Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during March 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of March and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing on the taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands, providing...
Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during March 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of March and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing on the taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands, providing a succinct overview.
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 2792/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court dismissed self-styled godman Asaram Bapu's challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order, which rejected his plea for suspension of sentence on health grounds in a case where he was convicted for a minor's rape.
Case Details: BASAVARAJ VERSUS INDIRA AND OTHERS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 178
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
On February 29 (Thursday), the Supreme Court held that an application seeking an amendment to the plaint shouldn't be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit.
In the present case, an amendment of the plaint in a partition suit was sought to include a prayer to declare an earlier compromise decree as void. The Court disallowed the application stating that the amendment had the effect of altering the nature of partition suit to a declaration suit.
Case Details: Dr. Surinder Nath Kundra v Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 45/2024 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud., Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition writ petition seeking to digitally monitor all the activities of MPs/MLAs to 'ensure transparency and to prevent corruption'.
CJI DY Chandrachud expressed dissatisfaction regarding the substance of the petition and reminded that a mandamus to seek continuous digital monitoring of elected representatives would be in stark violation of the Right to Privacy. He also warned the petitioner before hearing him on merits, that the petitioner would face costs of Rs 5 lakhs if the Court found the matter to be unfit of devote public's time.
Case Title: TR. O. PANNEERSELVAM AND ORS. Versus THE STATE REP BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Diary No. 9209-2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court dismissed former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam's challenge to a Madras High Court order, vide which suo motu revision was initiated against his discharge in a criminal case.
Case Title: VINOD BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court confirmed the interim protection relief granted to Vice Chancellor Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Director Vinod Bihari Lal and others in the SHUATS (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) mass religious conversion case.
Case Details: Savitri Bai and another Versus Savitri Bai, Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013.
Coram: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed by the person (not being an owner of the property) in the plaintiff's favor wouldn't entitle the plaintiff to claim ownership/possession over such property.
Case Details: S.P. VELAYUTHAM & ANR. VERSUS M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 179
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court held that merely because the dispute is related to an immovable property wouldn't per se make it a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 unless the immovable property is 'actually used' exclusively in trade or commerce.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
All CISF Personnel Entitled To HRA If They Aren't Provided Accommodation : Supreme Court
Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS PARAMISIVAN M., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court has endorsed a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court which held that Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) personnel are entitled to receive House Rent Allowances (“HRA”) from the Union Government as provided to other paramilitary forces.
Case Title: Vinayak Purushottam Dube (D) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 181
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal arising out of consumer dispute, observed that the legal representatives are not liable to discharge the party's obligation which had to be discharged in a personal capacity.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly long three-year period allowed for filing under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. While recognizing the legislative vacuum, the court urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications under Section 11(6).
Case Title: Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 182
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol
While denying a plaintiff's plea for specific performance on account of false/incorrect statements made by him, the Supreme Court recently held that grant of a decree for specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and equitable.
Case Details: MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1610 OF 2023
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be held guilty of possessing narcotics and psychotropic substances if the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act isn't fulfilled by the police while sending the collected sample for the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Test.
Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 191
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court has taken up the issue as to whether an accused person can be arrested by authorities once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under Section 44 of the Act and summons are issued.
Case Title: Sita Soren v. Union of India., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.
In a detailed ruling, the Supreme Court has now emphasised that the purpose of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution is to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose, the court noted, is undermined when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 139/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
A PIL seeking directions to the Centre/State governments to consider the reasonable demands of the protesting farmers and to allow the protesters to move to Delhi was withdrawn from the Supreme Court.
Case Title: MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANR. V. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH (s) ITS SECRETARY & ORS
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) directed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to vacate its office at New Delhi, situated in the plot earmarked for the Delhi judiciary, by 15 June 2024, so that land allotted to expand the district judiciary footprint can be used for the purpose.
Case Title: The State of Punjab v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., ORGNL.SUIT No. 2/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In an original suit filed by the State of Punjab for restraining of interference with its possession & control of the Shanan Power House Hydel Project, the Supreme Court today issued summons to the Himachal Pradesh government.
Students Of Open Schools Recognized By CBSE & State Boards Eligible For NEET Exam : Supreme Court
Case Title: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. ANSHUL AGGARWAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 189
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
The Supreme Court noted that all open schools recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and State Education Board shall now be recognized by the National Medical Council (NMC) for the purpose of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Subhash C. Pandey and Ors., Diary No. 664-2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) expressed surprise at Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which was aimed at saving lakes in the State.
"By the impugned order, an effort is made by the National Green Tribunal to save various lakes in the State...We fail to understand how the Tourism Development Corporation of the State can be aggrieved with a direction issued by the NGT to protect the lakes. Appeal dismissed", said the Bench.
Case Title: Md Khurshid Alam vs State of Bihar
Coram: Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Recently, the Supreme Court imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/ on the Advocate-on-Record while noting a criminal appeal was filed in a casual manner, and two of the grounds included in the appeal were incorrect and misleading.
Interest Rate Matter Of NBFC Policy, Loan Receiver Can't Object To Interest Rate After Repaying Amount : Supreme Court
Case Details: RAJESH MONGA VERSUS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 186
Coram: Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh
The Supreme Court held that once the person has availed the loan at the agreed rate of interest, then after paying out the loan amount along with the decided rate of interest, he can't claim back refund of the interest amount alleging that the higher rate of interest is charged by the Non-Banking Financial Company ("NBFCs") than fixed by the RBI.
Case Title: JOSHINE ANTONY vs. ASIFA SULTANA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court recently held that a case under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, is not sustainable when the sample of meat was seized by an officer who was not authorised to do so.
Case Title: THANGAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS NAVAMANI AMMAL, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 188
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to give para wise reply against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.
Supreme Court Quashes Money Laundering Case Against Karnataka Dy CM DK Shivakumar & Aide
Case Title: Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah v. Principal Director of Income Tax & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9435-9439 of 2019 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and his aide challenging criminal proceedings in a 2018 money laundering case.
Case Details: SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 193
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court, while granting custody of a minor child to the her aunt despite opposition from the father, held that the personal law or statute couldn't override the welfare of the child while deciding the custody of the child.
Case Title: XYZ v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, the Supreme Court today directed inter-alia immediate release of Rs.18 lacs, out of a total court-ordered sum of Rs.1.6 crores, as compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV.
Case Title: VINIT VILAS VAIDYA vs. MANJIRI VINIT VAIDYA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. However, this direction was not complied with for more than five months.
No Evidence Could Be Led Beyond Pleadings : Supreme Court
Case Title: SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. VERSUS V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that the evidence which was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial.
“There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.,” the Bench said.
CASE TITLE: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4726/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
In a plea alleging dismal state of government schools in Bihar and seeking implementation of the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in the state's government schools, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice and called for the authorities' response.
Test Applied Under Section 319 CrPC Is More Than A Prima Facie Case : Supreme Court
Case Title: N. MANOGAR vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 197
Coram: Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vikram Nath
The Supreme Court reiterated that while allowing an application under Section 319 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is more than just a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction. This Section confers power on the Court to proceed against persons, other than named as accused in the chargesheet, appearing to be guilty of offence.
Case Details: Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 198
Amidst the controversy over the Uttarakhand government's proposal to construct animal enclosures inside the Jim Corbett National Park, the Supreme Court directed the constituting a committee to recommed whether tiger safaris should be permitted in the buffer or fringe areas and what guidelines should be promulgated for establishing such safaris, if permitted.
Besides appointing the committee for determining the larger question, the apex court also took a stern view of the illegal constructions and rampant felling of trees in Uttarakhand's Corbett National Park.
Case Title: THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD v. SALUVADI SUMALATHA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and AS Bopanna
The Supreme Court held that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate. It was also observed that courts have to be cautious and slow in dealing with the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations, the Court said.
Case Title: PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 201
The Supreme Court recently quashed a 22-year-old criminal case against a person for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Scheduled Caste person who was working as his junior.
At the outset, after perusing the contents of the suicide note, the Supreme Court found that the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his official duties assigned by the accused/appellant, thus held that no offence of abetment to suicide is made out to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused/appellant because they had no role in abetting the suicide of the deceased.
Case Title: DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER vs. JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court held that the suspension/cancellation of the registration of the Hospital/Clinic under Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 ("PC&PNDT Act") is permissible only when the Appropriate Authority believes that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest.
Case Title: Bablu Yadav v. State of Bihar., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Patna High Court's order of a 'De-novo' trial in a matter where the accused's trial, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was concluded in 'one day.' The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Trial Court had shown 'ugly haste.'
Case Title: Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held “ghee” to be a “product of livestock” for the purposes of regulation of its purchase and sale in all notified market areas of Andhra Pradesh (AP).
Case Title: A. MOHANDOSS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3950/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of strengthening and enhancing the overall functioning of Bar Associations across the country.
Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SANDEEP KUMAR, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court denied pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to a police officer who failed to discharge its fundamental duty as a police officer of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty.
Case Title: IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES SMW(C) No. 2/2024
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which completely excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.
Case Title: XXXX VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage, after noting that when the relationship started, the woman was already married and that there was no promise to marry.
Case Title: MADAPATHI NAGENDRAPPA vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, Diary No.- 8688 - 2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1987. The petition was preferred on behalf of the Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple priests, known as the Machileshwarnath Temple, against the State of Telangana.
Case Details : GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on March 7 relaxed a condition laid down in an earlier judgment that the Presidents of the State Consumer Dispute Commissions should be selected on the basis of a written test and viva voce. Acknowledging the impracticality of a written test for this specific post, which is to be occupied by a retired High Court judge, the Court has directed the relaxation of the requirement.
Case Details: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir.
Case Details : Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 216
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In the latest development, the Supreme Court has firmly directed the Narcotics Control Bureau's officers to comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu., (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Case Details : MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. GOOGLE LLC SLP(C) No. 001575 - 001576 / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to entertain MakeMyTrip's challenge against the Delhi High Court order which had lifted the interim restraining orders against Google and Booking.com from using the 'MakeMyTrip' (MMT)mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google Ads Program. The Court noted the lack of any premised confusion under S.29 of the Trade Mark Act 1999.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court ordered that the Supreme Court Bar Association's Special General Meeting shall be convened on or before April 16 at Supreme Court Bar Library No.1. Further, it has also been stated that the Supreme Court Bar Association members, who, as per the SCBA rules, are eligible to vote in its election, can participate in this meeting.
Case Title : Bijender v State of Haryana., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 209
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court observed that where the interim protection from arrest is subject to the accused's cooperation in the investigation, he/ she is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under threat of the State seeking the withdrawing of such protection.
By Judicial Order, High Court Cannot Render Advice : Supreme Court
Case Title: Yogesh Narayan Raut v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl) Diary No. 8181/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While deprecating a High Court order for overlooking the long period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that Courts cannot render "advice" through judicial orders and stayed a direction calling for a periodical report from Trial Court on the progress of trial.
Case Title: Vinod Katara vs State Of UP 2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 210
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, while denying the plea of juvenility preferred by a convict in a murder case, observed that to determine age, ossification test stands last in the order of priorities. Pertinently, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides for the mode of determination of age.
Article 20 Doesn't Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment As Per New Law: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 212
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale
The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't restrain the Courts from imposing a lesser punishment on the basis of a new law which came into force after the date of commission of the offence.
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BUNG & ORS., STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 213
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court, in its recent order, has stated that the directions passed by it in the decision of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, are mandatory.
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 214
A relationship may be consensual at the beginning, but the same state may not remain so for all time to come., held the Supreme Court while declining to quash an FIR registered against a rape accused.
Case Title: Ramveer v. The State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Shocked at allegations levelled by a prosecution witness against state officials, regarding assault for the purpose of eliciting a confession, the Supreme Court recently directed undertaking of an inquiry as well as administrative and criminal action.
Case Details : M/s Trois Corporation HK Ltd v. M/s National Ventures Pvt Limited., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,
The Supreme Court in a recent order on deprecated the condition imposed by the High Court for the deposit of 75% of suit claim to condone delay and set aside an ex parte order.
Case Title: State of Punjab versus Gurpreet Singh & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
Case Details: State Bank of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. | MA 486 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court dismissed an application for extension of time filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) for complying with the court's earlier directions to furnish electoral bonds details. Concluding that the requisite information is sufficiently available with the bank, the court asked it to disclose the information by the close of business hours of March 12, 2024.
Case Title: The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 220
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court today allowed Haryana government's challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, which set aside Chief Minister ML Khattar's (Accepting Authority's) remarks and overall grade regarding senior IAS Officer Ashok Khemka's Performance Appraisal Report (PAR).
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki & Ors., Diary No. 10501 of 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) refused to stay the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which acquitted Professor GN Saibaba and five others in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 over alleged Maoist links.
The bench, while hearing the special leave petition filed by the State of Maharashtra, made a prima facie observation that the judgment of the high court is "very well reasoned".
Case Title: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office I & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5875-5876 of 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court dismissed West Bengal government's plea against the Calcutta High Court's decision to transfer the probe into the attack against ED officials at Sandeshkhali to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
However, the apex court did agree to expunge the critical observations made by the high court regarding the conduct of the state government and police.
Supreme Court Suspends Former TN Minister Ponmudi's Conviction & Sentence In DA Case
Case Title: K Ponmudi@Deivasigamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 530-531/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court suspended the conviction and the 3-year sentence awarded to former Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi in a disproportionate assets case.
The Bench directed that Ponmudi shall appear before the Special Court and complete the bail formalities within a period of 1 month. Till the time these formalities are completed, the order granting exemption from surrendering will continue to operate, it added.
'No Live Issue Existing' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right
Case Details : DEVADIPTA DAS vs. UNION OF INDIA Diary No.- 3169 - 2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the declaration of voting rights as part of fundamental rights.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted the necessity for a live controversy to be present before the court, emphasizing the need for a "live lis" (legal dispute) to warrant jurisdiction under Article 32.
Case Details: Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd SLP(C) No. 005239 - / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the alleged insensitive portrayal of disabled individuals in the film 'Aankh Micholi,' produced by Sony Pictures. The Court, in the present matter, will consider the potential implications of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 ( Act of 2016) on the certification process for films involving differently-abled individuals.
Case Title: NIRMAL PREMKUMAR & ANR. VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 221
Coram: Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of sexual harassment committed within the confines of a room or a house (under the POCSO Act) requires closer scrutiny by the courts while deciding the conviction of the accused solely based on the victim's statements.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 223
Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Recently, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can't be denied merely because the custody of the accused is required by the State for custodial interrogation.
The Supreme Court observed the State cannot oppose the bail plea citing the requirement of custodial interrogation unless the State proves that why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for investigation.
Filing Of Suit To Assert Rights Cannot Amount To Contempt Of Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S SHAH ENTERPRISES THR. PADMABEN MANSUKHBHAI MODI VERSUS VAIJAYANTIBEN RANJITSINGH SAWANT & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 224
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court recently, while hearing an appeal dismissing a contempt petition, observed that filing a suit to assert rights cannot amount to contempt of court.
“We find that, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the filing of the suit for asserting the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents could be said to be amounting to contempt of the Court.”
Case Title: The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 220
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
While allowing the appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, which set aside Chief Minister ML Khattar's (Accepting Authority's) remarks and overall grade regarding senior IAS Officer Ashok Khemka's Performance Appraisal Report (PAR), the Supreme Court yesterday reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in administrative decisions.
Case Title: BABASAHEB vs. RADHU VITHOBA BARDE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 225
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court observed that conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the Court held that there is no bar for a tribal in Maharashtra to enter into an agreement to sell and seeking advance sale consideration.
Case Title: SUNEETA DEVI VERSUS AVINASH AND OTHERS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 226
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice whereby the order was passed without hearing to the opposite parties.
Case Title: DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 227
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.
Case Title: MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. VERSUS BRAJRAJNAGAR COAL MINES WORKERS' UNION., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 230
Coram: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the workers employed to perform perennial/permanent nature of work couldn't be treated as contract workers under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 to deny them the benefit of regularization of a job.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Ahead of the Supreme Court Bar Association's Special General Meeting, the Court has modified the eligibility of the members who can participate in this meeting. The Bench clarified that Supreme Court Bar Association members who, per Rule 23 of the SCBA rules, were eligible to vote in the previous elections could participate in this meeting.
Case Title: SRI PUBI LOMBI VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 231
Coram: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court observed that the interference by the court in an order of transfer at the instance of a state employee holding a transferrable position without any violation of statutory provision is impermissible.
Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 132/2016
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
In a matter pertaining to special teachers being engaged on contract basis without security of tenure, the Supreme Court has called for affidavits from all States in the country specifying the number of such teachers working under them on contractual basis, who are Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)-trained and eligible to be appointed.
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court dismissed the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
Case Title: SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. is pending against him.
Case Title: Aditya Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it has extended the internship cut-off date for the NEET MDS exam from March 31, 2024 to June 30, 2024.
Taking note of this submission made by the Union, the Court closed an application filed by the NEET MDS aspirants seeking to reschedule the NEET MDS 2024 which is due on March 18, 2024, and to direct extension of cut-off for eligibility after revising the internship completion dates.
Case Title: RAKESH RANJAN SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 235
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of the cheque dishonor complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act would not grant a right to a complainant to seek interim compensation under Section 143A (1) of the N.I. Act, as the power of the court to grant interim compensation, isn't mandatory but discretionary and needs to be decided after prima facie evaluating the merits of the case.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Poet In Case Over Poem Titled 'Ram'
Case Title: Rakib Uddin Ahmed @ Neelabh Sourav v. State of Assam and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 3592/2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
In anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of hurting religious sentiments and creating communal discord through his poem on Hindu God Shri Ram and Goddess Sita, the Supreme Court today issued notice.
Case details : UNION OF INDIA MINISTY OF LAW JUSTICE vs. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) | SLP(C) No. 007246 - / 2019
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held there cannot be any discrimination between the retired High Court judges, depending on their source of elevation (whether from the bar or the District Judiciary), while computing their pensionary benefits.
Case Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No.- 2997 – 1995
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court's Green Bench has directed the registry to obtain CJI's order on whether all the matters pertaining to Aravalli Range can be heard together by the same Bench.
Case Title: SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA VS. M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 237
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the Director of the company not responsible for its day-to-day affairs cannot be held liable for dishonor of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act,1882.
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. It also canceled the interim bail granted to him and asked Jain to surrender forthwith.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 11805 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
In the latest development in the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all 'conceivable' details available with it regarding electoral bonds, including the alphanumeric number corresponding to each bond.
Case Title: JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 241
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court dismissed a Miscellaneous Application filed by Adani Power Ltd seeking payment of Rs. 1376.35 crores as an outstanding Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) from Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) after modifying a 2020 judgment.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 11805 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 18) refused to direct the disclosure of electoral bond details from the first date of their issuance, i.e., March 1, 2018.
Presently, the Supreme Court has only directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose information relating to bonds sold since the court's interim order on April 12, 2019 until the date on which it declared the scheme unconstitutional on February 15.
Case Title: UNION OF BHARAT v. HINDU PERSONAL LAW BOARD AND ANR., T.P.(C) No. 2541/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court transferred to itself the pending PIL before the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, and seeking a declaration that Section 494 IPC (Punishment for bigamy) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Case Details : CHRISTIAN JAMES MICHEL vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION W.P.(Crl.) No. 000140 - / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to interfere in a Petition under Article 32 filed by British Arms Counsultant Mr Christian James Michel in a plea to seek bail. The court observed that the doctrine of speciality plea as raised by the accused in the Augusta Westland Chopper Scam had been sufficiently dealt with in the previous order of the court declining his bail application under S 436A CrPC.
Case Title: Chaitanya Sharma & Ors. v. Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 156 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by six rebel MLAs of the Congress party challenging their disqualification from the Himachal Pradesh state assembly. However, the court clarified that their disqualification will not be stayed. At the same time, it agreed to examine the question of whether the recently announced fresh by-polls should be suspended.
Supreme Court Stays Orissa HC Order Nullifying 2019 Election Of Congress MLA Mohammed Moquim
Case Title: MOHAMMED MOQUIM v. DEBASHISH SAMANTARAY., C.A. No. 4296/2024
Coram: Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan
In a matter where the Orissa High Court recently (on March 04) nullified the election of Congress MLA Mohammed Moquim from Barabati Constituency in Cuttack, the Supreme Court has not only issued notice but also stayed the operation of this decision. While doing so, the bench also stated that Moquim would not be entitled to vote; however, he shall be permitted to participate in the assembly proceedings.
Case Title: Review Petition In GAURAV KUMAR @ MONU vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242
Coram: CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court reviewed its 2019 judgment wherein, while remitting the question of juvenility to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, it opined that the relevant rules to be looked into are Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001.
Case Title: In Re: Contempt Against Upendra Nath Dalai | SMC (C) No(s).3/2023 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court granted bail to Upendra Nath Dalai, the man against whom contempt proceedings are going on for non-payment of cost imposed by the Court as well as for making contemptuous remarks against the Court. In addition to the civil contempt charges, the bench proceeded to initiate charges of criminal contempt as well.
Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court directed the personal appearance of Patanjali's Managing Director Acharya Balakrishna and Baba Ramdev (Co-founder of Patanjali).
The Court also granted the Union of India the last opportunity to make sure that the counter affidavit filed is on record and that copies are furnished to all the relevant parties.
Case Title: KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, W.P.(Crl.) No. 103/2023 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court today permitted withdrawal of the plea by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and former Telangana CM's daughter K. Kavitha challenging ED summons in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy case.
Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court directed that the Ajit Pawar faction should make a public declaration that the use of the 'clock' symbol by it for the ensuing Lok Sabha and the Maharashtra Assembly Elections is sub-judice and subject to the outcome of the challenge made by the Sharad Pawar group to the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI) recognizing Ajit Pawar faction as the real Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).
Case Title: APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Coram: Justices A.S. Bopanna and P.S. Narasimha
The Supreme Court quashed the pending criminal case of obscenity against the makers of the Web Series named "College Romance". Reversing the findings of the Delhi High Court which had refused to quash the obscenity case against the lead casts and makers of the web series, the Bench held that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity.
Case Title: Kachara Vahatuk Sharamik Sangh v. Ajoy Mehta and Ors, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1264/2018 in C.A. No. 4929/2017 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
In a contempt petition filed against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for non-compliance with directions to give permanent status to some of its workers, the Supreme Court flagged issues and passed directions with respect to pending verification exercise of workers.
Case Title: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman Next Friend & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6388 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In the latest development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court disposed of an appeal filed by the mosque committee challenging a high court direction to consolidate 15 suits in the case.
Case Title: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally, accused in a money laundering case related to Delhi liquor policy, for four weeks.
The bench ordered the petitioner's release on interim bail for four weeks from the date he is released on the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. The bench directed that the petitioner will provide one telephone number, on which the officers of the Enforcement Directorate can contact him. The passport of the petitioner has to be surrendered and he cannot leave the territory of the National Capital Region without the permission of the Court. The Court also stated that the petitioner will be entitled to travel to his hometown Hyderabad.
Case Title: Ankit Tiwari v. Inspector of Police | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3342-3343 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 20) granted interim bail to arrested Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari.
Tiwari, who was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in December, approached the apex court after his second bail plea was dismissed by the Madras High Court last week with the observation that there is no clarity as to whether the high court could proceed to decide the revision petition on merits.
Party Claiming Adverse Possession Must Know Who The Actual Owner Of Property Is: Supreme Court
Case Title: M. Radheshyamlal versus V Sandhya and Anr. Etc., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 245
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek ownership over the property based on the claim of an adverse possession if he fails to prove (i) who was the actual owner of the property and (ii), an uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years was in the original owner's knowledge.
Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract.
Case Title: SATYANAND SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 247
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a major relief to an ex-army havaldar, the Supreme Court directed the Indian Army to award him a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh only) towards compensation on account of wrongful termination of service.
Case Title: I. PERIYASAMY vs. THE STATE DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION., Diary No.- 11494 - 2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy challenging the Madras High Court's order setting aside his discharge in a corruption case.
Case Title: NAVAS @ MULANAVAS vs. STATE OF KERALA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai, K.V Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, recapitulated certain factors that the courts considered while deciding convicts' period of sentence before remission could be sought. These factors included the nature of injuries, the number of deceased victims, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and also whether the crime was committed while the accused was on bail.
Case Details: DEVU G. NAIR vs. THE STATE OF KERALA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines for the High Courts in dealing with habeas corpus petitions or petitions seeking police protection. The guidelines come as a consequence of a petition filed by a woman against a Kerala High Court order which, while considering a habeas corpus petition, directed her alleged lesbian partner to undergo counselling. The court in issuing the said guidelines observed that such directions for counselling often torment the members of the LGBTQ+ community and could have deterrent effects.
Case Title: VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLAS VERSUS THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 250
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court granted a major relief to a candidate who was wrongfully denied medical admission last year in the state quota in Maharashtra in NEET-UG 2023. The Court directed that he should be accommodated in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next session, i.e., NEET UG-2024.
CASE TITLE: MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 838/2019
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court constituted an expert committee to examine the scope, feasibility and extent of installing overhead and underground powerlines in areas considered 'Priority' for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The directions of the court come as a consequence of the need to strike a balance between the protection of the GIB and India's global commitment towards green energy measures.
Case Details : IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES SUO MOTO WP No. 2/2024
Coram: CJI and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued interim directions for the efficient facilitation of judicial aspirants with visual impairments in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Exam. The Court's interim direction comes after its suo-moto cognizance on March 7 of a letter sent to CJI DY Chandrachud by the mother of one of the visually impaired candidates against the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial service.
Case Title: SOMNATH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the conduct of the investigative agencies and the police for not adhering to the Constitutional and statutory safeguards while arresting and taking the accused into custody.
Case Title: NOBLE M PAIKADA vs. UNION OF INDIA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court set aside an amendment that eliminated the requirement of environmental clearance for extracting the earth for linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc. The Court termed this blanket exemption “completely unguided.” Based on this, it was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela Trivedi
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on a writ petition filed by K. Kavitha, MLC of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and daughter of former Telangana CM K Chandrashekhar Rao, challenging her arrest by the ED in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy case.
Case Title: Union of India v. Pankaj Bansal., DIARY NO. 50448 OF 2023
Coram: Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's petition seeking review of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, in which it held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the accused with the reasons for arrest in writing.
Case Title : Arshnoor Kaur and Another v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 772/2023
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
Without passing any order, the Supreme Court refused to entertain an early hearing request in the plea regarding gender imbalance in Judge Advocate General's (JAG) recruitment.
Case Title: NENAVATH BUJJI ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court has summarised the important points relating to preventive detention. The Court stated that the Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus AGIJ PROMOTION OF NINETEENONEA MEDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 14506-14507/2021 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court today transferred to the Delhi High Court matters pending before different High Courts across the country against the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). The order was passed to enable an analogous hearing on the issues, considering that a large number of petitions were already pending before Delhi High Court.
Mere Involvement In Sexual Offence Not Sufficient: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order
Case Title: Vaddi Lakshmi v. State of Telangana & Ors,, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)254
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
In a case involving allegations of rape and extortion, the Supreme Court recently quashed a preventive detention order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 observing that mere involvement in a sexual offence (including gang rape) is not itself sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the Act (giving power to pass detention orders).
Corporate Entity's Complaint Maintainable Under Consumer Protection Act 1986 : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S. KOZYFLEX MATTRESSES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a significant development, the Supreme Court held that the corporate entity/company wouldn't be barred under the old Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to be treated as a 'person' for filing a consumer complaint.
Case Title: A.M. MOHAN v. THE STATE REP BY SHO., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 197
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court (on March 20) held that to attract the offence of cheating, it must be shown that the person who cheated was dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person. Further, a dishonest intention must be on the part of a person accused of such an offence.
Supreme Court 9-judge Constitution Bench hearing on the taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands
Case details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud comprises Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih.
The key reference question involved in the present matter is to examine the nature and scope of royalty as prescribed under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and whether it could be termed as tax.
The matter was referred to 9 judge bench in 2011. A three-judge bench headed by Justice SH Kapadia had framed eleven questions to be referred to the nine-judge bench. These include important tax law questions such as whether 'royalty' can be considered as being like tax and can the State Legislature while levying a tax on land adopt a measure of tax based on the value of the produce of land.
The 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on its third day of hearing on the issue relating to royalty on minerals, deliberated whether the Parliament can completely denude the States of their power to levy taxes on mineral rights.
Case details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih.
The Supreme Court 9 judge constitution bench has reserved its judgment on the issue of whether royalties on mining leases be considered as tax and whether the States have the power to levy royalty/tax on mineral rights. The 8 days long hearing deliberated upon the multifaceted taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands. The key reference question involved in the present matter is to examine the nature and scope of royalty as prescribed under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and whether it could be termed as tax.
News Update
Case Details: Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. First Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors. | Diary No. 2265 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In the latest development in the Gyanvapi dispute, the mosque committee has moved the Supreme Court challenging an Allahabad High Court order holding that a batch of civil suits by Hindu parties pending before a Varanasi civil court are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991. This suit, filed in 1991 by Hindu worshippers and on behalf of deities, seek the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of the temple at the disputed site.
The Supreme Court agreed to post on March 7, 2024, the petition filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's refusal to disqualify the MLAs belonging to Eknath Shinde group.
Case Title: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In the latest development in the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case, the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Supreme Court that it has complied with the recommendations made by the Tata Institute of Social Studies (TISS) on counseling the other children involved in the incident.
Another concern raised was the reimbursement for travel expenses, which, according to the petitioner's lawyer, Advocate Shadan Farasat, had been halted by the state government. While refusing to pass a formal order, Justice Oka categorically stated that the amount must be released. The judge also suggested exploring the option of collaborating with charitable organizations for financial assistance.
Patents Act Prevails Over Competition Act? Supreme Court Issues Notice On CCI's Petition
Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25026/2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra considered the matter.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the Delhi High Court's decisions, holding that the Patents Act, 1970 must prevail over the Competition Act, 2002 on the issue of the exercise of rights by a patentee. The Court will be considering the legal nuances of the Right of the patentee as opposed to the powers of the Competition Commission in probing when there is an abuse of such patent.
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 104 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma'.
As soon as the petition was taken, Justice Datta told Stalin's counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, "You abuse your Article 19(1)(a) right. You abuse your Article 25 right. Now you are exercising your Article 32 right? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?"
The Supreme Court agreed to consider urgent listing of the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea by the Delhi government challenging the lieutenant governor's order restricting the former's ability to appoint its choice of counsel before constitutional courts and determine their fees in legal matters.
Case Title: K Ponmudi@Deivasigamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 530-531/2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Former Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi has moved the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court order setting aside his acquittal in a disproportionate assets case.
SBI Requests Supreme Court To Extend Time Till June 30 To Furnish Electoral Bonds Information
The State Bank of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time till June 30, 2024, to furnish information regarding electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India.
As per the judgment delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on February 15, the SBI is required to furnish the information to ECI by March 6.
Case Details: NITISHA vs. UNION OF INDIA MA 002661 - / 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court directed the Union to file an affidavit clarifying the procedure and steps taken in the empanelling of the batch of male army officers as compared to their female counterparts. This direction has come in light of a contempt petition filed by women army officers for alleged violation of the Court's earlier directions for empanelling women officers for grant of permanent commission.
Case Details: JASWINDER SINGH vs.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 190
In a significant development, the Supreme Court referred the issue of deemed transfer of the insurance policy upon transfer of vehicle ownership under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to the larger bench after finding an inconsistency amongst two of its previous judgments.
The State of West Bengal approached the Supreme Court, appealing against the Calcutta High Court's decision to transfer the probe into the attack against ED officials at Sandeshkhali to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This development comes within hours of the high court's order directing the transfer of the case and the custody of prime accused TMC leader Shajahan Sheikh to the CBI.
West Bengal's plea requesting the apex court's urgent intervention was orally mentioned before Justice Sanjiv Khanna's bench today by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Jaideep Gupta and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
Maharashtra Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Acquittal Of GN Saibaba & 5 Others In UAPA Case
Hours within GN Saibaba's acquittal, the State of Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court challenging the recent decision by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. In a major relief to the former Delhi University professor and human rights activist, the high court set aside his and five others' convictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in an alleged Maoist-links case. This verdict was handed down by a bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes.
Case Title: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors., Diary No. 6711 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court deferred its decision on the fate of certain religious structures in Delhi's Mehrauli, directing the petitioners and authorities to make their representations to a court-constituted religious committee first.
Case Title: KACHARA VAHATUK SHARAMIK SANGH Versus AJOY MEHTA AND ORS, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1264/2018 in C.A. No. 4929/2017 (and connected matter)
In a contempt petition filed against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for non-compliance with directions to give permanent status to some of its workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday called for the personal appearance of the Municipal Commissioner on the next date.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Union of India., Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of a condition imposed by the Union Government on the State of Kerala that the former will give consent for additional borrowing only if the latter withdrew the suit filed in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Confers Senior Designation On Five More Advocates
In a significant development, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Supreme Court judges have conferred Senior Designation on five more Advocates on Record/ Advocates. The notification came following a full court meeting.
The names of these advocates are:
Mr Rajesh Mahale, Advocate-on-Record., 2. Mr PV Dinesh, Advocate-on-Record., 3. Mr Harinder Mohan Singh (HM Singh), Advocate-on-Record., 4. Ms Kaveeta Wadia, Advocate-on-Record., 5. Mr S Nandakumar, Advocate
Case Title: In Re: Contempt Against Upendra Nath Dalai., SMC (C) No(s).3/2023 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court sent back into custody a man against whom non-bailable warrants were issued earlier for non-deposit of cost of Rs.1 lakh as well as deliberate, repetitive failure to appear before the Court.
Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Over SBI's Non-Disclosure Of Electoral Bonds Details
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017
Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought an urgent hearing for a contempt petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause against the State Bank of India (SBI) for alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order to disclose details of electoral bonds.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9216 of 2022
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
In a courtroom exchange that unfolded at the Supreme Court, Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha's counsel, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, accused the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of engaging in what she described as 'extortion' by demanding an excessive amount from the human rights activist towards meeting his house arrest expenses.
Case Details: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1644-1662 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
While hearing Uddhav Sena's challenge against the Maharashtra assembly speaker's refusal to disqualify the members belonging to the Eknath Shinde-led group, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about Speaker Rahul Narwekar using the test of legislative majority to ascertain which faction was the real party.
Case Title : The Travancore Devaswom Board versus Ayyappa Spices and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207
Coram: A.S. Bopanna and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court held that there was no fault on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board in sourcing 7000 kilograms of cardamom in 2022 for the preparation of Aravana Prasadam which is offered in the Sabarimala Temple.
Case Title: Aditya Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2024
NEET-MDS aspirants have again approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Union Government has not yet taken a decision on postponing the NEET-MDS exam scheduled on March 18.
The Union, as per the previous order on 21 February, had to take a call on the issue of postponement of the exam and extension of the internship completion cut-off date.
Expressing concern over the lack of action, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking the restoration of the writ petition which was disposed of by the Court on February 21 based on the Union's assurance.
Fill Remaining Vacancies Of Central Haj Committee In 3 Months : Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details : HAFIZ NAUSHAD AHMAD AZMI VERSUS KATIKITHALA SRINIVAS & ORS CONMT.PET.(C) No.1246/2023 in W.P.(C) No.1229/2021
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Union Government informed the Supreme Court of the updated status report on steps taken to complete the composition of the Central Haj Committee.
The counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr.Sanjay Hegde and Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, brought attention to vacancies in the Central Haj Committee, and the Additional Solicitor General(ASG) Mr. K M Nataraj, assured prompt remedial action, with a commitment to filling the vacancies within three months.
Case details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih
On its 5th day of hearing, the Court deliberated upon the significant questions regarding the taxation of land and mineral rights, challenging the distinction between Entry 49 and Entry 50 in List II of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024
In a pivotal development, Congress leader Jaya Thakur has filed an application before the Supreme Court to restrain the Union from appointing a new Election Commissioner (EC) as per the latest Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act).
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State (National Capital Territory Of Delhi) & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2413 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a challenge to the defamation case lodged against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for retweeting a video by Youtuber Dhruv Rathee making certain allegations against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell, the Supreme Court today extended the interim stay of trial proceedings against Kejriwal.
Case: Sudhir Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand SLP(Crl) No. 3525/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court granted interim protection to Sudhir Chaudhary, Consulting Editor of Aaj Tak TV channel, in relation to an FIR registered by the Jharkhand Police over the alleged remarks made by him against the tribal community following the arrest of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren.
Case Details: JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH Diary No.- 8562 - 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, orally expressed disapproval of a recent Madras High Court judgment, which declared that downloading and viewing child pornography is not an offence.
"This is atrocious", Chief Justice of India orally remarked about the High Court's reasoning.
Case Details: DEVU G. NAIR vs. THE STATE OF KERALA SLP(Crl) No. 001891 - / 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued a word of caution that there should not be any attempt to influence the sexual orientation or gender identity of persons by directing them to undergo "counselling" during habeas corpus proceedings before High Court.
Case Details : Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
Senior Advocate Ms. Makhija, representing the Court-appointed Committee led by Justice Gita Mittal, brought urgent concerns before the Supreme Court regarding recent spurt of violence in Manipur. The Committee, formed in August 2023 to address humanitarian issues arising from ethnic violence, sought specific directions from the court to restrain protesting organizations from inciting violence against State Administration.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(Crl) No. 23/2024 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court posted to March 20, 2024 a plea by the ED seeking transfer of investigation into bribery allegations against one of its officers from Tamil Nadu State authorities to CBI. The Bench also enquired if judicial oversight could be brought both ways before any coercive steps are taken.
A day after the Union Government notified the rules to implement the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) filed an application seeking stay of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024.
Case Details : State of Kerala v. Union of India., Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court urged the Union Government to relax the borrowing limits for the State of Kerala for the current financial year before March 31, 2024 as a one-time measure as a special case. The Court suggested that more rigid conditions can be imposed for the next financial year.
Case Details: Mahua Moitra v. Lok Sabha Secratariat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1410 of 2023
The Lok Sabha secretariat asserted the Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over its internal proceedings and procedures, in response to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra's plea challenging her expulsion from the Lok Sabha.
Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 87 of 2024
A plea challenging the constitutionality of Section 7 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 was mentioned on Tuesday (March 12) before the Supreme Court, seeking an urgent hearing.
This petition, moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), sought relief against the provision, which lays down the process for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
Case Details: Chaitanya Sharma & Ors. v. Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 156 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court adjourned until next week the hearing of a plea by six rebel MLAs of the Congress party challenging their disqualification from the Himachal Pradesh state assembly. The adjournment was granted at the petitioners' request. The court, however, expressed its doubts over the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, asking which fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated.
The Democratic Youth Front of India (DYFI) filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to stay the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024.
In the application, the DYFI contended that granting citizenship based on the religion of immigrants offends the fundamental principle of secularism. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, for the first time ever in the history of India, introduced religion as a condition to grant citizenship to immigrants.
Supreme Court Puts On Hold Karnataka Govt's Board Exams For Classes 5, 8 & 9
Case Title: Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 6256/2024 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) put on hold the Board Exams proposed to be held by the Karnataka Government for students of Classes 5, 8 and 9 of the schools affiliated to the State Board.
The Court allowed the appeals filed by organisations of private schools and parents challenging the interim order passed by a division bench of the Karnataka High Court on March 7 staying a single bench judgment which quashed the Government's decision to hold board exams for Classes 5, 8,9 and 11.
The Supreme Court set aside the interim order of the High Court division bench and asked it to decide the main appeals expeditiously.
Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023 AND Sanjay Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2558 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Dutta and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court directed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh's challenge against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam and bail application to be listed for hearing on Tuesday, March 19.
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
Coram:Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to allow interim vice-chancellors to continue in their roles indefinitely in state-run universities in West Bengal, stressing the need to initiate the process for regular appointments without further delay.
SBI Furnishes Electoral Bonds Details To ECI After Supreme Court Rebuke
In a significant development following the Supreme Court's rebuke, the State Bank of India (SBI) has furnished electoral bonds details to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in compliance with the court's directives.
The All Assam Students Union (AASU) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. ASSU asserts that the notification of the Rules on 11.3.2024 stands in stark contradiction to the Assam Accord and S. 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955. AASU argues that these rules legitimize illegal migrants, adversely impacting indigenous culture and violating constitutional provisions.
Case Title: NARESH KUMAR & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 228
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court by exercising their inherent power must quash the prosecution based on the criminal complaint arising out of a civil transaction.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the immediate removal of farmers from the borders of Delhi, amidst the ongoing farmers' protest demanding minimum price guarantees for their crops.
Social worker and former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Nand Kishore Garg, in a bid to clear the border areas, approached the apex court with this plea.
Case Details: State of Kerala v. Union of India., Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan.
The Union Government informed the Supreme Court it can give consent to an additional borrowing by the State of Kerala for an amount of Rs 5000 crores in the present financial year as a one-time measure. However, this will be subject to stringent conditions to be imposed the next Financial Year.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of Kerala, refused the Centre's proposal, saying that the concession is based on a presumption that the State was not entitled to the additional borrowing.
The Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Mr. Debabrata Saika, and Congress MP from Assam, Mr. Abdul Khaleque, have filed an interim application in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 notified on March 11. The application contends that these rules are unconstitutional and violate the Assam Accord.
The Chairman of the State Bank of India (SBI) filed a compliance affidavit, informing the Supreme Court that the Bank has furnished the details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The details have been provided in two separate information packets the first containing details of the purchasers of the electoral bonds, and the second containing names of the political parties who have encashed these bonds with all the requisite details.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
Responding to a woman officer's petition seeking permanent commission, the Indian Coast Guard has told the Supreme Court that various infrastructural changes are to be made to send female officers on sea-borne missions. The affidavit affirmed by the Principal Director, Coast Guard Head Quarters, stated that ICG, primarily a sea-going service, allocates 66% of its billets for manning afloat units, leaving only 33% for shore support units. Limited shore billets result in prolonged sea tenures for officers.
Case Title: The State Of Haryana Vs. Uday Pratap Singh |Diary Number 11369-2024
The Haryana government has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's order of a judicial inquiry into the death of a protesting farmer, Shubhkaran Singh, who lost his life on February 21 on the Punjab-Haryana border.
According to the case details available on the Supreme Court's website, the instant appeal was filed on March 11. However, it is still on the defect list. In other words, the registry has not cleared it for listing.
Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court asked the Ajit Pawar faction, which has been officially recognized as the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) by the Election Commission of India, why they are using the pictures of former NCP supremo Sharad Pawar in campaign materials.
Supreme Court Invites Fresh Applications For Senior Designation
The Supreme Court has invited applications from Advocates/Advocates-on-Record as well as Former Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts for designation as Senior Advocates in terms of the 2023 guidelines available on the Court website.
Election Commission Uploads Electoral Bonds Data On Website As Per Supreme Court's Direction
The Election Commission of India has uploaded on its website the data supplied by the State Bank of India regarding electoral bonds. Two sets of files can be seen on the webpage. One set contains the purchase details - date of purchase of the electoral bond, the name of the purchaser and the denomination.
The second set contains the political parties' details- date of encashment, the name of the political party and the denomination. Notably, no link between the purchaser and the party is discernible from the files.
Supreme Court Says State Bank Of India Has To Disclose Electoral Bond Numbers, Issues Notice To SBI
Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 11805 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has categorically stated that the State Bank of India (SBI) has to disclose electoral bonds numbers as well, in addition to the details it has already disclosed regarding the purchase and redemption of the bonds.
Supreme Court To Hear Pleas For Staying Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 On March 19
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a batch of pleas for staying the freshly-notified Citizenship Amendment Rules on Tuesday, March 19.
Case Details: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court decided to postpone the hearing on pleas to stay the new law that removes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing election commissioners. Stating that the interlocutory applications are not on record, the court posted the matter to March 21.
Case Title: Balwan Khokhar v. CBI Crl. A. No. 1665-66/2019
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
In a furlough application filed by former Congress Councillor Balwan Khokhar, one of the convicts in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, the Supreme Court today called for a response from Central Bureau of Investigation.
Case Title: ANIL KISHORE PANDIT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that any change to the eligibility/qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement in the middle of the selection process is an impermissible exercise and would tantamount to denial of opportunity to the candidate eligible to be selected as per the original advertisement.
Supreme Court Posts BRS Leader K Kavitha's Plea Against ED Summons To March 19
Case Title: KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, W.P.(Crl.) No. 103/2023 (and connected matter)
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the plea by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and former Telangana CM's daughter K. Kavitha challenging ED summons in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy case till March 19.
Case Title: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.m M.A. Diary No(s). 4303/2024 in C.A.No.5068/2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia
In a service-related matter, the Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to apprise if there is any bridge course in operation that teachers with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) qualification, who were appointed prior to its judgment in 2023, can take to train themselves to be at par with D.El.Ed candidates.
Case Title: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India| WP(C) 1003/2021
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL to simplify adoption procedures, observed that the States are prima facie in breach of the previous directions to expedite the adoption process. In view of this, the Court gave the States one last opportunity to comply with the directions, failing which the Court may resort to coercive proceedings.
Can Writ Under Article 32 Be Issued Against A Private Individual? Supreme Court To Examine
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH vs. Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY., Diary No.- 22175 – 2020
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Vishwanathan
The Supreme Court is set to examine a crucial point for its adjudication: "whether a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be issued against a private individual and if so under what circumstances an appropriate writ can be issued.?”
Case Title: Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4999 of 2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih
In a significant development, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) made a surprising admission in the Supreme Court this week regarding former Nagpur University professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen.
Represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, the agency admitted that they no longer require Sen's custody, after the bench questioned him over the necessity of her continued detention.
Case Title: SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the mere filing of an anticipatory bail application by the accused could not be treated as his appearance before the court which had initiated proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the accused.
In a batch of petitions seeking to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024, the leader of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has filed another application.
The State of Kerala has approached the Supreme Court seeking an interim injunction restraining the Union from implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and its recently notified Rules. In 2019, the State had filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the CAA. The State pointed out that in 2019, its Assembly had unanimously requested the Union to abrogate this impugned Act.
Supreme Court To Deliver Judgment On AAP Leader Sateyender Jain's Bail Plea On March 18
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court will deliver the judgment on the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case on March 18.
The Tamil Nadu Government approached the Supreme Court over the refusal of Governor RN Ravi to re-induct MLA K Ponmudi as a Minister in the State Government.
The Supreme Court firmly dismissed a request made by Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), seeking a suo motu review of the constitution bench's February 15 judgment on electoral bonds.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, expressed clear disapproval, labelling Aggarwala's letter as 'publicity-oriented' and categorically stating that the request would not be entertained.
How Much Enrollment Fee Can State Bar Councils Charge? Supreme Court To Decide After Holi Recess
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 352/2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court informed the petitioners seeking to challenge the enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils that it would consider the issue after the Holi recess and deliver a judgment addressing the same.
Case Title: Indian Union of Muslim League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1470 of 2019 and connected matters
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice to the union government on a batch of applications seeking to stay the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. Seeking the Union's response, the court posted the matter on April 9.
PMLA | Supreme Court Posts Pleas Seeking Reconsideration Of Vijay Madanlal Judgment To July
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited | Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2017 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi
The Supreme Court today posted to July 2024 the pleas calling for reconsideration of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Delhi Govt Moves Supreme Court For Release Of Rs 3000 Crore Delhi Jal Board Funds
The Delhi Government sought an urgent hearing of its petition which seeks the release of Delhi Jal Board Funds worth Rs. 3000 Crores.
Senior Advocate Mr AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Govt, stressing the urgency of the matter, informed the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud that the funds will lapse by March 31. It was emphasised that the centre has not released the funds despite the passage of the budget in the Assembly.
S.45 PMLA Doesn't Bar Power Of Court To Grant Bail If There's Delay In Trial : Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Case: Prem Prakash v Union of India SLP(Crl) No. 691/2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna orally observed that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) does not bar a Court from granting bail to an accused if there is prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., ORGNL.SUIT No. 3/2021
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In an original suit filed by the State of Karnataka against States/UT of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry over use of Cauvery river water, the Supreme Court framed issues (8 in number) and directed parties to file documents within 6 weeks.
'Important Matter': CJI DY Chandrachud Agrees To Hear Plea On Election Freebies
The Supreme Court bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud was requested to have an early hearing of the petition raising the issue of political parties promising electoral freebies. CJI agreed to retain the case on the board, terming it to be an " important matter."
Illegal Migrants Can't Be Blanketly Accepted As 'Refugees' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court To Protect Rohingyas
Case Title: PRIYALI SUR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1060/2023
In a PIL seeking the release of detained Rohingya refugees in India, the Union made its stand clear by stating that Rohingyas are illegal immigrants and do not have the right to reside and settle, which is a fundamental right available only to the citizens.
Case Title: Nalini Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., C.A. No. 5160-5161/2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court today deferred till July 10 a plea filed by Senior Advocate Nalini Chidambaram (wife of ex-Finance Minister P Chidambaram) against ED summons requiring her to appear outside her ordinary place of residence. It may be recalled that she has been roped in by agencies in relation to the Saradha chit fund scam case.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has sternly condemned the misconduct of a lawyer in the Gautam Budh Nagar district court against Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia.
The incident, which involved the snatching of the band of the senior counsel, has sparked outrage leading to the SCBA's executive committee issuing a statement of condemnation on Wednesday, March 20.
Case Title: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, Acharya Balkrishna, has tendered an unqualified apology before the Supreme Court for publishing advertisements regarding medicinal cures in breach of an undertaking given to the Court.
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State., Diary No. 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court today posted NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's plea for release on medical grounds to the first week of April. It may be recalled that Purkayastha is in custody since October 2 last year over a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act involving allegations of Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Election Commissioners' Act Dropping CJI From Selection Panel
Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 254
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 21) decided against staying the controversial Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which removes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing election commissioners.
While refusing to stay the Act, the Supreme Court today expressed that the Union government's latest appointment of two new ECs viz. Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu was in haste.
Case Title: Editors Guild of India v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6717-6719 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justices DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed the Union's notification of the Fact-Check Unit (FCU) under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023). The stay shall operate till the Bombay High Court finally decides the challenges to the IT Rules amendment 2023.
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for refusing to re-induct MLA K Ponmudi as a Minister, even after his conviction was suspended by the Supreme Court.
The Chairman of the State Bank of India, Dinesh Kumar Khara, has filed a compliance affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the SBI has disclosed all details relating to the Electoral Bonds to the Election Commission of India, including the unique numbers of the bonds.
Case Details: State of Kerala v. Union of India., Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The State of Kerala vehemently opposed the Union of India's limits on its borrowing powers, terming it as the central government's attempt to act like an 'executive' and control the state's financial affairs. The Centre resisted this claim, alleging that Kerala has poor financial indicators and a history of overborrowing in the recent past. The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Diary No. 13598/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi
In a turn of events, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal withdrew from the Supreme Court his petition challenging arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.
After Supreme Court Rap, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi Agrees To Swear In K Ponmudi As Minister
The Tamil Nadu Governor Mr RN Ravi informed the Supreme Court that he has duly invited MLA K Ponmudi to swear in as the state cabinet minister at 3:30 PM. The Attorney General (AG) Mr R Venkantaramani submitted to the bench led by CJI Chandrachud that the Governor conveyed that he " had least intent to disregard the Court".
Case Details: UMANG SINGHAR vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.(C) No. 000179 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh on a writ petition filed by Madhya Pradesh's opposition leader Umang Singhar challenging the appointment of the State's Lokayukta.
Case: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court has directed the State Governments and Union Territories to grant ration cards to 8 crore workers in the Unorganised sector who, despite being registered under the center's e-Shram portal, do not have these ration cards. This, in turn, will allow these workers to get the benefit of schemes by the Union of India and state governments, as well as the benefit of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (Act). The timeline given by the Court for the task is two months.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Directing Bloomberg To Remove Article On Zee Entertainment Ltd
Case Details : BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED SLP(C) No. 006696 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order directing news platform “The Bloomberg” to take down its allegedly defamatory article on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
Kerala Govt Moves Supreme Court Against President Withholding Assent For 4 Bills, Terms It Arbitrary
The State of Kerala has approached the Supreme Court challenging the action of the President of India in withholding assent for four out of the seven bills referred by the Kerala Governor. In its writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the State also challenged the Governor's action of referring the bills to the President, arguing that none of the bills related to Centre-State relations to require the Presidential assent.