Among the cases which the Supreme Court will hear this month is the one where multiple petitions have been filed against the Citizenship Amendment Act. While the year 2019 was an eventful one for the Supreme Court, 2020 promises to be equally action-packed when proceedings resume on Monday after the winter break. Some important judgments are expected to be delivered in early 2020, a year in which the top court will also hear certain politically sensitive cases. The court is expected to pronounce its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the restrictions imposed on telecommunication, transport and movement in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. A bench of justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai heard a batch of petitions for nine days before reserving its order on November 27. While most of the restrictions have now been lifted, the petitioners asked the court to pronounce upon the legality of such restrictions so that the executive does not resort to similar measures in future. Another important judgment which will be pronounced in 2020 concerns interpretation of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The 2013 Act had replaced the earlier Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The question before the court is whether land acquisition under section 24 of the 2013 Act would lapse if the acquiring authority fails to deposit compensation in court under Section 31 of the 1894 Act. A five-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat had reserved its verdict in this case on December 11, 2019. The apex court will also deliver its verdict in the case relating to economic reservation. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai had heard several petitions challenging the validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society. The court had reserved its verdict on July 31, 2019 on the limited aspect of whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench or not. The Supreme Court will also hear some very important cases in 2020. Foremost among them is the case on Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. At least 60 petitions challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 on the ground that it discriminates against Muslims will be heard in January. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant had issued notice to the central government on December 18 but refused to stay the Act, a prayer, which the court said will be considered later. Another significant matter relates to rights of Muslim, Parsi and Hindu women vis-à-vis religious practices. There are four such cases which are likely to be heard in the coming year. Two out of the four cases relate to Muslim women. One is a petition seeking entry of Muslim women into mosques while the other is a challenge to the practice of female genital mutilation prevalent amongst the Dawoodi Bohra community. The third case relates to the restrictions placed on Parsi women to enter the holy fire place of an Agyari if they marry non-Parsis. These three cases are likely to be heard in the coming days by a 7–judge bench. Based on the decision in the above cases, the review petitions challenging the 2018 judgment of SC permitting entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala will be listed. CJI Bobde had already said in open court that he will constitute a Bench to decide the Sabarimala issue at the earliest, after the case on Muslim and Parsi women is decided. This is not the only matter which will be heard by a seven-judge bench in 2020. The contentious issue of the government adopting the money bill route to get laws passed in the Parliament will also be decided by a bench of seven judges. A money bill originates in Lok Sabha and once passed in Lok Sabha by a simple majority, it is sent to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations. The recommendations made by Rajya Sabha on money bills are not binding on Lok Sabha which may choose to reject it. The current government which still does not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha has used the money bill route on more than one occasion to pass contentious laws. In a challenge to the Finance Act 2017 which was passed as a money bill, a five-judge Bench of the Court on November 13, 2019 held that its earlier judgment in Aadhaar case approving the money bill route needs to be reconsidered. It, therefore, referred the issue to a bench of seven judges. The court will also resume hearing in the petitions on abrogation of Article 370 relating to special status of Jammu and Kashmir. While some of the petitions challenge the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act which divided the state into two union territories, Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, at least 6 petitions have been filed supporting the Government’s decision. The hearing in the matter started on December 10 before a bench headed by justice NV Ramana and also comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant. The hearing is expected to resume in January 2020. The creamy layer controversy is another case in which the top court might take up for hearing this year. The central government has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2018 judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh in which the court had ruled that the principle of creamy layer should be applied to SC/ST communities for reservation in promotions. ‘Creamy layer’ is the term used to describe those who are better off among other backward classes who are ineligible for reservations as per the Mandal Commission provisions. It is determined on the basis of economic parameters. The Centre is against application of this principle to SC/ST communities on the ground that they have been discriminated against for centuries and should get reservation benefits despite economic advancement.