by Megha Sharma
‘10 Judgements that Changed India’ is a beautiful story of the Indian judicial system and its evolution since 1950, including discussions of some landmark judgements. Anybody who is interested in the Indian judiciary and its functions will find this book an interesting read.
The author of the book, Zia Mody, is a legal consultant and a well-known corporate lawyer in India. She is listed in Business Today’s Hall of Fame as one of India’s most powerful business women. In the prologue, the author says: “Selecting ten judgements – those that can be termed ‘landmark’ cases involved difficult decision,” but she did a great job in selecting judgements that are being proven to be landmarks, and telling them in a way that holds the reader’s interest.
The book starts with a foreword written by her father Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, former Attorney General of India. He says “…the Judiciary was considered as the weakest branch of the state because it possessed neither power of the purse nor power of the sword. But that myth has been demolished.” The book has 10 chapters titled by the case name. However, in each chapter, the author discusses some cases that led to the title judgement, so eventually one ends up reading more than 10 judgements. The author has used simple English to make it an easy read and has written to the point. In some chapters, the author has pointed out how the flaws in the title judgement are addressed in a subsequent judgement.
The underlying theme in all the judgements covered in the book is judicial activism. The author succeeds in convincing the reader about how the judiciary extended the conventional interpretation of our fundamental rights. For instance, in Aruna Shanbaug’s judgement, “Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)”, the reader will get to know the way the right to die with dignity fell under the ambit of the right to life.
Similarly in “Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)”, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the state’s responsibility to provide shelter to pavement dwellers rather than displacing them. This helps the reader understand the importance of the right to livelihood in the right to life.
The author also discusses some interesting, unique situations. What happens when two laws collide? Which law is to be given priority? What is the correct course of action?
The first chapter of the book “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)” is an impactful case that answers the biggest question in our parliamentary history: Is the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? The Supreme Court laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine in this case, which states that some of the provisions of the Constitution of India form its basic structure and cannot be amended by the Parliament by exercising its constituent power under Article 368. This chapter covers all the chronological cases which led to the title case.
The chapters “Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)” and “Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India” are two of my favourites of the lot. In the former case Vishaka, an NGO for women’s education and research filed a Public Interest Litigation against the State of Rajasthan to enforce a fundamental right for women against discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Since there was no legislation in India related to sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court drew support from the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to define sexual harassment and also recommended the formation of ‘Complaints Committees’ in organisations of a certain size to address complaints of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to formulate the Vishaka guidelines. The author, however, is inclined towards a law rather a guideline as the law is enforceable in all cases.
The latter case “Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India” is still swinging between the Parliament and the Supreme Court. The crucial question of who holds the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts has not been answered even after 70 years of independence. What is the National Judicial Appointments Commission? How does the Collegium System work? Many such questions have been answered by the author by citing the chronology of the issue.
In contrast, there are judgements which distinctly depict the conflicts between the government and the Supreme Court. In cases like “Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)” or “The Mandal Commission,” government legislation has nullified the verdict given by the Supreme Court. This part of the book makes interesting reading as it leads to a winning-losing game between the two most important parts of our democracy.
The book is lucid and clearly written. The views of the author are candid and she frankly shares her perspective towards an issue. She opposes the judiciary as well as the government wherever she feels the need to do so.
In the chapter “Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)”, Mody is not convinced of the verdict on accepting passive euthanasia as being constitutional and says “depriving a patient of food and antibiotics is far more merciless than administering an instant and painless dose of death.” The author has not hesitated to show her inclination towards the creation of a National Judicial Commission in “Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association v. Union of India.”
The acts and articles along with the nitty-gritties of the cases are mostly explained by the author, but sometimes I had to refer the Internet to understand some issues.
The book is an easy read even for a novice in law (like me). Anyone who is interested in knowing the role of the judiciary in India’s political history can go for this book without a second thought.
