Supreme Court Judgements Remission/Premature Release Policy Of The State Where The Crime Was Committed Has To Considered: Supreme Court Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | WP(C) 135 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484 The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | WP(C) 135 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered.
The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.
Case : Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority versus Maradu Municipality and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485
The Supreme Court has held that the owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled so on the reasoning that the purchasers had been staying in the flats allotted to them for a period of 8-9 years on an average and that they still have undivided share in the land, the market value of which has increased substantially. The bench also observed that the flats that were taken possession of in the years between 2009-2013 would have depreciated in value.
Case Title: Dr R Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee| WP(C) 341 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486
The Supreme Court dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared.
Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487
The Supreme Court, recently, held that in cases of overlapping insurance policies, when the defined loss of the insured is fully indemnified by one insurer, the second insurer is not liable for the claim towards the same incident.
"A contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less. In the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance."
A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed appeal assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1.78 crores towards the claim raised by the insured.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Jatav vs State of UP | CrA 770 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488
The Supreme Court observed that when a clear case is made out for the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case".
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna reiterated that a High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order while disposing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka | CrA 900 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case.
"For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed while acquitting two persons accused under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.
Case Title: Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490
The Supreme Court observed that Advocates On Record have to comply with the requirements under the Supreme Court Rules 2013 of certifying execution of Vakalatnama.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, in an order passed last week, observed:
-If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate on Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card.
-If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of Supreme Court Rules 2013.
Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491
Supreme Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra held that the NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (IBC/Code)
The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the appeal filed by NOIDA against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) wherein NCLAT held that the NOIDA is an operational Creditor under IBC and cannot be considered as a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of the Code.
Case Title: Sudhir Ranjan Patra (D) vs Himansu Sekhar Srichandan | CA 3641 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492
The Supreme Court observed when an ex parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex parte.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna, in this case, observed that a Trial Court can consider whether on setting aside the exparte decree, defendants' prayer to permit them to file their written statement can be allowed?
Case Title: BBR (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited | CA 4130-4131 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493
The Supreme Court observed that the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator.
The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: A.G. Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu And Anr. Crl.A. No. 10039-10040 of 2016]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution to release A.G. Perarivalan, one of the convicts in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, restated that Governor has the power under Article 161 to remit/commute/pardon sentences imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, since the executive power of the State extends to the said provision.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna was unable to accept the submission made by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj that the President has the exclusive power under Article 72 to pardon or grant remission or commute sentences imposed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
12. "Low Case Load": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Establish NGT Benches In Every State
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Union of India | WP(C) 433 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
In its judgment upholding constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, the Supreme Court also observed that the seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State.
If the NGT Benches are set up in all 28 States and 8 union territories as is suggested, the judges and other members in these forums might be left twiddling their thumbs, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank vs RCM Infrastructure Ltd | CA 4750 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496
The Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be continued once the CIRP is initiated and the moratorium is ordered.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai noted that, in such a situation, any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act is prohibited.
14. Section 18 Limitation Act Is Applicable To IBC Proceedings, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498
While enhancing the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in the 1988 road rage case, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday made important observations regarding the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
The observations have been made while allowing the review petition filed by victim's family against Supreme Court's 2018 verdict reducing Sidhu's sentence to Rs 1000 fine from 3 years imprisonment.
A bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that while undue harshness is not required in awarding punishment, inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large.
Case Title: Canara Bank vs GS Jayarama
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499
The Supreme Court observed that the Permanent Lok Adalats have adjudicatory functions under the Legal Services Act,1987 and thus empowered to decide a dispute before it on merits.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha held that conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in nature. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure.
The court observed that the main goal is conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort.
Case Title : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments.
A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held that the Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value.
Importantly, the Court held that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax.
Case Title: Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust vs Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501
The Supreme Court, in an order passed has prohibited managements of private medical colleges from accepting payment of fees in cash.
This is to avoid charging of capitation fee. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also agreed to the suggestion for setting up web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar| CA 9746 -9747 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
The Supreme Court held that the conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority, are governed by the extant rules.
The three judge bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit overruled its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao which held that the appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended rules.
The bench, also comprising Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, observed that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and that there is no right for an employee outside the said rules.
Case Title: Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha | CrA 988 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503
The Supreme Court observed that the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused.
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of event," the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Title: Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey | CA 2915 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504
The Supreme Court held that landowners who obtained interim orders due to which awards could not be passed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 could not invoke Section 24(1) of RFCTLARR Act to claim higher compensation.
"In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013," the Court held.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed that such landowners shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case Title: SP Velumani vs Arappor Iyakkam & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
The Supreme Court criticized the Madras High Court for not allowing SP Velumani, former Tami Nadu Minister during the AIADMK term, to have a copy of the preliminary report filed against him in a corruption case.
"When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover", said a bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana while ordering the High Court to give copy of the preliminary report to Velumani.
Case Title : IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
With a view of reduce the pendency of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh).
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court last year to deal with the pendency of cheque dishonour cases(In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act).
Case Title : Manoj & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
Observing that death sentences are most often imposed by the trial courts in a retributive sense, the Supreme Court has issued a set of practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of the accused are properly considered at the trial stage itself.
The Court noted that in most cases, the information relating to the mitigating circumstances are collected at the appellate stage, and such information mostly relate to the post-conviction circumstances.
"The unfortunate reality is that in the absence of well-documented mitigating circumstances at the trial level, the aggravating circumstances seem far more compelling, or overwhelming, rendering the sentencing court prone to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete, and hence, incorrect application of the Bachan Singh test", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi observed.
Case Title: Harnek Singh vs Gurmit Singh | CA 4126-4127/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511
The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the report of Medical Council Of India on professional conduct of doctors are relevant while considering medical negligence compensation claims.
The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha also observed that in the proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Varanasi to protect the spot where a "shiv ling" was claimed to have been found during the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque will not restrict the right of Muslims to access the mosque to offer namaz and to perform religious observances.
2. Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Reduce Qualifying Percentile For NEET-BDS 2021 Admissions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition seeking the reduction of qualifying percentile for admissions to Bachelor of Dental Surgery(BDS) courses as per the NEET-BDS 2021 exam.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Jitendra Tyagi alias Wasim Rizvi in the case for allegedly making anti-Muslim hate speeches at the Haridwar Dharam Sansad on medical grounds for three months.
The Court however directed him to give an undertaking that he would not indulge in hate speech and not give any statement to electronic/digital/social media.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, stayed the effect and operation of the order of the Delhi High Court order refusing to quash summons issued to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and his wife Rujira Naroola Banerjee for appearance in New Delhi for interrogation in connection to coal scam case.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, was appalled by a notice issued by the Telangana High Court, stating that its Vacation Benches would not entertain writ petitions and criminal petitions for quashing FIR/ Chargesheet, etc.
As Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Jayant Sud, appearing on behalf of the Union Government raised some objections with respect to the recommendations made by the Court appointed Panel on Sex Workers regarding the 'conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to continue working as sex workers with dignity', the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked all to have a discussion and reach a consensus, so that appropriate orders can be passed on the next date of hearing.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday disapproved the practice of the Central Government putting off the appointments of members to Tribunals despite recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) citing new inputs about the candidates. If fresh materials come to light about the candidates cleared by the SCSC, such materials should be shared with the SCSC. Not doing so will be a deviation from fair process, the Court stated.
8. Supreme Court Allows Time Extension Till August To Demolish Supertech Twin Towers At Noida
In connection with the Supertech Emerald Court project in Noida, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a three months extension for completion of demolition work of the twin 40 storey towers in Noida.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, issued notice in a plea for intra court appeal before adjudication of review petitions in Contempt of Court matters. The Apex Court issued the notice to the Attorney General, Mr. K.K. Venugopal as he had assisted it in the suo moto contempt case against Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan over two of his tweets about the Apex Court and the then Chief Justice of India.
10. Supreme Court Grants Bail To Indrani Mukerjea In Sheena Bora Murder Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to Indrani Mukerjea in the case alleging the murder of her daughter Sheena Bora, considering the fact that she has been under custody for 6.5 years, and that the trial is not likely to complete soon. Apart from the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court, the Apex Court noted that the conditions imposed while granting bail to co-accused husband, Peter Mukerjea would also be imposed on her.
11. NEET SS 2021 : Supreme Court Dismisses MD/MS Doctors Plea Seeking Reduction Of Eligibility Cut Off
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ preferred by MD/MS Doctors seeking a reduction of eligibility cut off for qualifying for registering and appearing for the Mop-Up/Stray Vacancy round being organized by the Medical Counseling Committee ("MCC") for NEET SS 2021.
12. Supreme Court Issues Notice In Christian Michel's Plea Against Dismissal Of His Bail
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a plea by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Agustawestland case challenging Delhi High Court's order of dismissing his bail pleas.
13. Supreme Court Allows OBC Quota In Madhya Pradesh Local Body Elections; Modifies Earlier Order
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the implementation of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the local body elections in Madhya Pradesh.
The Court modified its earlier order passed on May 10 which had directed the State Election Commission to notify the elections without OBC quota, saying that the triple test requirement for local body reservation was not completed.
In order to facilitate the holding of elections and handing over the affairs to democratically elected body in terms of the Constitution of All India Football Federation which will be adopted, the Supreme Court on Wednesday re-constituted the Committee of Administrators of AIFF.
Along with Dr SY Qureshi (former Chief Election Commissioner) and Mr Bhaskar Ganguly, Former Captain of Indian Football Team already being a part, the bench Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narasimha also appointed former Supreme Court Judge Anil R Dave to head it.
To facilitate refunds for the homebuyers of Unitech, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the appointed amicus to open the Web Portal for a further period of 4 weeks which was earlier directed to be only opened till May 15, 2022.
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted liberty to the petitioners who have filed a PIL seeking action against alleged hate speeches in Dharam Sansad meets to move the vacation bench with respect to any hate speech in the upcoming Dharam Sansand events in June-July (when the Court is closed for summer vacations).
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, was astonished that the Public Prosecutors are granted incentives by State of Madhya Pradesh for, inter alia, securing death penalty. It orally directed the Counsel appearing for the State to advise the MP Government to withdraw all such policies for PPs as well those for the Investigating Officials which incentives the outcome of sentencing.
The Supreme Court on Thursday posted to July 19 the hearing of the Centre's petitions challenging the interim orders passed by High Courts staying some provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021).
The Centre has also filed petitions to transfer the cases in the High Courts to the Supreme Court. The Court had previously stayed the further proceedings in the petitions before the High Courts.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, issued notice in a plea filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) assailing Kerala High Court's order setting aside the interim order of its Single Judge which directed Oil Marketing Companies to supply high speed diesel at retail prices.
The Supreme Court on Thursday posted the petitions challenging the validity of criteria of Rupees 8 Lakhs annual income limit as the upper limit for seeking Economically Weaker Sections(EWS) reservation in the All India Quota for NEET admissions for July.
21. Supreme Court Vacates Stay On Delhi HC Order On Citizens' Right To Feed Street Dogs
The Supreme Court on Thursday vacated the stay the operation of an order of the Delhi High Court which had held that citizens have a right to feed street dogs and issued guidelines pertaining to feeding street dogs.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the review petition filed by Shapoorji Pallonji Group ("SP Group") challenging the order dated 26.03.2021 wherein the Apex Court allowed Tata Son's appeal against the NCLAT order to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim bail to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan in a forgery case and directed him to file an application for regular bail before the competent court within two weeks.
The interim bail will operate till the court decides the application for regular bail. If the court's decision is against the grant of regular bail, the interim bail will operate for a further period of two weeks.
The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned to tomorrow the hearing in the Gyanvapi mosque case on a request made on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Varanasi civil court. The Court directed the Varanasi civil court to not pass any orders today in the case.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted further time to the Court-appointed Technical Committee, probing allegations of widespread and targeted surveillance of politicians, journalists, activist etc using the Pegasus spyware, to submit its report to the overseeing judge, former SC judge Justice RV Raveendran.
26. Supreme Court Lifts Curbs On Iron Ore Sale From Mines In Karnataka; Allows Export
The Supreme Court on Friday lifted the curbs on sale of iron ore sale in Karnataka and allowed the export of the ore subject to the terms and conditions of the Government of India.
The Court allowed the mine operators to sell the already excavated iron ore by entering into direct contracts without resorting to e-auction.
The State of Jharkhand has approached the Supreme Court apprehending a move by the Jharkhand High Court to order CBI enquiry against Chief Minister Hemant Soren relying upon "sealed cover" documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to grant of mining leases.
A bench led by Justice UU Lalit on Friday listed the petition before a vacation bench on next Tuesday(May 24).
28. Hyderabad Encounter : Supreme Court Allows Making Of Enquiry Commission Report Public
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed making the report submitted by a Court-appointed judicial enquiry commission into the alleged Hyderabad encounter killings of December 2019 public.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India rejected the State of Telangana's demand that the report should be kept in a sealed cover and allowed the copies of the report to be shared with the petitioners who have filed PILs seeking enquiry into the encounter.
The Supreme Court on Friday accepted Karnataka state's submission that the necessary notifications regarding delimitation of wards or for determining OBC reservation percentage for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike(BBMP- Greater Bengaluru Municipal Corporation) be completed and notified not later than eight weeks from today.
The Court on Friday asked the Karnataka State election commission to commence the preparatory exercise for conducting elections to install the newly elected body within one week from the date of notification of delimitation of wards and/or determination of reservation to be provided for OBC, whichever is later.
30. Supreme Court Transfers Gaynvapi Mosque Suit To District Court Varanasi
The Supreme Court has transferred the suit filed by Hindu devotees in connection with the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple dispute, to the District Court in Varanasi. The suit was filed before the Civil Judge Senior Division, alleging that the Mosque was built after a Lord Vishweshwar's temple was destroyed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking to quash the Constitution of Indo Islamic Cultural Foundation Trust ("Trust") which was formed by Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board ("Board") for construction of mosque over the 5 acres land which was allotted by the State of UP to the Board pursuant to the Ayodhya judgment.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a petition preferred by NEET PG aspirants seeking to exit from the seats already joined pursuant to the 2nd round of counseling in the All India Quota of the counseling process without paying the huge amount of penalty.
33. NEET SS 2022: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging Changed Examination Pattern
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in the writ petition preferred by MD Radiation Oncologists and MD Anaesthesiologists NEET SS 2022 aspirant challenging the changed examination pattern which would now consist of 150 questions from the general/basic component of the primary feeder broad specialty subject and from all sub- specialty/systems/component of that primary feeder broad specialty subject.
The Supreme Court, on Monday (9th May), expressed concern that misinterpretation of its order by a trial court judge in Andhra Pradesh, resulted in the accused languishing in custody even after securing interim bail from the Apex Court.
Perturbed by the fact that, in the present case, where custody for 9 years was found to be sufficient to enlarge him on bail, the accused had undergone custody for two additional years (11 years), a four-judge bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, P.S. Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia reckoned that it is a reincarceration of Hussainara Khatoon and Motil Ram.
The Supreme Court recently struck down the clause of April 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which required private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites.