5 historic judgments that changed our

lives in 2018
From Aadhaar to Sabarimala, the Supreme Court has delivered several important
judgments this year. Here's a look at five landmark judgments of 2018.
ADVERTISEMENT

India Today Web Desk

New Delhi
September 27, 2018
UPDATED: September 28, 2018 12:28 IST

2018 was a big year for many, here's a look at the most iconic judgments of this year. (Photo:
Reuters)
This year has brought a lot of changes in our laws and hence, lives. Several laws which
showed that India was trailing other countries in recognising individual's rights have been
struck down.
The Supreme Court delivered judgments interpreting laws to expand the ambit of
fundamental rights.
Here are five iconic judgments of 2018 that changed the course of the Constitution:
1. Lifting ban on entry of women (aged 10-50) inside Sabarimala Temple
Saying that "Devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination", the Supreme Court
removed a ban that prevented women between 10 and 50 years of age from entering Kerala's
Sabarimala temple. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justices Rohinton F
Nariman and Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud concurred with each other while Indu Malhotra
dissented saying that courts shouldn't determine which religious practices should be struck
down or not.

2. Aadhaar Constitutional But Conditions Apply

The banks and mobile phone companies can't insist on Aadhaar-linking anymore.
A five-judge bench of Supreme Court on September 26, 2018 ruled that Aadhaar was
constitutional but making it mandatory for availing government services was
unconstitutional. So, while Aadhaar-PAN linking is mandatory, banks and telecom
companies cannot ask ask people to link their bank accounts and mobile numbers with
Aadhaar. This is unconstitutional.
The bench termed the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Rules as well as the
notification issued by Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in this regard as
unconstitutional. It also means that banks and mobile phone companies can't anymore insist
on Aadhaar number to verify your details when you seek a new connection or open a new
bank account.
3. Decriminalistion of Gay Sex - Section 377 Partly Struck Down

The five-judge bench of the SC has partly struck down Section 377 as violative of right to
equality. (Photo: Reuters)
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment which came out in early September,
decriminalised gay sex holding that consensual sex between two adults was covered under
the right to privacy.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI Dipak Misra partly struck down
Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding it violative of the fundamental right to
privacy. However, the Supreme Court said that Section 377 would continue to be in force in
cases of unnatural sex with animals and children.
Any kind of sexual activity with animals and children remains a penal offence. The Supreme
Court held that Section 377 of IPC was a weapon to harass members of LGBTQ-plus
community resulting in discrimination against them.
4. Adultery Not A Crime

Adultery is no longer a crime, but it will continue to be grounds for divorce. (Photo: Reuters)
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a 150-year-old law that considered adultery to
be an offence committed against a married man by another man. Defined under Section 497
of the IPC, adultery law came under sharp criticism for treating women as possessions rather
than human beings.
The Supreme Court declared Section 497 as unconstitutional. Adultery is no longer a crime
but if it leads to someone committing suicide, the act will be treated as a crime - abetment to
suicide.
5. Live-streaming Of Supreme Court Proceedings

Supreme Court said live streaming of court proceedings will bring transparency. (Photo:
Reuters)
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant," said the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice
Dipak Misra and ordered live-streaming and video recording of the court proceedings
yesterday, September 26.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar delivered a common judgment.
Justice DY Chandrachud gave a separate but concurring judgment. The Supreme Court said
that live streaming would bring in more transparency in judicial proceedings and effectuate
the "public right to know".
ss