Question

Navtej Singh Johar and others Vs Union of India, in this case Supreme Court give importance judgement related with:
1. Shabarimala Temple Entry
2. Linking up of Adhar to PAN Card
3. Homosexuality
4. SC/ST reservation in promotion

Answer 1

Correct Answer - Option 3 : Homosexuality

The correct answer is Homosexuality.

• Navtej Singh Johar and others Vs Union of India
  • It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
  • It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.

• Shabarimala Temple Entry
  • I​n a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that Sabarimala's exclusion of women violated the fundamental rights of women between the ages of 10-50 years and Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules was unconstitutional.
  • Justice Indu Malhotra delivering a dissenting opinion observed that in a secular polity, it was not for the Courts to interfere in matters of religion and the same must be left to those practicing the religion. 
• SC/ST reservation in promotion​
  • In 2006, the Court delivered its judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.
  • In it, the Court validated Parliament’s decision to extend reservations for SC/STs to include promotions (reservation in promotion).
  • However, the Court also laid down conditions which made it difficult for the Central and State Governments to grant such reservations.
  • The Court delivered its verdict.
    • It introduced the creamy layer exclusion principle, thus requiring that the State does not extend reservations in the promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong to the creamy layer of the said SC/ST.
• Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act
  • ​On 26th September 2018, the Court delivered its judgment.
  • It upheld the Aadhaar Act as constitutionally valid.
  • It ruled that the Act empowers disenfranchised sections of society by providing them better access to fundamental entitlements, such as State subsidies.
  • The Court held that the Act was competently passed by Parliament, even though it was passed as a Money Bill.
  • The Court held that the Act does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.