A close reading of the top landmark judgments of 2021 helps CLAT PG aspirants grasp how the Supreme Court addressed reservation limits, digital surveillance, press freedom, and judicial accountability during one of the most consequential years in India's constitutional history.
The Maharashtra government enacted the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, granting reservation to the Maratha community in public education and employment, exceeding the 50 percent ceiling when combined with existing reservations.
The Bombay High Court upheld the reservation with modified percentages, and the matter reached the Supreme Court through multiple appeals challenging its constitutional validity.
Whether any exceptional circumstances justified crossing that limit.
Whether the 102nd Constitutional Amendment stripped states of their power to identify socially and educationally backward classes for their own reservation lists.
Judgment
The Supreme Court struck down the Maratha reservation as unconstitutional, holding that the Gaikwad Commission's report failed to establish extraordinary circumstances necessary to breach the 50 percent ceiling set in Indra Sawhney.
It also held that after the 102nd Amendment, only the President, acting on the National Commission for Backward Classes' recommendation, can identify socially and educationally backward classes for state lists, curtailing the states' independent power in this domain.
This ruling reaffirmed Indra Sawhney's ceiling as a firm constitutional limit rather than a flexible guideline.
Media reports alleged that the Indian government used Israeli-made Pegasus spyware to surveil journalists, activists, opposition politicians, and constitutional functionaries by infiltrating their mobile phones.
Multiple petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation, while the government refused to file a detailed affidavit, citing national security concerns.
Whether the government's blanket refusal to disclose information, on the mere plea of national security, could shield the allegations from independent judicial scrutiny.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy and freedom of speech, including of the press, stand threatened whenever the state uses surveillance technology without proper legal safeguards, and that national security cannot become a magic wand to avoid judicial scrutiny altogether.
It constituted an independent technical committee, supervised by a retired judge, to investigate the allegations and determine whether the government or its agencies deployed Pegasus unlawfully. The Court held that mere invocation of national security does not automatically exempt the state from accountability before constitutional courts.
A local political leader in Himachal Pradesh filed an FIR against senior journalist Vinod Dua, alleging sedition and related offences over remarks made on his YouTube show criticising the government's handling of the COVID-19 lockdown. Dua approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, seeking quashing of the FIR and protection from prosecution.
What is the scope of protection available to journalists under the settled interpretation of sedition laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar.
Judgment
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, holding that Dua's statements amounted to nothing more than criticism of government functioning and did not incite violence or public disorder, falling squarely outside the narrow scope of sedition defined in Kedar Nath Singh.
It clarified that every journalist is entitled to the same protection that Kedar Nath Singh extends to citizens commenting on government policy. The Court declined Dua's separate request to create a special screening mechanism before registering sedition cases against journalists with substantial experience, leaving that policy question to the legislature.
While hearing a plea concerning COVID-19 safety arrangements during vote counting for the Tamil Nadu assembly elections, the Madras High Court orally remarked that the Election Commission should probably face murder charges for permitting political rallies during the pandemic's second wave.
Widespread media coverage of this oral observation prompted the Election Commission to approach the Supreme Court, seeking to expunge the remarks and restrain media reporting of oral courtroom exchanges.
Issues
Whether oral remarks made by judges during the course of a hearing, as distinct from the final written order, can be expunged or restrained from media reporting.
What is the the balance between open-court reporting under freedom of the press and protecting constitutional institutions from being unfairly characterised on the basis of preliminary oral observations.
Judgment
The Supreme Court declined to expunge the High Court's remarks or restrain their reporting, holding that open-court proceedings and fair reporting of judicial dialogue form an essential part of transparency in the justice system.
It clarified that oral observations made during arguments do not form part of the operative judgment, and courts should therefore exercise caution before treating such remarks as final conclusions on merits.
The Court nonetheless emphasised that judges must exercise restraint while making oral observations, since harsh or intemperate remarks can cause unwarranted institutional damage even when never reduced to writing.