Menaka Guruswamy

In April 2016, Guruswamy along with a team of lawyers including Arundhati Katju and Saurabh Kripal filed a petition on behalf of five LGBT petitioners led by Navtej Singh Johar challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition was the first instance that LGBT Indians actually filed writ petitions alleging violation of their fundamental rights.[12] Guruswamy also appeared on behalf of petitioners from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and in the landmark judgment, the 5-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court read down Section 377 as not applicable to consenting adults.

She had also appeared for Shyam Benegal the film maker in the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).

In the case of T.S.R. Subramanium & Others v. Union of India, Guruswamy represented former cabinet secretary T.S.R. Subramanian and 80 other retired high ranking bureaucrats to seek the implementation of various bureaucratic reforms.[13] In a significant decision, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that bureaucrats are not bound to follow oral orders from Government officials and must rely on written orders, that a Civil Services Board consisting of senior bureaucrats must be formed at the Centre and State level to look into matters of postings and transfers.[14]

Guruswamy represented an intervenor, the Azim Premji Foundation, in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India pertaining to the constitutionality of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.[15] Section 12(1)(c) mandated private unaided schools to admit 25% of their Class strength with children from weaker and disadvantaged sections and provide them with free education. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Constitutionality of the provision.[16]

Guruswamy was a part of the team of lawyers that successfully litigated against Salwa Judum in the landmark case of Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547].[17] Salwa Judam was the practice of deploying tribal youths as Special Police Officers in the fight against the Maoist insurgency and ordered their immediate disarming.[18]

In the Augusta Westland corruption case, wherein middlemen and Indian officials received kickbacks in a deal to purchase helicopters, Guruswamy represented former Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi before a Special CBI Court.[19] She successfully argued for his bail after his arrest.[20] In 2018, a charge sheet was filed against Tyagi and the case is currently pending.

In 2012, a bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Desai appointed Guruswamy as the Amicus Curie in the case of alleged 1528 extrajudicial killings by the armed forces in Manipur, India. Among other contributions, Guruswamy proposed to the bench that a Special Investigation Team be set up to investigate the killings of persons.[21] In 2016, accepting the submissions of the Amicus and the Petitioners, the Supreme Court ordered that the use of excessive force by Police or the Armed Forces must be thoroughly enquired into. The Court held that there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court constituted under the Cr.P.C., even if the offence is alleged to have been committed by army personnel.[22] In 2017, the Court directed the CBI to constitute a Special Investigation Team to complete investigations in the matter, lodge FIRs in the matter and file chargesheets wherever necessary.[23] The case is ongoing in the Supreme Court.

On March 29, 2019, Guruswamy was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court of India.[24] The designation is conferred on merit to exceptional lawyers by the Supreme Court of India or of High Courts in the States. The designation is conferred by a permanent committee consisting of the Chief Justice of India as its Chairperson, along with two-senior-most Supreme Court judges, Attorney general for India, and a member of the Bar as nominated by the Chairperson and other members.[25] Each application is then sent to the all the justices of the Supreme Court who consider the list of advocates who have applied and review the marks allotted.