Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 13

Correct Answer: B. Relocating or closing polluting industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone and shifting to CNG

MC Mehta v Union of India (1996), the Taj Trapezium case, was a PIL that sought to protect the Taj Mahal from acid rain and pollution caused by industries in the surrounding Taj Trapezium Zone — a 10,400 sq km area encompassing Agra, Mathura, and Firozabad. The Supreme Court ordered about 292 industries in the Zone to either shift to CNG or relocate outside the zone within a specified time. The court applied the precautionary principle to prevent irreversible damage to this UNESCO World Heritage Site and ordered the NEERI to submit reports on air quality and industrial pollution. This case demonstrated the court's willingness to take proactive steps to protect India's cultural heritage.

Correct Answer: B. Matrimonial cruelty — wife can file complaint at her present place of residence after being driven out

Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) is an important judgment in which the Supreme Court expanded the jurisdiction of courts in matrimonial cruelty cases under Section 498A IPC. The court held that the courts at the place where a wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven from the matrimonial home, by acts of cruelty committed by the husband and in-laws, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. This was a significant departure from the traditional rule that jurisdiction lies only where the offence was committed. The judgment recognized the practical difficulties faced by women who must travel back to their matrimonial home to file complaints after escaping domestic violence.

Correct Answer: B. Minimum educational qualification requirement to contest panchayat elections in Haryana

Rajbala v State of Haryana (2016) upheld a Haryana law that prescribed minimum educational qualifications — completion of Class 10 examination for men and Class 8 for women — as a condition for eligibility to contest panchayat elections. The Supreme Court held that the law does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution as the legislature can rationally determine that an educated panchayat member would better serve rural governance objectives. Critics argued the law disproportionately excluded women, Dalits, and tribals who historically had less access to education, but the court deferred to legislative wisdom on this policy choice.

Correct Answer: C. The court did not specify legislation but directed preventive measures and compensation

Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India (2018) notably did not order Parliament to enact specific anti-lynching legislation, though several legal experts had urged this. Instead, the court issued comprehensive preventive directions including appointment of nodal officers, sensitization of police, fast-tracking of FIRs and trials, and compensation for victims. The court urged Parliament and state legislatures to consider enacting specific laws against mob lynching, but did not mandate it as a court order. This approach reflected the court's preference for directing state action while leaving legislative policy-making to the elected branches of government.

Correct Answer: B. Bail conditions for politicians facing heinous criminal charges who contest elections

The Supreme Court in 2024 took up the issue of politicians facing serious criminal charges, including sexual assault cases, being allowed to campaign in elections while out on bail or anticipatory bail. The Prajwal Revanna controversy highlighted the broader problem of elected representatives and candidates accused of heinous crimes continuing to contest and participate in democratic processes. The court addressed the conditions under which bail can be granted to persons accused of serious offences who are political candidates and the obligations of election authorities when a sitting MP/MLA is accused of grave crimes.

Correct Answer: B. Persons with criminal charges against them, as no constitutional bar exists

Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014) was a PIL seeking a direction that the President/Governor should refuse to appoint as Minister any person who has been charged with heinous offences. The Supreme Court rejected this prayer and held that the constitutional scheme gives the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers the freedom to choose their cabinet colleagues without judicial interference, as no constitutional provision specifically bars persons with criminal charges from being Ministers. However, the court issued strong observations urging the heads of government to exercise this discretion responsibly to uphold constitutional morality and democratic values.

Correct Answer: B. Activists and academics accused of Maoist links arrested before the Bhima Koregaon event

Romila Thapar v Union of India (2018) challenged the arrests of several prominent activists, academics, and lawyers — including Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, and others — by Pune Police in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence in January 2018 and alleged Maoist links. A 2:1 majority of the Supreme Court declined to order their release or transfer the investigation to a Special Investigation Team (SIT), holding that the court should not interfere with an ongoing investigation without material to conclude mala fides. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote a strong dissent favouring an independent probe and the release of the accused to house arrest.

Correct Answer: B. Communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 and the role of senior officials and the then CM

Zakia Jafri v State of Gujarat (2022) was filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the Gulberg Society massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots, challenging the Special Investigation Team's closure report that gave a clean chit to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 other senior officials. The Supreme Court upheld the SIT's closure report and dismissed the petition. The court also made observations critical of the petitioner's counsels and journalists involved in supporting the case, which was itself criticized by civil liberties groups. The judgment was significant as it put the legal controversy around the 2002 riots and political accountability to rest judicially.

Correct Answer: B. Supreme Court itself, and the Bar Council's disciplinary authority does not bar contempt jurisdiction

Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998) settled a significant conflict between the Supreme Court's contempt jurisdiction and the Bar Council of India's disciplinary authority over advocates. The court held that the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 142 is a constitutional power that cannot be abridged by the Advocates Act, and the Bar Council's disciplinary proceedings do not bar the court from invoking its contempt jurisdiction. This distinction between professional misconduct (Bar Council) and contempt of court (Supreme Court) is important in maintaining judicial authority and preventing advocates from escaping contempt proceedings through disciplinary proceedings.

Correct Answer: B. Hate speech inciting violence against religious and linguistic communities — gaps in Indian law

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of India (2014) highlighted the significant gaps in Indian law regarding hate speech, particularly speech inciting violence against specific communities. The Supreme Court noted that India lacks a specific comprehensive hate speech law and that existing provisions under Sections 153A and 505 IPC are inadequate and poorly enforced. The court referred the matter to the Law Commission of India to recommend appropriate legislation on hate speech and examine the adequacy of existing legal provisions. The Law Commission's 267th Report on Hate Speech (2017) was a direct outcome of this referral.