Supreme Court Monthly Digest- January 2023

January has come and gone, leaving behind a trail of pulse-pounding legal events that took place in the Supreme Court of India. But fear not, as Live Law is back with its monthly digest to keep you informed and in the loop of all the key happenings in the Indian Supreme Court. Whether you are a legal enthusiast or just someone who wants to stay informed, our monthly digest has got you covered. Let's stay ahead of the curve and stay informed with Live Law.Judgements/OrdersDemonetisation Decision Making Process Lawful, Supreme Court Holds By 4:1 Majority; Justice Nagarathna DissentsCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India [WP (C) No. 906/2016] and other connected mattersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1Coram: Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV NagarathnaThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations. The majority held that Centre’s notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid and satisfies the test of proportionality. Justice BV Nagarathna in her dissenting view held that though demonetization was well-intentioned and well thought of, it has to be declared unlawful on legal grounds (and not on the basis of objects).Other reports on the judgement can be found here.Constitution Does Not Prohibit Appointment Of Lawyer Practising In Supreme Court As Judge Of High Courts: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ashok Pandey v. Union of India And Ors. [WP(C) No. 823/2022]Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5Coram: Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. OkaThe Supreme Court observed that there is no provision in the Constitution which prohibits lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as judges of High Courts. The observation was made while hearing a petition contending that as per Article 217 of the Constitution, a person who has been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice to the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as a judge of that High Court.Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing His Two SonsCase Title: Prem Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi [CrA 1 OF 2023]Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2Coram: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaRejecting his plea of mental incapacity, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his two sons. "Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence", the bench observed. The court found that he was neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound mind.Additional Restrictions Not Found In Article 19(2) Cannot Be Imposed On Right To Free Speech: Supreme CourtCase Title: Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP | WP (Crl) No. 113/2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. NagarathnaThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench has held that additional restrictions, not found in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of Ministers, MPs and MLAs. It held that the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive. The Court by 4:1 majority added that statements made by Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the govt, cannot be attributed vicariously to the govt even applying the principle of collective responsibility. In her dissenting opinion, Justice B.V. Nagarathna agreed that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, in addition to grounds under Article 19(2). However, she observed that in case a Minister makes disparaging statements in his "official capacity", then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government.Other reports on the judgement can be found here.Cinema Theatres Can Prohibit Outside Food Articles; But Hygienic Drinking Water Must Be Provided Free : Supreme CourtCase Title: KC Cinema v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others and connected matters. | SLP(C) No. 20784/2018Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS NarasimhaSupreme Court stated that a cinema hall owner could prohibit movie-goers from carrying their own food and beverages inside cinema halls. However, the bench clarified that all Cinema Halls must provide hygienic drinking water for all movie goers free of cost in theatres. Further, it noted when an infant or a child accompanies a parent, reasonable amount of food for them can be carried in theatres. The court also disapproved mandate for uniform pricing of cinema ticketsMagistrate Must Examine If Complaint Constitutes Only A Civil Wrong Before Summoning Accused : Supreme CourtCase Title: Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh [CrA 2328 OF 2022]Citation:...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- January 2023

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags