2007 was an eventful year for the Supreme Court

2007 was an eventful year for the Supreme Court

The Court had passed orders on every facet of day-to-day life
“Actions of Parliament subject to judicial review”
Other Backward Classes quota law stayed

New Delhi: The year 2007 has been an eventful one for both the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan as the court passed orders on every facet of day-to-day life, be it politics or education or in relation to legislature and putting a check on the executive.
The word “representative Bench” got a new meaning in 2007 with the appointment of Justice Balakrishnan as the 37th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from January 14. He is the first Chief Justice of India belonging to the Scheduled Caste and he succeeded Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, who retired on January 13. Ninth Schedule
A nine-judge Bench that examined the scope of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution held that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review for laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule. (Once a law is enacted and included in the Ninth Schedule it gets protection under Article 31-B {validation of certain Acts and Regulations} of the Constitution and such a law is not subject to judicial scrutiny.) The court held that the power of judicial review could not be taken away by putting a law under the Ninth Schedule. ‘Cash for query’ case
Dealing with the issue of expulsion of MPs caught on the camera in the ‘cash for query’ sting operation, the court held that the actions of Parliament are subject to judicial review and no absolute immunity can be claimed to usurp the jurisdiction of the court. It, however, upheld the expulsion of the MPs and said: “Parliament is a co-ordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny.”
The court said: “Constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitution that no one, howsoever lofty, can claim to be the sole judge of the power given under the Constitution. Mere co-ordinate constitutional status, or even the status of exalted constitutional functionaries, does not disentitle this court from exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review of action which partake the character of judicial or quasi-judicial decision.”
Passing orders on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006, the court stayed the implementation of the law insofar as it pertained to 27 per cent quota for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Centre sought clarification of this order and this was rejected on April 23. Later a five-judge Bench heard elaborate arguments and the court is expected to give its verdict in January 2008.Forest Bench
Concerned at the interference by the Supreme Court in the ‘forest cases,’ the Centre filed an application for scrapping the ‘Forest Bench’ stating that the apex court should not think that it was the only institution that was protecting the environment as the Centre too had a responsibility. However, the Centre withdrew this application.
On issues relating to students, the court, by an interim order, directed the implementation of the report of the R.K. Raghavan Committee on measures to put down ragging in educational institutions.
Acting on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition, the court ordered a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Samajwadi Party chief, Mulayam Singh, and other family members in a “disproportionate assets case” against them. When a review was sought, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan (since retired), who wrote the judgment, broke down in the court claiming that he received a threatening letter and declined to hear the case further.
There was a relief for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati as the court declined to interfere with the decision of Governor refusing to grant sanction for her prosecution in the “Taj heritage corridor scam”.
On the Sethusamudram project, the court, by an interim order, while allowing the project to continue stayed the demolition of Ramar Sethu. Subsequently, the Centre filed an affidavit stating that Ramar Sethu was not man made but withdrew this affidavit and took time to file a fresh affidavit.
The apex court sat on a Sunday to hear a petition against the observance of a bandh in Tamil Nadu. By an interim order, the court restrained the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and its allies from proceeding with the bandh on October 1.
The court declined to interfere in the nomination of Pratibha Patil as the United Progressive Alliance-Left candidate for the Presidential election by dismissing a petition.
The court dismissed Mohd. Afzal’s plea to review the death sentence awarded to him in the Parliament attack case. The court directed the release on bail of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt and certain other accused, convicted and sentenced in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.
A few days prior to the second phase of Assembly polls in Gujarat, the court issued a contempt notice on Chief Minister Narendra Modi for his speech on Sohrabuddin (killed in fake encounter). A two-judge Bench criticised the courts (including the apex court) for passing orders on PILs which had the effect of interfering with the functions of the Legislature and the Executive. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Balakrishnan quickly responded by agreeing to lay down fresh guidelines for entertaining PILs.