Top 10 Important Judgments for CLAT PG 2024

Ever found Supreme Court cases a bit like a tangled web? We are here to clear that web with 10 Judgments which are important for CLAT PG Exam. These rulings could be asked in the CLAT PG exam this year! So, let's break it down and make learning about judgments a breeze!

10 Judgments Important for CLAT PG 2024

These landmark cases are not only vital for your upcoming college exams but are also crucial for other competitive exams such as the Judiciary. So, let's get started!

1. Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Bench: Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Facts

In 2014, a couple sought divorce by mutual consent in the Supreme Court, citing the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court granted the divorce in 2015 using its constitutional powers under Article 142, recognizing the marriage as irreparable. This case led to the need for guidelines regarding the Supreme Court's authority under Article 142. After several referrals and considerations, a Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, issued a landmark judgment on May 1, 2023, defining the scope of the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142 and addressing related issues.

Issues

1. The Supreme Court's authority under Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution and its scope.

2. Whether the Supreme Court can shorten the 6-month statutory waiting period in Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and if it has the power to quash proceedings under CrPC, IPC, Domestic Violence Act, etc., and under what circumstances.

3. Whether the Supreme Court can grant divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage when one party opposes the divorce petition while exercising its power under Article 142(1).

Judgment

In this significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court has brought clarity and structure to cases involving mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act that come before it. Furthermore, the Court has delineated the extent of its authority as per Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution.

In relation to the scope and authority of the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, it possesses unrestricted jurisdiction to ensure complete justice in matters brought before it. The only limitation is that this authority should not contradict the principles of 'general and specific public policy.'

Next, the Court addressed the issue of waiving the mandatory 6-month waiting period specified in Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court affirmed its ability to waive this waiting period if the marriage is entirely broken and beyond repair.

The Court also tackled the question of its power to terminate other ongoing legal proceedings in various courts. It clarified that it has the authority to do so in the interest of justice and to alleviate the suffering of the parties involved.

Likewise, the Court made a similar decision concerning its ability to grant a divorce when one party opposes the divorce petition. It emphasized that if the marriage is irreparably broken, the Court can grant a divorce even in the face of opposition, exercising its authority under Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution.

2. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India 

Issue regarding Tenure Extension of CBI and ED Directors

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol.

Facts

In November 2021, the Indian President issued two ordinances allowing the extension of the tenures of the directors of the CBI and ED, despite Supreme Court limitations. These ordinances were passed without parliamentary approval and came into effect just before the incumbent ED director's retirement. Parliament later confirmed these provisions through acts.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that extensions could only be granted in rare and exceptional cases. Challengers argued that these ordinances contravened the Court's decision and jeopardized the independence of these agencies, violating principles of fair investigation and trial.

The case raised questions about the rule of law and the autonomy of these investigative bodies.

Issues

1. Are the Amendments in conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Common Cause v. Union of India case from 2021?

2. Do the Amendments pose a threat to the autonomy of the investigative agencies, such as the CBI and the ED?

3. Is it within the legislature's authority to pass a law extending Mr. Mishra's tenure, even when it directly contradicts a Supreme Court order that explicitly forbids any extensions for him?

4. Do the Amendments infringe upon the principles of a just trial and a fair investigation, as guaranteed by the Right to Equality and the Right to Life?

Judgment

On July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment regarding the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021. These amendments allowed for the extension of the tenures of the directors of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Court ruled that the amendments were legally sound and did not violate fundamental rights. It also noted that there were safeguards in place to protect the CBI and ED from undue influence by the executive branch of the government. This means that the laws themselves were considered valid and within the powers of the legislature to enact.

However, the Court found the tenure extensions granted to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, the ED director, to be illegal. Despite the amendments being upheld, the Court decided that Mr Mishra could serve in his role only until July 31, 2023, to allow time for the government to find a suitable replacement.

In March 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai heard arguments in a case. Petitioners argued that the tenure extensions and presidential ordinances were illegal, contradicting the Supreme Court's previous directive, and compromising agency independence. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, shared the opinion that these extensions and ordinances undermined the rule of law.

In simpler terms, the Supreme Court confirmed that the laws allowing the extension of director tenures were legally okay and did not infringe on people's basic rights. However, it also declared that the extension given to Mr. Mishra was not allowed under these laws. So, he can continue as ED director only until the end of July 2023, while the government looks for a new director. This decision seeks to balance the need for stability in these agencies with the principles of legality and fairness.
 

3. Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP 2023 

Azam Khan's Freedom of Speech and Expression Case

Bench: Justice Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V.Ramasubramanian, Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Facts

In this case, the Court combined two separate incidents where State Ministers from Uttar Pradesh and Kerala had made derogatory statements in unrelated instances. The core issue at hand revolved around the clash between the Ministers' right to freedom of speech and the Petitioners' right to dignity.

In the first case, a Minister in the Uttar Pradesh government made offensive remarks against two victims of sexual assault, essentially characterizing their ordeal as a 'political controversy' against the government. The second instance involved a Kerala government Minister who issued highly derogatory statements about women. Both petitions alleged that these public officials violated the right to dignity, a protection provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.

To address these similar concerns and significant legal questions related to constitutional interpretation, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court initially examined the two petitions. As the issues raised were alike and required a deeper legal analysis, the matter was subsequently referred to a five-judge bench of the Court.

Issues

1.Whether the right to freedom of speech protected under Article 19 (1) (a) can be curtailed to protect the right to dignity of an individual guaranteed under Article 21.

2. Whether the State has a positive duty to protect the rights of an individual under Article 21 against Non-State actors.

Judgment

In this case, the Court, with a 4:1 majority decision, ruled that an individual's right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted to protect the dignity of another individual. The Court issued both a majority opinion and a partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion by Justice BV Nagarathna.

The majority judgment stated that when fundamental rights are in conflict, the Court must either find a balance or prioritize one right over the other. The Court noted that the grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression are exhaustively listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and no new grounds can be added. Consequently, they ruled that the freedom of speech of a public official cannot be curtailed to protect an individual's dignity.

The majority judgment also discussed the horizontal application of fundamental rights against both State and non-state actors. The Court explained that the interpretation of 'right to life' and 'personal liberty' under Article 21 has evolved to include the right to live with dignity, right to privacy, and the right to be forgotten. It emphasized that the State has an affirmative duty to protect citizens' life and personal liberty from private individuals.

Justice Nagarathna, in her partly dissenting opinion, argued that dignity is a fundamental component of the rights guaranteed under Article 21, and Article 19(1)(a) cannot be used to curtail Article 21 rights. She maintained that, since the speech in question was disparaging, derogatory, and akin to hate speech, it could not be protected under Article 19(1)(a). According to her, the case did not involve balancing fundamental rights but addressed an abuse of freedom of speech used to attack an individual's fundamental rights.

4. Animal welfare Board of India v. UOI, 2023 

Jallikattu Practice Case

Bench: Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice CT Ravikumar.

Facts

Jallikattu, a bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu, faced legal challenges. In 2014, the Supreme Court banned the use of bulls in the sport, and the Tamil Nadu government's plea for a review was dismissed in 2015. In 2016, a notification allowed limited Jallikattu with restrictions. The Tamil Nadu government passed an amendment in 2017 to permit the sport. Organizations like PETA challenged this, arguing it circumvented previous court judgments and violated animal rights. The case reached a 5-Judge Constitution Bench in 2018, which, in May 2023, upheld amendments allowing Jallikattu, along with other cultural practices.

Issues

1. Constitutional Relevance: Is the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act aligned with the Constitution, promoting cultural heritage, and preventing cruelty to animals?

2. Colorable Legislation: Is the Act disguised as something else, not falling within the State or Concurrent Lists, and thus unconstitutional?

3. Cultural Heritage Protection: Does the Act genuinely preserve the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu under Article 29 of the Constitution?

4. Native Breed Welfare: Is the Act primarily concerned with safeguarding native bull breeds, aligning with Article 48 of the Constitution?

5. Compliance with Prior Judgments: Does the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act effectively address the concerns raised in the Nagaraja judgment and the 2016 review judgment or run contrary to them?

Judgment

The Court held that the Amendment Acts introduced by the three States have significantly changed the way Jallikattu, Kambala, and Bull Cart Races are practiced. These amendments have reduced the pain inflicted on animals compared to the past. The Court rejected the argument that the amendments were merely a disguise to override previous judicial decisions, stating that they genuinely aimed to minimize cruelty to animals. It also concluded that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is related to List III of the Constitution, and questions about preserving cultural heritage should be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary.

The Court respected the legislative decision that Jallikattu is a vital aspect of Tamil Nadu's cultural heritage. It disagreed with the previous view that Jallikattu was not part of Tamil Nadu's cultural heritage, pointing to the Amendment Act's preamble that recognizes it as such. The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act, when combined with the Rules, significantly reduces the suffering of bulls while preserving traditional sports. The fact that the amendment received the President's approval validated the state's action. The Court asserted that these sports should be considered separately from their earlier practices.

The Court determined that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not primarily aim to protect native bull breeds' survival and well-being or relate to Article 48 of the Constitution. Although it may incidentally affect a specific breed and agricultural activities, its core purpose aligns with Entry 17 of List III in the Constitution's Seventh Schedule.

The Court found that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act does not contradict Articles 51-A(g) and 51-A(h), and it does not breach Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court determined that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, when considered with the associated Rules, does not directly oppose the Nagaraja judgment and the 2016 review judgment. The deficiencies identified in those previous judgments have been addressed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature through this Amendment Act.

5. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. UOI, 2023 

Demonetisation Case

Bench: Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, BV Nagarathna and V Ramasubramanian

Facts

On November 8, 2016, the Government of India made demonetized ₹500 and ₹1000 notes, rendering them invalid tender. The objective of this move was to curb the usage of unaccounted wealth and promote cashless transactions. However, the ensuing rush of citizens to exchange their old notes for new ones resulted in shortage of new currency, leading to long queues and significant inconvenience. In response to this development, Vivek Narayan Sharma, an advocate, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision on the grounds of its fairness. After due consideration, the court directed that such complaints could only be filed in the Supreme Court and stayed all petitions filed in High Courts against the demonetisation scheme. Moreover, the court appointed a bench of five judges to decide on the matter thoroughly and issue a final decision.

Issues

1. Is the demonetisation scheme in accordance with the rules of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934?

2. Do the cash withdrawal restrictions affect the rights to equality and livelihood?

3. Was the scheme unreasonably implemented, infringing upon the rights to equality and livelihood?

4. What is the extent of the Supreme Court's authority to assess a government's fiscal and economic policy in such a scheme?

Judgment

The majority of the Court found the Center's November 8, 2016 notification to be valid and in line with the principle of proportionality.

Before issuing the November 8 notification under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act of 1934, the RBI and the Center had been in consultation for six months. The established procedure outlined in Section 26(2) of the RBI Act was not violated, even though the Center had initiated advising the Central Board to consider recommending demonetization.

The government had the authority, as per the provision, to demonetize "all series" of banknotes. Regarding the swift decision, the Court emphasized that such actions must be carried out with the utmost secrecy and speed. Leaking information about such a measure would have disastrous consequences.

The primary reasons for demonetization were to combat counterfeit currency, black money, and funding for illegal activities, and this was considered a valid purpose.

Minority Opinion - Justice B.V.  Nagarathna

The government's notification under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act was deemed unlawful because, according to the law, it required a prior recommendation from the RBI for demonetization.

In cases where the government initiates demonetization, it should seek the RBI's opinion, which should be impartial and honest. Even if the Board's opinion is against demonetization, the government can proceed with it, but this would necessitate passing an ordinance or parliamentary legislation.

The significance of the Parliament was emphasized, being described as a microcosm of the nation. It was noted that democracy cannot flourish without the Parliament.

The proportionality test is a widely used legal method by courts worldwide, especially constitutional courts, to resolve cases where multiple legitimate rights come into conflict. In such cases, one right typically takes precedence over others, and the court must balance the satisfaction of some rights with the harm to other rights resulting from its decision. The principle of proportionality dictates that administrative measures should not be more severe than necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

On January 2, 2023, the Constitution Bench, with a 4:1 majority, upheld the government's demonetization scheme from 2016. Justice B.V. Nagarathna provided a dissenting opinion.

6. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, 2023

Disqualification Proceedings Against Maharashtra MLAs

Bench: Chief Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, Justice M.R.Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Justice Hima Kohli, Justice P.S.Narasimha.

Facts

21st June, 2022: Shiv Sena party member Mr. Eknath Shinde, went missing along with a number of party MLAs who then refused to attend a meeting called by Mr. Uddhav Thackeray.

As a consequence, Mr. Shinde was removed from the post of Legislature-Party leader. Mr. Shinde claimed that he had the support of over 40 MLAs, and Mr. Thackeray was no longer the party’s chosen representative.

24 June 2022: Mr Thackeray urged the Deputy Speaker to begin disqualification proceedings against Mr Eknath Shinde and other rebel MLAs. Mr Shinde challenged the proceedings in the SC and got a stay order.

28th June 2022: The Governor of Maharashtra was requested to direct a floor test in the Assembly, and the same was affirmed. Thackeray faction challenged the floor test but

The Apex Court declined to stay it. Thereafter, Chief Minister Thackeray resigned within an hour, making way for the Shinde faction to consolidate power.

The Thackeray faction argued that actions like disregard for the party whip, appointment of a new Deputy Speaker, call for a floor test, and insistence of the Shinde faction’s majority were acts of defection. Meanwhile, the Shinde faction approached the EC to use the party symbol in upcoming local polls. 6 September 2022: SC announced that the case would be decided by a 5-judge Constitution Bench

Issues

1. Whether splitting within a political party can be termed the same as defecting from the party?

2. Whether rebel within a political party amounts to defection?

3. Whether Shinde faction can be subject to disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule?

4. Whether disqualification of MLAs vests within the powers of the Speaker?

Judgment

In a significant ruling, a Constitution Bench challenged the accuracy of the Nabam Rebia judgment regarding the Speaker's authority to initiate disqualification proceedings while a removal resolution is pending. They highlighted that letting the Legislative Party appoint the whip would sever its connection with the Political Party. The Bench cautioned against government tactics to avoid a no-confidence vote, wherein the Governor may intervene without Cabinet advice under specific conditions. However, they stressed the Governor shouldn't interfere in legislative proceedings, citing the limited scope of Article 163. The Court also found that a resignation letter, submitted voluntarily, couldn't be quashed. They referred the Nabam Rebia case to a larger 7-Judge Bench and outlined principles related to disqualifications under the 10th Schedule.

7. Government of NCT of Delhi v. UOI, 2023

Power struggle between the Lieutenant Governor and the NCT of Delhi Case

Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice P.S. Narasimha 

Facts

This legal issue arises from a 2015 notification by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which granted the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) control over "services," public order, police, and land. The "services" fall under Entry 41 of the State List in the Constitution, excluding them from the powers of the Government of NCTD (GNCTD). The Delhi High Court ruled that "services" were beyond the purview of the Legislative Assembly of NCTD. This matter was referred to a Constitution Bench due to a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Article 239-AA, which deals with special provisions for Delhi. The 2018 Constitution Bench clarified that NCTD is distinct from other Union Territories, and its executive and legislative powers extend to all subjects except those explicitly excluded. However, Article 239-AA(3)(b) grants Parliament the power to make laws for NCTD on List II and III subjects. A 2019 verdict resulted in a split opinion on whether "services" were excluded under Article 239-AA(3)(a). This issue remains pending before a regular bench.

Issues

1. Which authority should oversee the civil servants in Delhi – the Union or the Delhi government?

2. Does the Union possess a valid interest in regulating civil servants in the capital city?

3. Do the Lieutenant Governor's powers to escalate disputes with the Delhi government to the President curtail the executive and legislative powers of the Delhi government?

Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party, has the power to control civil servants and manage the daily affairs of Delhi. Delhi, officially known as the National Capital Territory (NCT), follows a special set of rules. Initially, administrators appointed by the President were in charge of Union Territories, including Delhi. However, in 1991, a change in the law allowed Delhi to have an elected Legislative Assembly with its own government, including a Chief Minister.

This Assembly can make laws on various matters but not on issues related to public order, police, and land. The conflict arises from how these laws interact. In 2018, the Supreme Court said that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi must listen to the advice of the Council of Ministers on most matters. The LG doesn't have to agree, but they must discuss it.

To change this, the Union Government passed a law in 2021. This law limited what the Assembly can do with day-to-day work and required the LG's opinion on certain actions. It also made some laws subject to the President's approval. The Delhi Government challenged this in court, saying it went against the idea of fair government and democracy.

On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court decided that the Delhi government should have control over civil servants and the daily running of Delhi. This decision upholds Delhi's unique way of governing and the principles of federalism and democracy.

8. Anoop Barnwal v. UOI, 2023

ECI Appointment Case

Bench: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Facts

In January 2015, Anoop Baranwal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claiming that the current method of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners is unlawful. Although Article 324 of the Constitution specifies that the Parliament should establish a suitable law for these appointments, they are currently made by the President based on the Prime Minister's recommendation.

The petitioner argued that the selection of Election Commission members should follow a fair, just, and transparent process. Several other related petitions, including those from Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and the Association for Democratic Reforms, were also considered collectively in this case.

Issues

1. Does the existing method of appointing ECI members infringe on the right to equality?

2. Does the current ECI selection process go against the right to conduct free and fair elections?

Judgment

The Supreme Court expressed its concern about the absence of legal provisions for appointing ECI members but did not compel the government to create a law under Article 324(2) as requested by the petitioners. Instead, the Constitution Bench decided to change the Election Commission's selection process to safeguard their independence. They directed the formation of a committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, and the Chief Justice of India, to advise the President on ECI appointments until a dedicated law was enacted.

The Court ruled that the terms of service for Election Commissioners and Regional Commissioners should align with certain rules but remain subject to any future laws passed by Parliament. Recognizing the urgent need for a permanent Secretariat, the Court emphasized that the expenses for such a Secretariat should be covered by the Consolidated Fund of India. To enhance the actual independence of the Election Commission, the Supreme Court urged the Union government to consider the necessary modifications in this regard.

9. Rahul Gandhi's defamation Case

This case remains unresolved in the judicial system, with the Supreme Court issuing a stay on Rahul Gandhi's conviction. The entire sequence of events related to this specific case is as follows:

April 13, 2019: During a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, before the Indian general election, Rahul Gandhi made a statement in Hindi, questioning the presence of "Modi" in the names of individuals involved in alleged wrongdoings, including Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, and Narendra Modi.

Criminal Defamation Case: Purnesh Modi, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA from Surat West, filed a criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi, alleging that his statement defamed all people with the surname Modi.

October 10, 2019: Rahul Gandhi pleaded not guilty in the Surat Court.

Statements and Appearances: Rahul Gandhi recorded his statements and answered questions in front of the local Court on June 24, 2021, and again on October 29, 2021. During these appearances, he clarified that his statements were made in the context of election campaigning and were intended as political sarcasm, not defamation.

March 23, 2023: The Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison, citing his acceptance of the controversial facts. He was given 30 days to appeal the sentence.

March 24, 2023: Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh announced that Rahul Gandhi would be disqualified as the Member of Parliament from Wayanad constituency from March 23, the date of his conviction, under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

April 3, 2023: Rahul Gandhi appealed and obtained bail from the Surat Court, with the hearing for the stay scheduled for April 13.

April 20, 2023: The Surat Court rejected the request to stay the conviction.

July 2023: Gandhi's appeal was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court, which deemed his conviction "just and proper." In response, the Congress party announced that Gandhi would appeal the order in the Supreme Court.

August 4, 2023: The Supreme Court of India stayed Rahul Gandhi's conviction pending appeal.

These events depict a legal and political saga surrounding Rahul Gandhi's statement, which transitioned from a political rally remark to a criminal defamation case and ultimately led to his conviction, with ongoing appeals and legal developments.

10. Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. UOI

Same-Sex Marriage Case

Bench:  Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha,

Facts

Several gay couples filed petitions seeking legal recognition of their marriages in Indian courts. The Kerala High Court admitted a petition by Nikesh and Sonu in January 2020. The Delhi High Court admitted a petition by four sexual and gender minority individuals in September 2020. 

On November 14, 2022, two same-sex couples, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, along with Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj Anand, filed petitions in the Supreme Court of India seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages. These petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, particularly Section 4(c), which restricts marriage to a 'male' and a 'female.' The couples argued that this discrimination denies them various matrimonial benefits, including adoption, surrogacy, and employment and retirement benefits, thus violating their rights to equality, freedom of expression, and dignity. The plea was consolidated with other similar petitions challenging personal laws. The Supreme Court directed the Union to respond to the petitions on November 25, 2022. Subsequently, these petitions were transferred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench, which began hearings on April 18, 2023. After ten days of proceedings, on May 11, 2023, the 5-Judge Bench reserved its judgment. The verdict on LGBTQIA+ marriage equality was delivered on October 17, 2023.

Issues

1. Is marriage a right for LGBTQIA+ individuals?

2. Can the Supreme Court legally recognize LGBTQIA+ marriages?

3. Does the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ marriages from the Special Marriage Act, 1954, constitute discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Judgment

On October 17, 2023, the five-judge bench delivered four judgments unanimously stating that there's no fundamental right to marry in India. They also emphasized that the Supreme Court couldn't legislate on queer marriages, respecting the doctrine of the separation of powers.

All judges agreed that the Union of India should establish a committee to assess the rights and entitlements of individuals in queer relationships without labeling them as marriages. The Court affirmed that queer couples have the right to cohabit without fear of violence or interference but didn't officially recognize these relationships as marriages.

Additionally, all five judges concurred that transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws, including personal laws governing their marriages. However, in a 3:2 decision, the Supreme Court denied queer couples the right to adopt children, with CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul dissenting.

The five-judge panel confirmed the legality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and determined that the right to marry is not considered a fundamental right for LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Conclusion

In the competitive landscape of CLAT PG 2024, these top 10 judgments are your guiding stars. They illuminate the path to success, providing exam-oriented knowledge and a deep understanding of legal principles.

Check the online course for CLAT UG 2024, get 100+ video lectures based on updated syllabus and 20 full mock tests as per the new pattern.