some could be termed as surprising

It was a happening year for the Supreme Court as it produced several judgement in the course of the year. While most of them were monumental, a few could be termed as surprising.

Business Standard brings you the top five judgements by the apex court of the nation.

J&K's Constitution subordinated to Indian Constitution

In a landmark judgement on co-operative federalism and legislative relations between the State of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and the Union of India, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman, set aside the Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s judgement which had held that various key provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Sarfaesi) Act, 2002  were outside the legislative competence of Parliament, as they collided with Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act of Jammu & Kashmir, 1920. The bench also rejected the J&K High Court’s view that the J&K Constitution was equal to the Constitution of India.
 
In para 41 of the judgement, the Supreme Court makes a very crucial observation. It reads, "It is rather disturbing to note that various parts of the judgement (of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court) speak of the absolute sovereign power of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It is necessary to reiterate that Section 3 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, which was framed by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise, makes a ringing declaration that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”

In the judgement pronounced by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the Sarfaesi Act would not be applied as it was collision with many provisions of the transfer of property act.

But Supreme Court held that Sarfaesi Act will be applicable to J&K because the state's constitution is subordinate to Indian constitution.

The Supreme Court bench stated, “It is clear that the state of Jammu & Kashmir has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Constitution of India and its own Constitution, which is subordinate to the Constitution of India… they (residents of state) are governed first by the Constitution of India and also by the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir,”while referring to the preamble of the Constitution of J&K, 1957.

The bench remarked that "any provision of the J&K Transfer of Property Act will have to give way to the central law in case the former is found repugnant. “It is clear that anything that comes in the way of Sarfaesi by way of a Jammu & Kashmir law must necessarily give way to the said law.”

Rap on the knuckles to BCCI 

The Supreme Court gave BCCI a stern warning saying that it would make the cricket body "fall in line" if it did not abide by the court orders and said that the cash-rich organisation cannot behave like "Lords" and think they are a "law unto themselves".

The warning and admonition came after Justice R M Lodha committee said the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had "ignored" the apex court's directions and its President Anurag Singh Thakur had given several "very objectionable statements" undermining the court.

The Lodha panel, which sought apex court's direction to "supercede" the current BCCI office bearers with immediate effect and appoint a panel of administrators to ensure "smooth transition" from the old to the new system recommended by it, told the court that all decisions taken by BCCI which were contrary to the July 18 verdict be held "non est".

In a later development, the Supreme Court threatened to initiate contempt and perjury proceedings against Thakur for asking the International Cricket Council (ICC) CEO a letter, but denying it on oath. The court  warned he risked going to jail, if found guilty.

The court reminded the BCCI top brass that Thakur had asked for a letter from ICC CEO Dave Richardson for the appointment of a CAG nominee in the cricket body. This  would compromise with autonomy and amount to government interference.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur, Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, pulled up the BCCI for trying to mislead the court and warned Thakur that he may land in jail if the apex court pronounces its order in perjury proceedings.

National anthem in cinema halls

This decision came as a shocker to many. The Supreme Court directed all cinema halls in India to play the National Anthem before the start of the feature film and said all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the Anthem.

Prior to the National Anthem being played or sung, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance, as it will amount to disrespect. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened.

When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, the National Flag will be displayed on the screen.

People said that Supreme Court should not be involved in such trivial issues and get busy with real work.

The Cauvery tangle

This judgement can be regarded as crucial, as it involved two states from the south. The Cauvery water dispute has been dragging for long.  

Supreme Court asked Karnataka to release 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil Nadu.

It upheld the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the river waters.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said that all appeals filed by the southern states against the Tribunal's award are maintainable, though the Centre had asserted that the apex court had no jurisdiction to hear appeals against the award of the tribunal.

"We hold all the appeals maintainable. Interim order to continue. List the matter for further hearing on December 15," a bench also comprising justices Amitava Roy amd A M Khanwilkar.

The Sahara case

Sahara chief Subrata Roy Sahara, has been at loggerheads with Sebi for long.  

The Supreme Court asked Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy to deposit Rs 600 crore more by February 6 next year into the Sebi-Sahara refund account to remain out of jail and cautioned him that failure to do so would see him behind bars again.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and A K Sikri also said that it may consider appointing a "receiver" of properties if the group finds itself unable to sell them to pay back dues to the investors.

The bench initially asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Roy, to deposit Rs 1,000 crore with Sebi within two months, failing which it would appoint a receiver. Later, however, it reduced the amount to be deposited to Rs 600 crore.