Year Ender: List of Important Judgement passed in 2023

Supreme Court decisions are critical for gaining a better knowledge of the country's Constitution. Many questions about historic Supreme Court decisions have previously been asked in the UPSC exam. In this article, we provide a list of the most relevant Supreme Court decisions in India for the year 2023. So, as the year comes to a close, you should be informed of the Supreme Court's decisions. Let's have a look at them.

1. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd) v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd & Ors.

This lawsuit concerns the modification of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It also addresses the issue of International Commercial Arbitration jurisdiction under the preceding Act. According to Section 29A of the (Amendment Act), an arbitral tribunal must issue an arbitral award within twelve months of its formation, with the parties having the option of agreeing to a six-month extension. Regarding International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court observes that it is not constrained by the twelve-month time restriction set forth in Section 29A of the Act.

2. Shipli Lenkar v. Susanta Kumar Lenkar & Anr

The Calcutta High Court refused a wife's application for increased support under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in this case. The Court stated that increasing maintenance after restricting a significant source of the husband's income is clearly against the interests of justice and an abuse of the legal process.

3. PSV v. Indian School & Anr

This case examines how the rights of a child, as guaranteed by Article 21, are explained as non-negotiable, while simultaneously balancing the rights and powers of private schools to collect tuition. This case is significant in terms of the autonomy enjoyed by private unaided schools since it determines the limit and breadth of that autonomy.

4. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India

The Supreme Court held that a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a dead government employee after the employee's death does not qualify for a family pension under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court defined "family" under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and determined that because it is a narrow and precise phrase, it cannot be enlarged to encompass all heirs as permitted by Hindu law or other personal laws. As a result, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government employee after the person's death was not covered by the policy.

5. B V Seshaiah v. State of Telangana

This is a notable Supreme Court ruling concerning section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. The Supreme Court recently rejected a Telangana High Court verdict that overruled the parties' agreement to compound the offence and confirmed the conviction in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. According to a bench composed of Justices Krishna Murar i and V. Ramasubramanian, when parties to a litigation action have agreed to compound a compoundable offence, the High Courts cannot override such compounding and impose their will on the parties.

6. Ganesh Pawar and Ors v. Union of India

Ganesh Pawar and Others v. Union of India, (2023) contains the Supreme Court's ruling about the postponement of NEET PG 2023. On Monday (27th February 2023), the Supreme Court refused a request by doctors to postpone the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate test, which is scheduled for March 5, 2023. The appeal clearly explains that the petitioners are prepared and eager to sit the NEET-PG 2023-24 exam, however it has been contested since the NBE's (National Board of Examination) action is arbitrary and unjustified. Candidates are made to suffer as a result of NBE's poor management.

The NBE announced the examination date without consulting the State Medical bodies; there was insufficient time to prepare in addition to the busy internship schedules; timely notification of eligibility was not provided; and the examination schedule as it is now will not regularise the examination process because the 2023-24 session cannot be held.

7. Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors.

The PIL filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi demanding menstruation leave for women and female students is described in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., (2023). A law student testified during the hearing that granting menstrual leave could dissuade businesses from recruiting women. In answer to this argument, CJI DY Chandrachud argued that employers would be hesitant to hire women if they were required to grant menstrual leave. The panel further advised the petitioner to take their matter to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development.

8. Prasanta Kumarsahoo & Ors. v. Charulata Sahu & Ors.

Prasanta Kumarsahoo & Ors. v. Charulata Sahu & Ors., (2023) expands on the statement that while a partition litigation is pending and no final decree has been issued, the parties can seek the benefit of the new statute and ask the Trial Court to rule. The Judgement emphasised the legality of the modified statutes by stating that they can be implemented while a partition litigation is pending. The Supreme Court bench affirmed the High Court's verdict and finished by referring to several legal rules and statutes such as the Hindu Succession Act and the Registration Act, among others.

9. Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India

Dr Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, (2023) explains how menstruation hygiene was deemed a sensitive matter and why the government should place proper emphasis on it. On 10.04.2023, the Supreme Court of India directed the Central government to implement a uniform national policy on menstrual hygiene, including the distribution of free menstrual pads and cups to students, through a Bench comprised of Chief Justice DY CHandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardi Wala.

10. Shabnam Jahan Moiuddin Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Shabnam Jahan Moiuddin Ansari v. State of Maharashtra', (2023) is a recent Bombay High Court decision underlining a single working woman's right to adopt. The Case demonstrates that the law is followed and that no 'guesswork' would allow legal decisions to be made by courts of law.

11. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors.

Snehil Sharma's decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors., (2023) contains a significant ruling in which the Supreme Court recently decided that just because an organisation is a consumer company does not exempt it from the concept of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A commercial company may file a consumer dispute under the Act regarding any non-commercially purchased products or services. Whether anything is done for a "commercial purpose" is determined by whether the items or services are directly tied to the profitable activity.

12. Re.: Article 370 of the Constitution

On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court supported the Centre's decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.