LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
S R Bommai vs Union of India is a seminal case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India in 1994, concerning the constitutional validity of the President’s authority to dismiss state governments. The Court held that such dismissal should only occur under specific circumstances, including loss of majority support in the Legislative Assembly. It established principles to safeguard federalism, stating that Article 356, which allows the President to impose President’s rule in states, should be exercised cautiously and not for political reasons. This ruling reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution and strengthened democratic principles in India. Justice Ahmadi wrote a separate 37-page judgment in which he emphasised the importance of accommodation and tolerance towards vulnerable groups.
In Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The majority opinion found the Act to be non-violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and upheld it, thereby awarding control of administration and maintenance of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid Structure along with its premises to the Central Government. Justice Ahmadi (along with Justice Bharucha) dissented from the majority opinion, stating the Act to be unconstitutional and unsecular, favouring one religious group over another.
In T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India, et al. vs. Union of India & Others [1995], the Supreme Court of India upheld the government’s decision to expand the Election Commission’s strength from a single-member body to a multi-member one. The Court ruled that this expansion was not inconsistent with the Constitution. Further, the court refused to grant the CEC powers to overrule the other ECs, emphasising that the ECs should enjoy the same status as the CEC, and disputes must be settled by way of majority, in keeping with democratic principles.
In the landmark case of Indira Sawhney vs Union of India, commonly referred to as the Mandal Commission case, heard by the Supreme Court of India in 1990, the majority of the bench in a 6:3 ratio ruled that backward classes could be identified based on economic factors as well as the caste system, thereby not limiting it to one criterion. Importantly, it was clarified that Article 16 (4) which allows the state to provide special assistance to disadvantaged groups did not exempt Article 16 (1) which guarantees equal job opportunities to all citizens in government offices. Rather, it was designed to address specific sections of society, allowing reservation under Article 16 (1) for groups other than those mentioned in Article 16 (4). The court also clarified that the creamy layer – a term that refers to affluent or privileged members within these groups – should be excluded from these benefits, reservations should not exceed 50% of positions and there should be no reservations for promotions.
In L Chandra Kumar vs Union of India, the long-standing question about the jurisdiction of the High Courts in matters dealt with by Tribunals was examined. The Supreme Court ruled that Tribunal decisions are subject to review by Division Benches of High Courts. Additionally, Tribunals were ordered to remain first-instance courts in their areas of law, barring litigants from directly approaching High Courts, even when challenging statutory legislation’s constitutionality.
In Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India (1993), commonly known as The Second Judges Case, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India, the issue of judicial appointments was addressed. The majority opinion advocated for the principle of judicial primacy in the appointment process, holding that the Chief Justice of India should have the final say in the selection of judges. The Court established the collegium system, comprising the Chief Justice of India and a group of senior judges to recommend appointments. However, Justice A.M. Ahmadi (along with Justice Punchhi) dissented, advocating for a more collaborative process, involving both the executive and judiciary as mandated by the constitution.
The assassins of General Vaidya case, Jinda, and Sukha, who had previously carried out two high-profile assassinations, were sentenced to death by the trial court, in Pune. Upon appeal, the case was heard by the Supreme Court of India, where the original verdict was upheld. On 09.10.1992, Jinda and Sukha were hanged until death.