Life Death Form Function And History: Fill & Download for Free

Would a Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship violate the 14th Amendment?Oh, hell yes, Glenn R. Anderson.The fact that the people pushing this notion that it doesn’t are also the same folks constantly pushing “textual originalism” that we must interpret the Constitution as written in 1789 stretches irony to the breaking point.The Founding Fathers and Early U.S. HistoryWhen the Constitution was written, the United States essentially ported over the English common law system, including many of the English decisions and precedent.At the time the Constitution was drafted in 1789, there were two primary legal theories for how a child inherited allegiance to a particular nation, such as being a subject of a monarch, or a citizen of a popular sovereignty nation.The first theory is jus soli, or “right of soil.” This means that citizenship is a function of the place where a child is born. There are a few exceptions to this, including diplomats or foreign dignitaries present in a nation where they do not normally reside.The second theory is jus sanguinis, or “right of blood.” This makes citizenship a function of parentage. If one or both parents are citizens of the nation, then the child inherits citizenship. Countries that follow this sometimes extend it several generations; many European Union countries that follow this allow automatic citizenship to children of citizens and permissive citizenship upon application out to typically grandchildren and occasionally great-grandchildren.The English monarchy firmly took the side of jus soli. Anyone other than the children of foreign dignitaries and diplomats born on soil occupied by the British Empire were subjects of the crown and owed the King fealty.When the United States was founded and the Constitution written, this was well-entrenched in English common law and the concept was included in American common law as well. It was taken as such a given that the New York state court decision Lynch v. Clarke in 1844 was somewhat incredulous that it was even being brought up, making clear that jus soli citizenship is the law of the land, even where a child was born to immigrant parents and subsequently left the United States never to return.Post-Civil War SouthIn 1868, when the 14th Amendment was drafted, the Civil War had just ended and Reconstruction was beginning. The Southern states were still being excluded from congressional representation.First, it’s important to note that the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford had not yet been overruled. Dred Scott held that black people, even freed blacks, could not be citizens of the United States.There was also the matter of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore that stated that the Federal Constitution did not apply to the individual States except where expressly stated. Because of these two decisions, States could abridge free speech, free press, perform searches on black homes without legal recourse, lynch blacks that stepped out of line, and more.That’s why after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states immediately moved to adopt “black codes” that severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence.These “black codes” were justified under the theory that blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States, and therefore entitled to no rights under the either the federal or various state constitutions.Essentially, the former Confederate states were attempting to go back to some form of slavery, or at the very least end up doing a lot of racial discriminating, by essentially stripping people of their state citizenship. That was precisely what was happening in the post-Civil War years.If jus sanguinis citizenship was the law, that meant that even if Dred Scott were ever overturned, no black child would ever become a citizen by birth and would have to apply to be naturalized, which Congress could prohibit, and if the former Confederate states were allowed to hold state citizenship separate from federal citizenship, they could continue to essentially recreate slavery in all but name.In response, the northern Republican-controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have granted full citizenship to all former slaves and essentially to all people currently in the United States (except untaxed Native Americans.)The Southern states fought it bitterly, contesting the constitutional basis of its passage. President Andrew Johnson agreed, and vetoed the law.Enraged by this, Congressional Republicans drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, both of which are expressly targeted at the individual States themselves. They required ratification of this amendment as part of the Southern re-entry into congressional representation.This guaranteed jus soli citizenship to everyone in the United States by virtue of having been born here as a means of overruling Dred Scott, and making United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative of United States citizenship, so that states couldn’t continue these “black codes” on the justification of those people not being citizens of the state.Edit 11/1/18: A number of people have been posting Senator Howard’s transcript from the debate at the time, noting correctly that Senator Howard was the one who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate.The highlighted bit is what’s going around.Read the entire bit above the highlighted portion.Specifically:I do not propose to say anything on the subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.The question of citizenship had been, according to Senator Howard, completely agreed upon, and the understanding of the law of citizenship by birth in the nation at the time was… wait for it…jus soli.Please stop spamming my comments with it now, mmmkay?Cases Interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentIn the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned in dicta that “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States” would not be subject to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, referencing the long-understood common law exceptions to jus soli, not of jus sanguinis.Shortly thereafter, Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) held that Native Americans were not eligible for jus soli citizenship by virtue of the unique and special relationship of Native American tribes to the United States Federal Government. This was later overruled by statute with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, though U.S. citizenship had been slowly started to be extended to Native Americans in the late 19th century and through the early 20th century before it.The most definitive court case on the subject is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that a person who is born in the United States, of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject is considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a citizen of the United States by birth under the 14th Amendment.The lawful or unlawful immigration status of the parents was not the issue that Wong Kim Ark turned on. In fact, it was precisely whether to adopt a view of whether parentage was even something to consider or not that was central to the case.The case specifically turned on whether the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment referred specifically to the concept of jus sanguinis or whether it referred more broadly to the longstanding concept of jus soli.Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled 6–2 that jus soli was the longstanding tradition of the United States and was the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Gray wrote a lengthy opinion that covered the history of citizenship in the United States and Western civilization to come to that conclusion.This case still controls today.Some conservative commentators have suggested that Wong Kim Ark does not control today because the parents were legal immigrants; their argument being that Trump’s executive order would only apply to children of illegal immigrants.This likewise holds no merit whatsoever.First, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and when Wong Kim Ark was decided, the concept of a lawful permanent resident as we understand it today was significantly different. There were relatively few immigration laws and they mostly regarded to what kinds of ethnic groups and nationalities the United States wanted to stick a big “KEEP OUT” sign up about.Second, the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment reads “all persons born in the United States,” not “all children of lawful permanent residents born in the United States.” This is unambiguous.The Supreme Court has further ruled that the 14th Amendment’s other important clauses, the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, do apply to immigrants regardless of their legal status in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Specifically:No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.Even the dissenting opinions adopted this specific principle, even when they disagreed with what the result of the case should be.(h/t to Rajan Bhavnani for pointing this out for me.)The Heritage FoundationIt was nearly a century after Wong Kim Ark was decided that conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation began peddling the narrative that jus sanguinis was really what the drafters of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment had in mind, despite all legislative history and debate to the contrary. In the 1990’s, various conservatives, generally on the fringes of the Republican Party (ironically, the same party that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place 125 years prior) started to question whether Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided amidst the debate over undocumented immigration.This was where the concept of “anchor babies” and other pejorative terms for children born in the United States to immigrants present without lawful status started to come in.It’s little wonder that a President who has used borderline racism and dog-whistle rhetoric for much of his adult life, including his term in office, is drawn to this nationalist philosophy that has only ever historically in this nation been used to exclude non-white individuals from U.S. citizenship.This fringe movement has gained some steam in recent years among various conservative circles, but the vast majority of non-partisan legal scholarship agrees that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided, and that it clearly adopts the view that jus soli was always a part of the American system of citizenship, and explicitly codified in the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.Bottom LineUnless the Supreme Court overturns Wong Kim Ark, which there is little reason to believe it actually will outside of some wishful thinking on the part of some fringe legal conservatives and irrational fears of certain liberals who see a court dominated by more conservative-leaning judges acting in lockstep with a particular agenda, Trump’s threatened executive order is nothing more than a blatant attempt to amend the Constitution by executive fiat.Whoever has advised Trump that this is possible shows a complete lack of regard for more than 225 years of history, jurisprudence and legal scholarship on the matter in the United States.Standard addendum: I anticipate this will start to bring out a certain segment of the population.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, etcetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.And, as Mr. Russ-Navarro just found out, if I deleted your comment because I felt it was over the line, but didn’t airlock you, that means, in the parlance of my industry, it’s been “dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint.” However, if you just keep posting the same thing, and you start spamming my comments with it over and over, you’ll be given a free one-way ticket out the airlock, where you can howl at the void to your heart’s delight.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes.Debate responsibly.

Thanks for the A2A.The public press meet of the four senior most judges was certainly a consequential and unprecedented moment in the history of independence in Indian judiciary[1] .The Supreme Court enjoys a critical role in the constitutional mosaic of the Indian polity. So naturally the entire fiasco has sparked a deeply fissured verdict in the public discourse.Eminent legal luminaries like former CJI, Justice T.S. Thakur, Justice Santosh Hegde, former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee etc have sharply criticised this move of airing the dirty laundry in the public saying it doesn’t help the institution and tarnishes the image of the judiciary in the eyes of general public.However there are also a handful of former judges and lawyers who argue that disapproval of the form of protest must not cloud the substance of the grievances.Despite this divided opinion one cannot deny that this step has set a bad precedent and sent disturbing shockwaves impacting the credibility and reputation of the Apex Court of India.This decision to hold a press conference seems even more counter productive in light of subsequent next day statements of Justice Gogoi that there is no crisis in the judiciary[2] and Justice Joseph’s assertion that there is no need for outsiders to intervene[3] .One is left wondering if this institutional disrepair was indeed capable of being solved by a mutual discussion why then would the honourable Judges conduct such a public airing of grievances at the risk of diminishing the image of the judiciary and the esteem it enjoys in society.The judges have also given an opportunity to politicians[4] to fish in troubled waters[5] and enabled the media (both print and electronic) to extensively hold discussions about the functioning of the judiciary, which otherwise they could not have done[6].Judiciary has often been a last resort to the ordinary citizen of the country, a watchdog of our fundamental rights, a refugee against legislative negligence and executive corruption. The common man, who had absolute faith in the institution and in the impartiality of judges, is now let to suspect that court decisions may not be purely based on merit.The Way ForwardThe Supreme Court has always maintained that key to its independence is its ability — and its need — to be left alone to self-regulate, to reform. That being said, CJI should definitely not set aside any reasonable suggestions by his brother judges on the matter of roster. This would definitely lead to a more amicable resolution of such dissents in the future.Also the Central Government rather than be inexplicably silent, must disclose its position on the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments and communicate this clearly to the Supreme Court. One of the specific issues raised in the letter written by the four judges relates to this issue. They have suggested that since the Centre had not responded to the MoP, effectively it was deemed to have been accepted. Given this, they have questioned why a two-member Bench had reopened the issue when the matter was already decided by a Constitution Bench.Similar to the Memorandum of procedure for judicial appointments and transfer, a set of guidelines can be evolved by the Apex Court to enable the Chief Justice to discharge his role in assignment of cases and constitution of benches in a more systematic and efficient manner. Such an endeavor will serve a two fold purpose:Any future disagreement regarding roster could be solved internally by a self corrective mechanism.It would foster a sense of comity and participation within the judicial cohort.Such an Memorandum can also take inspiration from the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ adopted by the full bench of Supreme Court on May 7, 1997. It emphasises that:Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done.A judge should practice a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office;A judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a member of his family, a close relation or a friend is concerned;Every judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”Alternatively, a tenured and accountable career administrator, selected by UPSC or any other similar body can be appointed to explore more efficient solutions and ease such administrative burdens from the shoulders of judges, so that they may better focus on their primary and crucial role of judicial interpretation and resolution.Whatever the options, this institution which has illumined the national life for more than six decades and stood as a pillar of support of “We the People of India” in some of the most turbulent times of constitutional crisis certainly needs contemplative introspection to survive such a moment of reckoning.Footnotes[1] Live updates: Unprecedented press conference by 4 senior SC Judges - Times of India[2] 'There is no crisis', says Justice Ranjan Gogoi - Times of India[3] Supreme Court crisis: Judge Kurian Joseph says issue will be resolved[4] SC Judges’ revolt: D Raja meets Justice J Chelameswar, CPI says it was in ‘personal capacity’[5] Probe Loya’s death: Congress[6] The judiciary’s self-inflicted wound will take time to heal

Some of the historic judgement which that shook and changed india are1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961Hardly an open-and-shut case, the nature of the crime garnered media attention.This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wifes lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him not guilty which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.2. Amendment masquerades as law (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) - 1967Parliaments prevented from taking away individual rights.In the highly famous case of Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliaments overarching ambitions nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.3. Elected representatives cannot be given the benefit of doubtA highly notable case which introduced the concept of basic structure of the constitution of India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the Parliament. The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.4. Beginning of the fall of Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain) - 1975The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency.In this landmark case regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.5. A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) - 1976Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights.In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies. Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.6. Overlapping zones of laws rectified thanks to a writ petitionThe case caused a huge uproar over the definition of Freedom of Speech. The court ruled that the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other Fundamental Rights.7. Parliament limited by itself (Minerva Mills v Union of India) - 1980In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. Two changes which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in this particular case.8. Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) - 1981SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.9. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband.The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.10. MC Mehta v Union Of India - 1986Mounting environment-related concerns.A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.11. Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) - 1992Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally.The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.12. Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another versus Union of India) - 1993The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. The act was struck down as unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court in October 2015.13. Power of Presidents Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) - 1994Persecution of state governments stalled.This landmark case had major implications on Center-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.14. Scam-tainted politicians - 1997The Jain Hawala case exposed bigwigs.The Hawala scandal was an Indian political scandal involving payments allegedly received by politicians through four hawala brokers, the Jain brothers. In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest litigation. Many were acquitted, partly because the hawala records (including diaries) were judged in court to be inadequate as the main evidence. The high court decreed that the CBI had not brought on record any material which could be converted into legally admissible evidence.15. Foundation for a female workforce (Vishaka v State of Rajasthan) - 1997Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down.In this case Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a landmark judgment.16. Afzal Gurus death sentence sparked protests - 2002Awarded death sentence for role in 2001 Parliament attacks.Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather than rule of law.17. Justice deferred in Best Bakery case - 2003Miscarriage of justice as a large number of witnesses turn hostile.The Best Bakery was burned down, killing 14 people on March 1, 2002 as part of the 2002 Gujarat violence. The Supreme court, in a rarest of rare case, ordered a re-trial outside of Gujarat in which nine out of the seventeen accused were convicted by a special court in Mumbai in 2006.18. State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti - November 2004Short conviction time of seven months.This was notable for being the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused was later convicted and sentenced.19. Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India - 2005Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted.In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.20. Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) - 2006Controversial ruling had many opponents.The Supreme Court in the above case declared that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in spite of medical evidence not proving that it was rape.21. Priyadarshini Mattoo case - October 200614-year-old fight for justice gets results.In this matter the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to prime accused Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of the 23-year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.22. Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006Civil society makes big gains.A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.23. Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life - 2007Conviction under TADA changed under milder Arms Act.Well-known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The Supreme Court also cited that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year-old actor to be released on probation.24. Nithari serial murders - 2009Koli was served with multiple death sentences.A Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14-year-old girl. The murders believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism. Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.25. Aarushi Talwar murder - 2008Verdict delivered under unusual circumstances.A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.26. Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals.In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in December, 2013.27. Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) - September 2010Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts.The high court of Allahabad had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated before it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Sunni muslim Waqf board.28. Child sexual assault not to be taken lightly - 2011Punishment not enough for child abusers.The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The Bench directed the accused to serve the remaining period of sentence. In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court observed “Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes”.29. Vodafones name cleared in tax battle (Vodafone-Hutchison tax case) - January 2012Landmark decision on taxability of offshore transactions.The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case citing that capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.30. Clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi - 2012Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure.In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.31. Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra - 2012One of the most high-profile executions in the country.The Supreme Court observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging war against India.32. NOTA Judgment - 2013The right to reject candidates formalised.In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any candidate (None-Of-The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.33. Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) - 2013Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine.Novartis’ application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company brands as Glivec, which is very effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the general public at a much lower cost.34. Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.35. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr Cbi) - March 2014Split judgment couldnt reach a decision on sentencing.August 2015: Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.36. Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014Judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex offenders.Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given the death sentence. The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.37. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights.In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other amenities.38. Section 66A revised (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015Cracking down on offensive online content not easy.Controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.39. Yakub Memon sentenced to death (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra and Anr) - July 2015No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon was convicted and sentenced to execution by hanging in March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts. His conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.40. Dance bars functional again - October 2015After a gap of two decades, dance bars open.The Supreme Court in July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state government to reopen dance bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the Maharashtra Police Act. The resultant ban by the Bombay High Court was stayed.