(Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict striking down Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the provision was archaic and perpetuated gender discrimination, infringing upon the autonomy and dignity of women. The judgment emphasized several key points:

1. The Court found that the law was rooted in outdated notions of marriage, treating women as subordinate to their husbands and incapable of exercising agency. It highlighted that the law reinforced harmful gender stereotypes.

2. The Court ruled that Section 497 violated Articles 14, 15, and 21. It acknowledged that the law stripped women of their fundamental rights to equality and dignity, denying them the status of equal participants in marital relationships.

3. The judgment reaffirmed that sexual autonomy is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court stressed that individuals should not face criminal penalties for engaging in consensual relationships outside of marriage, as these matters fall within the realm of personal privacy.

4. The Court noted that while adultery could be addressed as a civil wrong (e.g., grounds for divorce), it should not be treated as a criminal offense. The intrusion of the state into private relationships was deemed inappropriate, as such matters should be resolved privately between the parties involved.

5. The Court also declared Section 198(2) unconstitutional to the extent that it limited the right to file complaints to husbands only, further reinforcing the discriminatory nature of the provisions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling marked a significant step toward recognizing the rights of women in the context of marriage and personal relationships, emphasizing the need for laws to reflect contemporary values of equality, dignity, and autonomy.

M. NAGARAJ V. UNION OF INDIA (2006)

Facts

M Nagaraj vs Union of India is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India concerning constitutional amendments related to reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment. The case specifically challenged the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, which incorporated Article 16(4A). This article allows for the provision of reserved quotas in promotions for SCs and STs, along with the ancillary benefit of seniority.

The petitioners contended that these amendments violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Indian Constitution. They argued that such reservations perpetuated reverse discrimination, undermining the foundational principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

Issues:

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing several pivotal issues:

1. Whether the amendments made to Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) were constitutionally valid or if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Whether these provisions offended the principles of equality and non-discrimination as established in earlier judgments, particularly the Indra Sawhney case, which set limits on reservations.

3. Whether a state was required to demonstrate the backwardness or inadequacy of representation for implementing reservations in promotions.

Judgment:

In its decision pronounced in 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments relating to reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. The Court found that the amendments did not violate the basic structure of equality as outlined in Articles 14, 15, and 16. Instead, they were seen as enabling provisions that permitted states to implement reservations based on demonstrated backwardness and lack of representation, all while protecting administrative efficiency.

The Court established three key requirements that a state must fulfill before allowing reservations in promotions:

1. The state must provide evidence that the class in question is socially and educationally disadvantaged.

2. The state must demonstrate that this class is underrepresented in public services.

3. The reservations should not undermine the efficiency of administration.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that although these provisions are enacted by the states, they must adhere to certain constitutional standards, such as a cap on reservations of no more than 50% and the inclusion of the "creamy layer" within the SC/ST groups.

The Court emphasized the principle of the catch-up rule, which allows candidates from reserved categories to be promoted ahead of regular candidates from the general category within the same feeder grade. However, these candidates will still retain junior status in relation to senior candidates from the general category in the promoted category.

Additionally, the Court ruled that for the carry-forward of unfilled vacancies, states must demonstrate compelling reasons related to backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall administrative efficiency.

The judgment highlighted that while states have discretion in formulating policy, such discretion cannot be exercised indefinitely or beyond constitutional limits. This ruling had significant implications for how states frame and implement policies concerning reservations for promotions in public services, ensuring that any such measures align with constitutional mandates.