Important and Controversial Judgements by Chief Justice Bobde

This article is written by Aditya Kohli, a student from Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur.

Introduction

In this article, we will discuss some of the significant decisions of the 47th Chief Justice of India, Sharad Bobde. There has been a lot of criticism of these vital decisions on social media. So, the first Chief Justice of India was Harilal Jekisundas Kania, the current 48th Chief Justice is NV Ramana, and the 47th Chief Justice was SA Bobde, who served 18 months as Chief Justice of India and six years as Judge in the Supreme Court. Nagpur is the birthplace of former Chief Justice of India Sharad Bobde. There are many stalwarts in his family related to law, such as his father, Arvind Bobde, who was an [1]Advocate General of Maharashtra, and his brother Vinod Bobde, who is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India. Justice Bobde had worked as an advocate for the Bar Council of Maharashtra since 1978. In addition, he has served as the Chief Justice of Mumbai and Madhya Pradesh before becoming a judge in the Supreme Court in 2013.

Landmark and Controversial Judgements.

Justice Bobde served as a judge in the Supreme Court for almost eight years, and throughout his tenure, he was not a part of any minority judgment. The most important decision of Justice Bobde is the Ayodhya title dispute.

M. Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Dispute)

In the sixteenth century, there was Babri Masjid on 2.77 acres of land and, the same land is believed to be the birthplace of Shri Ram. Therefore, the area was disputed for which cases were pending in the courts since 1950 as to who should ultimately be the owner of the land. In 1992, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, along with several other organizations, had demolished the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict on the dispute in 2010 and said that the entire 2.77 acres of land should be divided equally among three parties. One-third of the land goes to the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third of the land goes to Nirmohi Akhara, and one-third of the land goes to the Hindu Mahasabha.

But the Allahabad High Court judgment did not satisfy the three parties, as a result of which they filed an appeal in the Supreme Court regarding this dispute. A five-judge bench had constituted in the Supreme Court. Under which the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were present. At first, the Supreme Court gave a timetable of eight weeks to the three parties to settle the matter by arbitration among themselves, but when there was no redressal, after eight weeks, the arguments on that dispute started in the Supreme Court.

On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously delivered a landmark judgment that was 1045 pages long. In the judgment, 2.77 acres of land was given to the deity of Shri Ram Virajman, i.e., the land was given to Hindu Mahasabha, and the court said to provide the five acres of land to Sunni Waqf Board as an alternative where Babri Majeed would build. Also, the court asked the government to form a trust that would build a Ram temple on that land. In the end, the court said the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 was a violation of laws.

AI Portal for Supreme Court launched by Justice Bobde.

As we all know, when S Bobde became the Chief Justice of India, after four days, a nationwide lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic was announced, which halted all physical court hearings. However, Justice Bobde always promotes technology support in the functioning of courts, therefore, Chief Justice of India Bobde has asked Justice DY Chandrachud, who heads e-Courts in India, to expedite virtual court hearings. Therefore, Chief Justice of India Bobde has launched three technical AI portals, which are as follows:

SUPACE- (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Courts Efficient). That is the first AI of the supreme court research portal, which aimed at data mining, tracking the progress of cases, legal research and other uses.

SCI-INTERACT- To make the functioning of courts paperless. It helps judges access files, petition attachments and create soft notes on a computer without being accessible to others.

SUVAS- (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software). It helps to translate judicial documents from English to Nine vernacular languages.

K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India (Right to Privacy and Aadhaar case)

This case was the second-largest ever heard in the Supreme Court. As we acquainted that Aadhaar is used for government schemes or subsidies for transparent and efficient distribution. When the Aadhaar Act had first introduced, most people petitioned the courts against that Act. Because it violates the right to privacy of citizens, and the government can also use Aadhaar as a tool of surveillance. Therefore, the Aadhaar Act was challenged in the Supreme Court for its constitutional validity. The first petition was filed in 2012, and the verdict came in 2015, where Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said, “Indian citizens do not enjoy the fundamental right to privacy.”

The Supreme Court said that the Aadhaar card can be used for various government schemes, but the question of the validity of the Aadhaar Act and the right to privacy can be decided only by a Constitutional Bench. Till then, Aadhaar will be voluntary for citizens, not mandatory. But the government made Aadhaar card mandatory in 2016. Later, in 2017, a nine-judge bench constituted to decide this matter under which Justice Bobde one of them. The nine judges unanimously ruled those Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy, which is guaranteed under Article 21. In addition, the Aadhaar Act is also constitutionally valid after the 2018 judgement.

Contempt of court (Tweets against the CJI), Freedom of speech

Although the Supreme Court is very liberal in criticism, a question arises in this case whether the Supreme Court needs to be protected from public scrutiny or scandalization so that it can do its work independently[2]. According to the Indian contempt of court act 1971, civil and criminal contempt shall be punished. Through this case, the talk of ending criminal contempt of court and protecting freedom of speech and expression begins in India. So, on the role of Supreme Court, a senior advocate Prashant Bhushan tweeted on 27 June 2020. After two days, he tweeted another tweet comment on chief justice Bobde said, “riding a Harley Davidson bike without a helmet and a face mask while he keeps the supreme court in lockdown mode.” The Supreme Court considered Prashant Bhushan’s tweet to be an offence of contempt of court, for which he could have been jailed for at least six months.

After this, he apologized on the tweet of the Chief Justice and said that I did not know that the condition of the bike was stable. But my second tweet is correct. He said criticizing the Supreme Court is safe under Freedom of Speech. Therefore, the Supreme Court, showing generosity, imposed a fine of one rupee on Prashant Bhushan. Hence, the matter is criticized by saying that the Supreme Court has not given any sensitive response to it.

Rakesh Vaishnav V. UOI (Farm laws)

In September 2020, three agriculture laws were passed which previously existed as an ordinance. According to the government, these new laws will provide different opportunities to the farmers such as they can sell their produce outside the state mandis and do contract farming etc[3]. But on the other hand, the farmers fiercely criticized the new laws and opposed the non-implementation of these laws. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Bobde, Justice V Rama Subramaniam and Justice AS Bopanna was constituted to examine the constitutional validity of the new agricultural laws. On 12 January 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of agricultural laws till further orders. By doing this, the court wanted to encourage the farmers to talk. So that farmer can confidently share their point with the government and find solutions.

At the same time, the Supreme Court criticized the government way of dealing with this situation. To solve the tussle between the government and farmers, the supreme court set up a four-member committee.

Some other controversial judgments of Justice Bobde.

When riots were taking place between students and police in Delhi’s Jamia University and Uttar Pradesh’s Aligarh Muslim University. Then a petition was filed in the Supreme Court for urgent hearing, saying that there is a serious violation of human rights across the country and the Supreme Court should investigate this whole incident[4]. But Chief Justice of India Bobde dismissed the petition for urgent hearing in the matter.

Last year, Republic Media Network’s editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami was detained in a criminal case of abetment to suicide. Therefore, video conferencing was done immediately in the Supreme Court to get bail. When this news came to the public, people fiercely criticized the Supreme Court based on how the Supreme Court has shown readiness to grant bail to Arnab. On the other hand, Kerala journalist Siddique Kappen was detained in October 2020. under the charges of sedition and various provisions of unlawful activities prevention act by the U.P police. Also, his habeas corpus writ petition is still pending. His only offence was that he had gone to Hathras to report the rape case, and his bail is still pending.

Conclusion

So, I can conclude that Justice Bobde has given many righteous judgments, and he has not always been a part of any minority matter. But it is also true that some of his decisions are very important and wrong for the people. Although it is also that he gave 68 judgments in the entire tenure of his life, which is less in comparison to the rest of the judges, but Justice Bobde was a good judge. Also, he has given several significant verdicts in tiny judgements in his tenure.

[1] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/chief-justice-of-india/

[2] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/independently

[3] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/et-cetera-etc/

[4]https://www.merriam- ebster.com/dictionary/incident