Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2022
Padmakshi Sharma
26 Jan 2023 12:17 PM GMT
Judgements/OrderCut-Off Date For Acquiring Qualification For The Post Advertised Is The Last Date Of Application : Supreme CourtCase Details: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs Dharminder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999 | CA 8828 OF 2022The Supreme Court observed that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application.In this case, the...
Judgements/Order
Case Details: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs Dharminder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999 | CA 8828 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application.
In this case, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. published advertisement on 17.07.2018 inviting application for a post. As per the advertisement, the essential qualification is metric pass and the desirable qualification is ITI diploma in wireman/Electrical trade obtained through Regular Course (not through distance education) from the institutions recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh or the National Trade Certificate of one year Broad Based Basic Training. The marks to be assigned for essential qualification are 60 per cent whereas the marks for desirable qualification are 25 per cent.
Case Details: Istkar vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000 | CrA 2034 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a 'vehicle for punishment'.
The demand of excessive and arbitrary amount of security/bond is impermissible as it stultifies the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Code, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
Case Details: State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Virendra Kumar & Ors. | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 66226623 OF 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1001
The Supreme Court has reiterated and held that "where an enactment requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and in no other manner" in the judgment of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Virendra Kumar & Ors.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath have delivered the judgment which has been authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Case Details: Amar Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh | C. A. No. 2035/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 752/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a person, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and pay Rs 1 lakh fine for the offence of possessing charas. Granting him benefit of doubt due to the lacunae and gaps in the prosecution, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Existence Of An Alternate Remedy Cannot Exclude Writ Jurisdiction Of High Court : Supreme Court
Case Details: Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003 | CA 7812-7814 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of an alternate remedy by itself cannot exclude the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
"A constitutional remedy cannot be barred or excluded as when the High Court exercises its power under Article 226, it cannot be a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction.", the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed while considering Maharashtra state Waqf Board's appeal against the 2011 decision of the Bombay High Court where the High Court had quashed the constitution of the Maharashtra state Board of Waqfs. The court however partly allowed the appeal filed by the Board.
Case Details: CBI v. Siby Mathew SLP(Crl) 4097/ 2022, CBI vs Jayaprakash | SLP(Crl) No. 8008-8010/2021 II-B | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in 2021 granting anticipatory bail of five former police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in 1994 ISRO espionage case.
The Court remitted the bail applications back to the High Court and asked the High Court to decide the same as early as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks. The Supreme Court also granted protection from arrest to the accused for a period of 5 weeks, subject to their cooperation with the investigation, as an interim arrangement till the High Court finally decides the matter.
Case Details: Solomon Selvaraj vs Indrani Bhagawan Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004 | CA 8885 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an application to sue as indigent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure can be rejected if it is found that the suit is barred by res judicata.
In this case, the plaintiffs filed an application to permit them to sue as indigent persons under Order 33 rule 1 CPC. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the suit is vexatious, an abuse of process of law and the court and the suit is barred by res judicata. The Madras High Court upheld this order and thus the plaintiffs approached the Apex Court in appeal.
Case Details: Pramod Singh Kirar vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 | CA 8934-8935 OF 2022
The Supreme Court directed appointment of a candidate whose candidature was rejected on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Pramod Singh Kirar applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC earlier and was later acquitted in the said case. Later his candidature was rejected on the ground that he was involved in this criminal case.
Case Details: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Crl A. No. 885/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on pronounced the judgment answering the reference made on the ambit of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives power to the trial court to summon additional accused. The bench also issued elaborate guidelines regarding the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused during trial. The bench comprised Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna. The Supreme Court held that a criminal trial is not complete on the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction of the accused, but with their sentencing.
Case Details: Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani vs Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 | SLP (Crl) 9092 of 2022
The Supreme Court set aside a direction issued by Bombay High Court to the State to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event it intends to arrest him. Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed. In this case, the Bombay High Court, while disposing an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused, directed that the accused should be given 72 hours' notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence.
Case Details: Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011 | CA 174 OF 2021
The Supreme Court has held that Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act will be attracted only if the transfer of property by a senior citizen was subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to him/her. In this case, a petition was filed by a senior citizen woman under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) alleging that her son and daughters were not maintaining her and therefore the release deed executed by her in favour of her two daughters has to be declared void. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the petition and declared the release deed null and void. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this order.
Case Details: Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 | CA 9014 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that deceased's Income Tax Return can be considered for computation of his annual income in Motor Accident Compensation Claim cases. In this case, the claimants had filed the deceased's Income Tax Returns before the Tribunal which showed the total income of deceased to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9855/- per month. The MACT disregarded it on the ground that neither any ITR prior to 2009-2010 nor any other document with regard to the deceased's income was filed. It thus fixed his income at Rs.4000/- per month i.e., Rs.48,000/- per annum. In appeal, the High Court also refused to consider ITR and estimated the deceased's income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) | SLP (C) No. 21019/2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought for details of the Supreme Court collegium's meeting of December 12, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, observing that the discussion cannot be disclosed to the public and that only the final decision of the Collegium need to be uploaded in the website.
Case Details: Kamla Neti (D) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014 | CA 6901 OF 2022
The Supreme Court held that a female member of the scheduled tribe is not entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari urged the Central Government to consider whether it is necessary to bring a suitable amendment to Hindu Succession Act in this regard.
Case Details: Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016 | CA 8179 OF 2022
The Supreme Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases.
In this case, the Rajasthan High Court, while reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to claimants, refused to consider the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing these documents was not examined before the Tribunal.
Case Details: Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs Regional Manager UPSRTC | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017 | CA 9070-9071 OF 2022
Socio-economic background of the claimants must be considered while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused due to motor accidents, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on 9 December 2022. The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat observed thus while allowing appeal filed by a claimant seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation.
Case Details: Chandi Puliya vs State of West Bengal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019 | SLP(Criminal) 9897 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the accused's plea on applicability of Section 300 CrPC has to be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC. In this case, the accused filed a discharge application under Section 227 r/w Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. He contended that he had already been acquitted of the offence of kidnapping and on the basis of the same facts, he is now being sought to be prosecuted for the offence of murder. The same was dismissed on the ground that such an objection can be raised at the stage of framing of charge and not discharge. The Calcutta High Court upheld this order.
Case Details: Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Ravindra Balkrishna Patel (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020 | CA 8531-8532 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an Execution Court should attach the debt under Order XXI Rule 46 CPC before proceeding against garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46A of Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank granted a financial facility to a firm Vimal Traders. Since the amount was not repaid, the proceedings were initated under Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The Adjudicatory authority passed an award in favour of the bank. Under Section 103 of the Act, the Award is to be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court. Therefore the Society filed filed Execution Application before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. This application was dismissed for default and later the Bank filed another Execution application. In these proceedings, an application under Order XXI Rule 46A was passed requesting the Court to proceed against Garnishee and this came to be allowed. This order was set aside by the Gujarat High Court.
Case Details: Priyanka vs Santoshkumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 | Transfer Petition(Civil) 964 of 2021
The Supreme court observed that orders giving visitation rights or temporary child custody cannot be passed in a proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of conjugal rights). In this case, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, against the wife before the Family Court at Puducherry. In these proceedings, he filed an interlocutory application which was purportedly to be a petition under Section 26 of the Act, for grant of custody of the child. Both the petitions were entertained exÂparte and then decreed.
Case Details: Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Ravindra Balkrishna Patel (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020 | CA 8531-8532 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that mere dismissal of the first execution petition on the ground of default will not preclude decree holder from filing a fresh execution petition provided it is within time. In this case, the Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank granted a financial facility to a firm Vimal Traders. Since the amount was not repaid, the proceedings were initated under Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The Adjudicatory authority passed an award in favour of the bank. Under Section 103 of the Act, the Award is to be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court. Therefore the Society filed filed Execution Application before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. This application was dismissed for default and later the Bank filed another Execution application. In these proceedings, an application under Order XXI Rule 46A was passed requesting the Court to proceed against Garnishee and this came to be allowed. This order was set aside by the Gujarat High Court inter alia observing that to maintain the second application, the order dismissing the execution application should have been set aside within a period of 30 days since Section 5 of the The Limitation Act, 1963 is not available in execution proceedings.
Case Details: B R K Aathithan vs Sun Group | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022 | CrA 2080Â-2083 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a second criminal complaint can be maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. In this case, the complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the accused alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC etc. This was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that there is no prima facie case as it falls in the Fourth exception of U/s 499 of IPC. Challenging this dismissal order, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision before the Madras High Court but the same was withdrawn. Later he filed a second complaint before the Magistrate which contained the same averments he had made in the first one. In this complaint, he stated that he had filed a second complaint "as per the order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court". Apparently, the Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint and summon the accused. The accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court which then quashed the complaint.
Case Details: State Of West Bengal vs Sandip Biswas | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024 | SLP (Crl) 10029 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court does not have the power even under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath observed thus while considering appeal against a direction issued by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court order. While disposing a bail application filed by an accused allegedly involved in misappropriation of public money, the High Court had observed that 'whatever further investigation is to be carried out, must be completed by 31st October, 2022 after expiry of which the petitioner shall automatically be released on the following terms and conditions'.
Case Details: Ram Pratap vs State of Haryana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025 | CrA 804 Of 2011
Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a concurrent conviction of murder accused. Ram Pratap was one of the accused in murder case. He was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the same was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the appellant-accused, it was contended that there is no evidence worth the namesake.
Case Details: Desh Raj vs Rohtash Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026 | CA 921 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that, in a specific performance suit, the Courts cannot suo motu grant relief of refund of earnest money if it is not specifically prayed for. Unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Section 313 CrPC Not Empty Formality, Circumstances Must Be Explained To Accused : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kalicharan vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027 | CrA 122 OF 2021
The Supreme Court observed that while questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC, he must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. "If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said.
Case Details: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Details: State of Rajasthan vs Gurbachan Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028 | CrA 2201 OF 2011
The Supreme Court observed that 'common intention' for the purpose of Section 34 IPC can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
Case Details: R Nagender Yadav vs State of Telangana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030 | CrA 2290 OF 2022
The Supreme Court, in a judgment, quashed criminal proceedings against an accused in a cheating case after noticing that the complainant in fact availed civil remedy. The court however clarified that this order in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be cited as a precedent.
Case Details: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 | Cr A 1669 of 2009
The Supreme Court observed that there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence, the Constitution Bench observed. The bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna observed thus while answering the reference 'whether in the absence of direct evidence regarding demand or giving of bribe, there can be conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial inferences' in the affirmative.
Case Details: State of Gujarat vs Sandip Omprakash Gupta | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031 | CrA 2291 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of 'organised crime' under Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 is constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from 'continuing unlawful activity'. In this case, the State of Gujarat had approached the Apex Court challenging the Gujarat High Court judgment that the five FIRs, which were registered in the past for different offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be construed as a 'continuing unlawful activity' of the accused so as to prosecute him under the provisions of the 2015 Act. The High Court had followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane reported in (2015) 14 SCC 272.
Case Details: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification, without establishing the offer made by the bribe giver or demand raised by the public servant, would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d)(i) or Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna noted what would qualify as offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)
Case Details: Hasmukhlal D. Vora vs State of Tamil Nadu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 | CrA 2310 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that unexplained inordinate delay can be considered as a 'very crucial factor' for quashing a criminal complaint. The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword to threaten them, the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
Case Details: Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M J | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034 | CA 9252-9253 OF 2022
The Supreme Court held that the consumption of electricity in excess of the connected load/contracted load would amount to 'unauthorised use of electricity' under explanation (b) to Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J B Pardiwala also declared Regulation 153(15) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 as invalid for being inconsistent with the provision of Section 126.
Delegated Legislation Which Is Ultra Vires The Parent Act Cannot Be Given Any Effect : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M J | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034 | CA 9252-9253 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a delegated legislation which is ultra vires the parent Act cannot be given any effect. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J B Pardiwala observed while allowing an appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the judgment of Kerala High Court.
Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8822-8823 OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020] | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under a specific set of rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter. However, the court has further pointed out a distinction between rules in the context of qualification/eligibility versus rules regarding the change in the selection process. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh also stated that a change in the selection process will not amount to changing 'rules of the game'. The principle that the 'rules of game cannot be changed after the game has started' will apply only when the basic qualification is sought to be changed after the notification.
News Reports
Bilkis Bano has approached the Supreme Court of India in a writ petition challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts sentenced to life for gang rape and murder during 2002 Gujarat Riots. Bano has also sought a review petition against the Supreme Court's judgment allowing the Gujarat Government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts. This article details the grounds on which the petition has challenged the remission.
A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, is hearing a batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The hearing which took place on November 30 started with Justice Rastogi posing a question to Senior Advocate Mr. Shyam Divan who was about to continue his submissions. he asked, "This court has observed that Jallikattu is brutal. So, the form in which the practice exists is cruel, not the practice itself. The reason why I ask this question is because in 2014 when Nagaraj came, the form was different. Now there is an amendment and rules have been brought in and things have changed. Now, once the mechanism is put in place, anyone who is not following the rules is violating it. Penal action is embedded in the statute. Now you've presented reports. Even if those reports are taken at face value it's the execution that's the problem. So, is the rule bad or the manner in which it is being followed is bad? We have to test the scheme and not the ground reality."
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by a physically challenged general quota candidate seeking admission in the Master of Medicine programme in a medical college in the State of West Bengal . The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala.
1 KM ESZ Mandate For Forests | Supreme Court Says Ground Realities Have To Be Considered
Commenting about the practical difficulties in having a uniform mandate of 1 kilometer Eco Sensitive Zone for all protected forests across the country, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the ground realities have also to be taken into account.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath was hearing a batch of applications filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case, some of which sought exemption from the June 3 direction of the Supreme Court which mandated 1 KM ESZ for all protected forests.
'Don't waste your time gossiping in the Court canteen, in your free time, sit in Court and observe how other advocates are arguing', was the advice that Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah passed on to a young advocate. Recalling his initial days in Court, Justice MR Shah said that he was often asked to sit in courts and observe how other advocates were arguing their cases. "Sit in Court whenever you can, that's what I was taught when I was at the Bar in the beginning. Whenever you are free, sit in the courtroom. Learn, how others are arguing. What is liked by the Court… Correct?"
Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Set For A Limited Period, Supreme Court Says
While hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court of India stated that it can't be set for a limited time frame.
"How can an anticipatory bail be limited to four weeks?!", asked a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by politician Monirul Islam challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court that had granted him anticipatory bail in 2021, limiting it to four weeks only.
The State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana informed the Supreme Court, that the District Ludhiana the Bar Council election programme which is proposed to be conducted on 16th December, 2022 ought to be rescheduled in view of the fact that the State Bar Council is yet to finalise the voters' list. The matter was mentioned by an applicant who had filed an application for stay of the elections before a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka. The matter was taken on Board and notice was issued.
Is there a compelling reason for the environmental release of the genetically modified herbicide-tolerant mustard crop at this stage, and will such release have an irreversible adverse effect on the environment, the Supreme Court of India asked the Centre. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a ban on the commercial cultivation of indigenously developed genetically modified mustard, christened "HT Mustard DMH-11", which in October, received the imprimatur of the Environment Ministry. This is the first time a transgenic food crop is planned to be commercially cultivated in India.
A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, is hearing a batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the State of Tamil Nadu started his submissions. Before laying down the premise of his argument, Mr. Sibal said, "No gain saying that we live in an interdependent world. While we are dependent on animals, their preservation is also important for our own livelihood. There is a food chain that is necessary for survival of both animals and man. There are animals of two kinds wild and domesticated. In the present petition we are dealing with domesticated animals. The Act deals with both kinds of animals."
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the plea, inter alia, challenging the delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the recent notifications.
The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka had heard the submissions of Senior Advocate, Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, representing the petitioners. His primary challenge to the impugned notifications was on the touchstone of the scheme envisaged in Article 170(3) of the Constitution of India. He argued that the said provision had frozen delimitation till the first census after 2026. However, Justice Oka had highlighted that though the Senior Counsel had orally argued that the provisions of the Jammu And Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 is in the teeth of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of the concerned provisions of the statute has not been challenged in the petition.
'Infructuous, Election Is In 3 Days': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stay MCD Elections
The Supreme Court dismissed, the plea challenging order of the Delhi High Court refusing to stay the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections, which are scheduled to be held on December 4, as infructuous. A matter was listed before a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka. Justice Kaul noted, "The elections are on Sunday" and the Bench passed the order dismissing the plea.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Waive Bar Council Enrolment Fees For Transgender Persons
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking to direct the Bar Council of India to waive enrolment fees for transgender persons. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. At the outset, the petitioner submitted that transgender persons belonged to the most marginalised community of the country and required assistance in form of fee waivers. However, the bench was not convinced with the same.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking the inclusion of Swami Chakrapani of Hindu Mahasabha in the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, the trust constituted by the Government of India for the construction and management of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The matter was heard by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. At the very outset, the CJI remarked that there was no vested right that the petitioner had to be included in the Ayodhya Trust.
Supreme Court Asks Centre If Any Commission Has Been Formed To Examine OBC Reservation In Panchayats
The Supreme Court asked the Centre if any Commission has been formed to examine the issue relating to political representation of OBCs in Panchayats. The Court asked the Union's counsel to get instructions in a plea seeking a commission for this purpose. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure for the usage of the term 'Mafia' by Malayalam newspaper, Mathrubhumi in one of its news articles as a naming attribute for a man who is in the business of lotteries. "We cannot appreciate the use of the adjective." A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka were hearing a plea assailing the order of the Sikkim High Court refusing to quash the summons issued by a Gangtok magistrate against the managing editor, the managing director and other senior officials of a Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi in a defamation complaint case filed by Santiago Martin in 2020.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to amend the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to prevent racial discrimination against North East Indians. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The petition moved by Jyoti Zongluju also sought for insertion of chapters on geography, history, demography, culture, and heritage of North East India. It further sought for directions to YouTube to ban or suspend accounts of users engaging in racial discrimination against North East Indians.
Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah said that it has become a "fashion" for retired judges to comment about earlier decisions taken by the collegium of which they were a part of. "We don't want to comment on what former members (of the Supreme Court Collegium) say now. Nowadays, it has become a fashion to comment upon earlier decisions, when they were part of the Collegium. We don't want to say anything on that now", Justices MR Shah said.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha listed a matter concerning the salary of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission members for December 8, 2022. The batch of pleas prayed that the salary of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission members should be the same as District Judges. One of the pleas, filed by a retired District Judge, also sought for an extension of the tenure of the members of the State Consumer Redressal Commissions. The retired judge in question had been appointed as a member of State Consumer Redressal Commission. He stated that the as per the new rules, the maximum age prescribed for a member was 65 years and the same shall be increased to 67 years.
Justice S.K. Kaul Expresses Displeasure At Multiple Mentioning Of Same Matters
The Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed displeasure that Counsels are taking recourse to 'multiple mentionings' to 'try their luck' to get their matters listed. He noted that the Counsels were mentioning the same matters before the concerned Bench; before the Registry and also before the Chief Justice of India till it is listed. He firmly stated that discipline in mentioning and listing matters have to be followed by the Counsels.
The Supreme Court allowed the Tamil Nadu government to reserve 50 per cent of super speciality seats available in the current academic year in government medical colleges for NEET-qualified in-service doctors in accordance with a 2020 government order, the validity of which is currently under challenge before the top court. The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, directed the state government to expeditiously complete the process of allocating seats as per the order within a period of 15 days, and then immediately furnish information regarding the seats that remained vacant to the Union of India, so that the latter could fill the vacancies on the basis of the all-India merit list.
Supreme Court To Hear Bail Applications Of Godhra Train Burning Case Convicts On December 15
The Supreme Court on December 2 agreed to hear on December 15 the bail applications of 15 convicts in the 2002 Godhra train burning case. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha asked the State of Gujarat to specify the individual roles of the convicts, based on which their applications for bail can be considered. The bench also noted that all of them have undergone 17-18 years of sentence.
The Supreme Court modified a Punjab & Haryana High Court order which restrained a Judicial member of the Debts Recovery Tribunal from passing adverse orders in pending matters. The High Court passed the order in a petition filed by DRT Bar Association, which alleged that the judicial member had been behaving rudely with lawyers. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that such an order is unsustainable in law.
The Centre's recent notification amending the Electoral Bonds Scheme to allow an additional window of 15 days for the sale of the bonds was issued overruling the objections raised by certain officials of the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law & Justice, stated the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms in a supplementary affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.
The requirement of obtaining permission from district magistrates before conversion is designed to shield against forcible conversions and protect the freedom of conscience, submitted the Gujarat government in an affidavit. Such steps stipulated by the state's anti-conversion law, key provisions of which were held in abeyance by the High Court in 2021, were "precautions" to ensure that the process of renouncing one religion and adopting another is "genuine, voluntary and bona fide" as well as "free from any force, allurement and fraudulent means", the state government has informed the apex court. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, which was amended in 2021 to include forcible religious conversions through marriage, sought to control and curb "the menace of organised, sophisticated large-scale, illegal conversions" in the state, the affidavit states.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition which sought directions to the ASI to determine the "correct age" of Taj Mahal and to remove "wrong facts" from history books regarding the monument.
"What kind of PIL is this?", a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar asked. The bench asked how will the court decide if the historical facts are right or wrong.
The petitioner then sought to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn with liberty to file a representation before the ASI.
"India Is A Secular Country" : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Declare Sri Sri Thakur Anukulchandra as "Paramaatma" With Rs 1 Lakh Cost
Remarking that "India is a secular country", the Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought to declare Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra as 'Paramaatma'.
"India is a secular country and the petitioner cannot be permitted to pray that the citizens of India may accept Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra as Paramaatma (supreme spirit)", the bench observed in the order.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing a "publicity interest litigation".
The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to expeditiously examine the lack of uniformity in rules regarding cadaveric organ transplant across states with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. The direction was issued in a petition seeking issuance of appropriate directions to State Governments for regulation and monitoring or the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act,1994 and bringing uniformity in Rules across various states in consonance with the Central Rules of 2014.
A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the November 7 judgment which acquitted 3 men who were sentenced to death in the 2012 Chhawla rape case related to the gangrape and murder of a 19-year-old girl. The parents of the victim have filed the review petition stating that many crucial facts were not brought to notice before the top court and certain facts were incorrectly interpreted while the convicts' appeals were allowed.
The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was made aware of issue pertaining to benches rising for lunch at different times on miscellaneous days. The issue was raised by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who stated that the issue created problems for the members of the bar who could not each lunch at times due to different benches of the Supreme Court of India following their own board as per their own convenience.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while holding court, orally remarked that it was time to impose pre-hearing costs in commercial cases to prevent frivolous matters involving commercial issues to be argued before the Supreme Court of India.
'Every charity or good work is welcome, but the intention has to be checked', the Supreme Court orally observed while hearing a petition filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to curb forced religious conversions. Justice MR Shah, the presiding judge of the bench, said that alluring people to convert to other religions by offering medicines and food grains is a 'very serious' issue.
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to file their responses on the proposed set up of online RTI Portals within three weeks. The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha when a counsel informed the bench that only nine High Court had filed their replies in the plea seeking mechanism to set up an online portal for e-filing Right to Information (RTI) applications and first appeals in High Courts.
The Supreme Court forbade the Advocates-on-Record of the Apex Court from putting down their signatures on petitions that they are filing without reading and verifying them. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka noted that there is a great responsibility on Advocates-on-Record and they should exercise caution while signing petitions.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has moved Supreme Court of India seeking a review of the Constitution Bench judgment upholding the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced provisions for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
The judgement dated 07.11.2022, by a 3:2 majority, had upheld the validity f the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment, which was concurred with by the then Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit.
Under the aegis of the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Supreme Court of India will have its first ever Hackathon Event. The aim of the exercise is to identify innovative ideas and explore practical propositions to make the existing filing and listing process efficient.
CBI Manual On Seizure Of Electronic Devices Needs To Be Updated, Says Supreme Court
In a plea, inter alia, seeking guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies, the Supreme Court indicated that the CBI Manual needs to be updated. During the course of the hearing of a plea seeking directions on police and investigative agencies, working under the control of Central and State Governments for specifying guidelines with regards to seizure, examination and preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and their contents thereof, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka noted that the CBI must keep up with the changes that are brought about in the criminal manuals in the other jurisdictions in this regard.
The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea filed by Muhammed Ameer-ul-Islam, who has been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a woman in Kerala in 2016, seeking transfer from the prison from Kerala to a prison in his home state Assam.
We Gave The Recommendation For Demonetisation, All Procedures Followed : RBI Tells Supreme Court
Insinuating procedural impropriety without having concrete evidence, when allegations of procedural lapses were denied by both the central government and the Reserve Bank of India, was nothing but a 'fishing and roving enquiry', Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing on behalf of the central bank, told the Supreme Court. "The process was followed. For instance, we have stated on affidavit that the quorum as determined by the regulations was met. In these matters, the burden typically lies with the person making an allegation. They have not said with certainty that the quorum requirements were not met, but only attempted to shift the burden onto us. This is a highly prejudicial line of argument," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
The Kerala Yuktivadi Sangham (KYS), which is a part of Kerala Rationalist Movement, a continuation of Sri Narayana Swamy reform movement in Kerala, has filed an intervention application in BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay's PIL relating to religious conversions. In the application, the organisation stated that it is deeply concerned about fraternity and brotherhood of all people regardless of their faith, and hence it wishes to intervene in the PIL, which it claims is spreading "untruths" about mass forced conversion and causing hysteria so as to cause ruptures between communities.
The three stated objectives of the 2016 banknote demonetisation, namely, counterfeit currency, black money, and terror financing, were like Jarasandha from Mahabharata, and the only way to effectively tackle these issues was to 'cut them into pieces', Attorney-General for India, R. Venkataramani told the Supreme Court. "If you do not cut Jarasandha into pieces, it will always be alive. These three evils often escape inquiry and grin at the government from quarters they cannot reach. The petitioners have said that we should have had an impact study. For more than a decade, the government and the Reserve Bank have been looking at these three problems," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, is considering, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation.
Taking objection to the recent order passed by the Kerala High Court which observed that religious organizations were encroaching public land, the Catholic Diocese of Bathery urged the Supreme Court to stay the same, in which directions were issued to the government to act against public encroachments made by religious and charitable trusts.
The Supreme Court took grave note of a police officer's complaint alleging that he was assaulted inside the chambers of an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in Patna. A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar directed the Chief Justice of Patna High Court to probe into the police officer's complaint as well as the ADJ's counter FIR. However, the Bench reminded that the Judiciary's sanctity and dignity are most important.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea seeking removal of levy of Goods and Services Tax on medicines to cure spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) stating that its a 'policy decision'. The petitioner was seeking a GST exemption on medical treatment of patients suffering from SMA. He submitted that the the Drugs for SMA are prohibitively priced. One dose of Zolegsnama is Rs 17 crores. And, that the GST component itself would be upward of 2.5 crores, the plea averred.
The Central Government has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to refer the issue relating to the control of administrative services in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to a bench having strength of 9 or more judges.
The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union Government to examine means to improve the conditions of persons suffering from the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The issue arose in a petition filed by a person claiming to be suffering from a condition called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a condition recognized by the World Health Organization as a neurological disease since 1969.
Next Week To Be "Miscellaneous Week" In Supreme Court : CJI DY Chandrachud
Next week (December 12 to 16) will be a miscellaneous week in the Supreme Court, said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The CJI said this when the case related to Shiv Sena dispute was mentioned for urgent listing next week. The CJI said that since it is a Constitution Bench matter, it can't be heard next week, which is a miscellaneous week. "It won't be possible to assemble 5 judges on a miscellaneous week", CJI said.
The Supreme Court posted the batch of petitions filed by both the Uddhav Thackeray faction and the Eknath Sindhe faction in relation to the political crisis in the State of Maharashtra, for directions, on 13th January, 2023. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The matter was initially supposed to be posted for directions on 29th November 2022.
The Supreme Court adjourned to next week the hearing of the petition filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the criminal appeal filed by him in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a 1990 custodial death case. Bhatt has filed the Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court on August 24 which denied permission to him to produce additional evidence in the appeal.
The Secretary of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court refuting the allegations made by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia regarding the non-cooperation by the officials serving the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Deputy CM had alleged that officials are showing an indifferent attitude to the Government and are skipping meetings with Ministers and not picking up calls.
The Supreme Court heard the plea filed by Christian James Michel, who is facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with Agustawestland case, challenging Delhi High Court's order of dismissing his bail pleas. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The bench enquired if it was appropriate to completely deprive Michel of his liberty simply because he was a foreign national and asked the counsels to submit a note to assist the court. The matter will now be heard in the second week of January 2023.
The Supreme Court observed that the Bar Council of India, being a major body, has to come up with propositions to handle situations regarding advocates agitating and going on strikes. A bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed that, "This is a matter which should concern all of us not only on the point of law but otherwise as well and all of us have to apply ourselves in the matter."
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Judicial Enquiry Against Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition which sought judicial enquiry against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in relation to an order passed in a case. The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, alleged that a bench led by ex-CJI Gogoi had dismissed his case in merely 10 minutes in a "dictatorial manner". He alleged that the order was passed to unduly favour a corporate body.
The Supreme Court will hear Goa Congress Chief Girish Chodankar's petition challenging the Bombay High Court's order upholding the Goa Legislative Assembly Speaker's order dismissing his petition seeking the disqualification of 12 Goa MLAs, after a year. The MLAs joined the BJP in 2019. The High Court had held that it was a case of merger as the MLAs who joined the BJP constituted 2/3rds of the Congress MLAs. This view is challenged on the ground that 2/3rds of the entire political party, instead of the legislature party, has to be taken into account to determine if a valid merger is there.
While hearing petitions challenging the 2016 banknote demonetisation decision, the Supreme Court said that it will not play the role of a silent spectator and sit quietly with folded hands only because it was an economic policy decision. "Just because it is an economic decision, does not mean we will fold our hands and sit. We can always examine the manner in which the decision was taken," said Justice B.V. Nagarathna, one of the five judges sitting on a Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016.
The Supreme Court of India asked the Union to get updated information from states on the number of migrant workers registered with the e-portal, 'eShram'. The Ministry of Labour and Employment recently developed a "National Database of Unorganised Workers portal" and "eShram portal" for registration of unorganized workers. The list of workers includes migrant workers spread over 400 occupations such as Building and other Construction workers, Agricultural workers, Self-Employed workers, Asha workers, Anganwadi workers, Fisherman, Dairy workers, among others.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar is hearing the matter. The present batch of petitions were initially filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act.
JNU scholar and activist Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court seeking to expunge the remarks made by the Delhi High Court against him while denying bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case. The High Court had said that Sharjeel Imam was arguably 'at the head of the conspiracy' with whom Umar Khalid was in touch. The High Court had also cited certain instances of alleged meetings between the duo to hold that Khalid was a part of larger conspiracy behind the riots which took place in north east Delhi during February 2020.
The Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud made an important announcement in the Supreme Court of India. He announced the launch of the 'Supreme Court Mobile App 2.0'.
A review petition has been filed by All India Backward Classes Federation against the majority judgement of the Constitution Bench judgment upholding the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced provisions for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
A plea seeking intervention of the Supreme Court of India in Senior Advocate designations in the Madras High Court owing to low representation of women in the posts was mentioned before the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The bench refused to grant an urgent listing to the matter stating that issues such as these did not require out of turn intervention from the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court on December 2 converted a writ petition filed under Article 32 into a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 to consider the legality of a High Court order which quashed a case against a school teacher for allegedly molesting his student based on a "compromise" with the family members.
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the decision taken by the Union Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations. A Constitution Bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna heard arguments in a batch of 58 petitions. The bench allowed parties to give written submission by December 10.
Providing its current stand on the issue of extending the benefit of reservation available to the Scheduled Caste community to Dalits who have converted to other faiths, the Solicitor General of India informed the Supreme Court that the Union Government has decided not go by the report of the Ranganath Mishra Commission Report and has appointed a new Commission headed by Former CJI, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to examine the issue.
A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 12, 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangster Acts) along with Rule 16(3), 22, 35, 37(3) and 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (Gangster Rules) stating that the provisions are ultra vires as violative of Article 14, 19, 20(2), 21 of the Constitution of India and offending the principles of Natural Justice.
The Supreme Court remarked that a visually impaired person appearing for the examination for Advocate-on-Record (AOR) could not be provided with a scribe who was an LLB degree holder or a lawyer. The remark was made in a matter mentioned on behalf of a visually impaired lawyer who was unable to get a clearing for his scribe (who was an LLB degree holder) to assist him in the AOR examination. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Anti-Trafficking Bill Under Consideration, Being Revised Further: Centre Informs Supreme Court
The Union government has informed the Supreme Court that it has no plans to refrain from adhering to the directions passed by the Court in 2015 for coming up with comprehensive legislation dealing with trafficking. The Draft Trafficking of Persons (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill is presently under the government's consideration and is being revised further, the Union's affidavit dated December 1, 2022, informed.
The Supreme Court granted the Union Government two months' time to submit a report on the inter-state water dispute amongst Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Chhattisgarh with respect to river Godavari and the Polavaram Dam project on the said river. The Apex Court further indicated that in the interregnum the Ministry of Jal Shakti is to take initiative to hold meetings with the Chief Ministers of the concerned States to see if a consensus can be reached.
CAT Vacancies: Supreme Court Directs Tenure Of Officers To Be Extended Until Vacancies Are Filled
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala directed the tenure of all officers of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to be extended further until the vacancies for posts in the CAT are filled. The court has now listed the matter in the first week of February 2023 when it shall be apprised of further steps taken to fill up the remaining 19 vacancies in CAT.
Article 224A : Supreme Court To Consider Centre's Status Report On Appointing Ad-Hoc HC Judges
At the request of the Union Government, the Supreme Court has deferred the hearing of the PIL preferred by the NGO, Lok Prahari seeking invocation of Article 224A of the Constitution of India for making ad-hoc appointments of judges to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing on the challenge to the constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The 5-judge bench of Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C. T. Ravi Kumar are hearing the matter. The present batch of petitions were initially filed to quash and set aside a notification issued by the Union of India on 07.01.2016 and to direct the concerned States to comply with the judgment of the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547. While the matter was pending, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitions were modified to seek quashing of the said Amendment Act.
A review petition against the order acquitting the three men accused in the 2012 Chhawla Gang Rape was mentioned in the Supreme Court before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice PS Narasimha. The counsel, highlighting that the public's confidence had been shaken due to the conversion of capital punishment to acquittal in the case, sought urgent listing of the matter.
The Supreme Court told the Central Government that the collegium system is the "law of the land" which should be "followed to the teeth". Just because there are some sections of the society who express a view against the collegium system, it will not cease to the law of the land, the Court added. The Constitution Bench judgements which formulated the collegium system for judges' appointment must be adhered to, the bench told the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in no uncertain terms.
Amidst the ongoing differences between the Central Government and the Judiciary over collegium system, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the comments made by the government functionaries against the collegium system. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, AS Oka and Vikram Nath was hearing a contempt petition filed against the Centre for not approving the collegium recommendations within the time lines laid down by the Court. During the hearing, the bench was informed of certain comments made by "people holding constitutional posts" against the collegium system.
Supreme Court Dismisses Curative Petition Seeking Probe Into Killings Of Kashmiri Pandits In '90s
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Curative Petition filed by an organisation Roots in Kashmir seeking probe into the killings of Kashmiri Pandits during the height of militancy in the valley during the 1990s. The bench of Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed that, "We have gone through the Curative Petition and the connected documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra."
The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the issue pertaining to the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court has been settled and ought to be complied with. While hearing a plea against Centre sitting over names reiterated by Collegium for judges' appointment, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath stated that once the aspect of the MoP is settled by the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, the Union Government cannot get over the issue by referring to observations made by two judges, namely, Justices Ranjan Gogoi and J. Chelameshwar sitting in a 7-Judge Bench( in the suo motu case against CS Karnan)to justify the delay in making appointments.
The Supreme Court asked Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind P. Datar and the Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani to brainstorm and come up with a less cumbersome process to appoint ad-hoc judges in the High Court. While hearing two applications filed in the PIL preferred by NGO Lok Prahari seeking invocation of Article 224A for appointment of ad-hoc judges to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath noted that though senior lawyers are often not willing to take up permanent positions at the Bench, they might be inclined to take up ad-hoc positions for a couple of years as a part of their social commitment. The Bench orally suggested both the Counsels to explore the idea and make suggestions in this regard.
Jallikattu Case: Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment
A 5 judge Constitutional bench headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar, concluded hearing the batch of petitions challenging constitutionality of laws permitting Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart race in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Even if the Prime Minister had, on the eve of demonetisation, assured that the exchange window would be extended beyond the end of the year, it would not be binding on the Government or the Reserve Bank of India in light of the statutory notification that was issued, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta told the Supreme Court on December 7. "In his address to the nation, the Prime Minister told the people that their money would remain theirs only if they followed the directions issued under the law. He also mentioned a timeline of fifty days. He did not say that more time would be given later. But, even if he had, it cannot be said that any promissory estoppel operated on the statutory notification causing the deadline to be extended," he submitted before the Constitution Bench hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Union Government's decision to demonetise high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 in November 2016. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, was invited to examine, inter alia, the legality of the November 8 circular that set the policy in motion, six years after it sent shockwaves through the nation. After a marathon hearing over a period of six days, the Bench finally reserved its judgement.
The Supreme Court extended the terms of the President and Members of the Maharashtra State Commission as well as the District Commissions, formed under the Consumer Protection Act, who are due to retire shortly, till March 1, 2023. A Bench of Justice MR Shah and MM Sundresh passed the interim order after it was informed that many members of the Consumer Forums in Maharashtra were due to retire this month and in January 2023. The Court wanted to ensure that the litigants are not troubled in any way owing to this.
While passing order in a plea against Centre sitting over collegium recommendations, the Supreme Court categorically recorded that the scheme of the Constitution of India is such that though it contemplates that the law-making power is with the Parliament, the same is subject to the scrutiny of the Judiciary. "We in the end say only this that the scheme of the Constitution stipulates the Court to be the final arbiter on the position of law. The power to enact law is with the Parliament. However, that power is subject to the scrutiny of the Courts. It is necessary that all follow the law as laid down by this Court else otherwise sections of society may decide to follow their own course even though the law is laid down"
On January 17, the Supreme Court of India will hear the Maharashtra government's plea challenging the acquittal granted by the Bombay High Court discharging former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and others in an alleged Maoist links case. On October 15, the Apex Court suspended the Bombay High Court's order discharging Saibaba and five others: Mahesh Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote (deceased during appeal), Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi, and Vijay Nan Tirki.
Why Eminent Lawyers Are Reluctant To Join The Bench? Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court has stated that the delay caused by the Central Government in approving the collegium recommendations is discouraging good lawyers from giving consent for judgeship. While considering a contempt petition filed against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the time-lines set by the Court for finalising the appointment process, the Court discussed how the delay is making many lawyers reluctant to join the bench as they "do not want their life to be dragged into an uncertainty".
The Supreme Court clarified that the observations made by the Delhi High Court against Sharjeel Imam in the order denying bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots conspiracy case will not prejudice Imam's case. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka was considering a special leave petition filed by Imam seeking to expunge the remarks in the order passed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court on October 18 denying bail to Umar Khalid.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court came down heavily on a petitioner who sought damages of Rs 75 lakhs from Google India because he was allegedly distracted by the sexual content in advertisements on the Google-owned streaming platform, YouTube, and consequently, unable to pass a Madhya Pradesh police recruitment examination. Invoking Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, the petitioner also sought a blanket ban on nudity on social media platforms.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna, adjourned the SLP filed in Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association vs. State of Maharashtra. The special leave petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court which has upheld the validity of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act which mandates signboards to be in Marathi language in Devanagari script on top and having the same font size as any other language. By way of an amendment the said Rule 35 has now been incorporated into the main Act as Section 36-A making it applicable to shops and establishments with even less than 10 workers.
Nagaland DGP Appointment : Supreme Court Pulls Up UPSC For Delay, Sets December 19 Deadline
The Supreme Court sternly directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to take a final decision with respect to the appointment of Director General of Police (DGP), Nagaland 'on or before 19th December, 2022'. The Apex Court rejected an application filed by the UPSC seeking an additional 60 days to take the final decision. The UPSC had sought additional time for convening the empanelment committee meeting for preparing a panel of officers for appointment to the post of DGP, Nagaland on the ground that the consultation with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs is under process.
Lengthy Bail Hearings A Waste Of Time; Arguments Should Not Exceed 10 Minutes, Says Justice SK Kaul
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice disapproved of the practice of filing lengthy bail applications and arguing "as if a final conviction has already taken place". "Speaking for myself, I find it a complete waste of time of this court or any court to deal with bail applications that go on for pages and pages…The whole argument is made as if the final conviction has taken place," Justice Kaul remarked.
In the order passed in the contempt petition filed against the Central Government over delay in finalizing judicial appointments, the Supreme Court has recorded its concern regarding the Centre splitting up collegium recommendations. The Court has asked the Centre to address the issue, as the seniority intended by the collegium gets disrupted when the Centre decides to pick some names leaving out other names forwarded in the same resolution.
Expressing sympathy with the plight of various Indian medical students who could not complete their clinical training in foreign countries like China, Ukraine etc, due to conditions like Covid and war, the Supreme Court asked the Union Government and the National Medical Commission to find out a solution. The Court asked the Government to constitute a committee of experts to find out solutions for the students' situations, considering the fact that these students can be a national asset when the country is facing a dearth of doctors.
Padma Shree awardee and a former member of the Planning Commission of India, Dr. Syeda Hameed has moved the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the PIL filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against forced religious conversions, which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. Hameed has already filed a petition before the Top Court raising concerns over rising incidents of hate speech. In the present application, she claims that there is an "intrinsic relationship" between hate speech and free exercise of freedom of religion under Article 25.
A lawyer and disability rights activist, Mr. Arnab Roy has moved the Supreme Court challenging the stringent conditions imposed on the Persons with Disabilities intending to avail scribes for the upcoming Common Law Admission Test, 2023 (CLAT 2023). The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record, Mr. N. Sai Vinod, assails the conditions for being arbitrary, excessive and unreasonable. It appears that 13 visually impaired candidates were denied scribes owing to the restrictions imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities. The Consortium prohibits scribes if they are above 11th grade or they are affiliated to any test preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre.
Activist John Dayal has filed an Impleadment Application in the Writ Petition Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya vs. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 63 of 2022 alleging that the petition filed by the Petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya is frivolous, without basis, misconceived, vague, unsubstantiated, malicious and defamatory. The application filed through Advocate on Record Anas Tanwir alleged that the Additional Application for Directions to Central government which was filed by the Petitioner carries derogatory and inflammatory statements against the Christian and Muslim community. The IA states that the statements made in the Writ Petition affect the communal harmony and secular fabric of the country.
Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Fresh Plea Against Stubble Burning
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a fresh writ petition highlighting the issue of air pollution in Delhi due to stubble burning in the neighbouring states. While disposing of the plea, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat orally observed that there are similar petitions before the Supreme Court for consideration. Raising serious issues, the plea moved by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha submits that stubble burning in the neighbouring states of Delhi has caused a huge level of Air Quality Index, resulting in the National Capital Territory "choking".
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea filed by National Commission for Women for enforcement of fundamental rights of minor Muslim women seeking uniform application of penal laws to Muslim women, who contract marriage before attaining the age of majority, irrespective of what is professed in personal laws.
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea preferred by Citizens for Injustice And Peace seeking issuance of mandamus to regulate all kinds of processions, including religious processions and also issue Standard Operating Procedure for granting permission for such processions.
A medical student who has not undergone clinical training was like someone who has learned the theory of swimming but has never entered the water, and as such, such students should not be allowed to treat Indian patients under any circumstances, Advocate Gaurav Sharma, appearing on behalf of the National Medical Council, told the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Stays Execution In Two Death Penalty Matters For Psychological Examination Of Convicts
This week, the Supreme Court stayed execution in two death penalty matters. Further, following the principle laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it directed psychological evaluation of the accused (Samivel and Deen Dayal Tiwari). Both the executions were stayed by a Bench comprising the CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The Bench directed the concerned State (Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) to file the reports of all Probation Officers pertaining to Samivel and Deen Dayal within a period of eight weeks. The Superintendent of the respective jails were asked to submit a report on the nature of work performed by the accused while in jail. Another report with respect to the conduct and behaviour of the accused in jail for the past eight weeks have also been sought.
The Supreme Court to hear Bilkis Bano's writ petition, challenging the premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots, on 13th December, 2022. Bano has also sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment allowing the Gujarat Government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts.
Recently, the Supreme Court issued notice in a plea assailing the direction of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata to the West Bengal Government to ensure that public transport vehicles below BS-IV are phased out within a period of six months. While issuing notice, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka stayed the operation of the impugned direction.
'Tandav' Webseries Row : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Amazon Prime Video India Head
The Supreme Court confirmed its earlier order granting interim anticipatory bail to Aparna Purohit, Head of India Originals at Amazon Prime Video regarding the 2021 webshow 'Tandav'. The top court also set aside the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad which had earlier dismissed her application seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court had observed that the series caused hurt to religious sentiments.
Justice Dipankar Datta Takes Oath As Supreme Court Judge
Justice Dipankar Datta took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud administered the oath to Justice Dutta in the swearing-in ceremony held at Court No.1 of the Supreme Court in the presence of all judges.
While considering the application filed by Asish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, seeking bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court asked the trial court to indicate the time which will be tentatively required to conclude the trial without affecting the schedule of other pending matters. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari directed the Registrar (Judicial) to find out from the first Additional Sessions judge at Lakhimpur Kheri as to how much time the trial is likely to take to conclude in the normal case without compromising with other pending or prioritised matters.
The Supreme Court took exception to certain scurrilous statements made against minority religions in the PIL filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay alleging "mass conversions" taking place across the country. The Court asked Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, who is appearing for the petitioner, who is seeking directions to prevent forceful and deceitful religious conversions, to ensure that such remarks do not come on record.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed challenging the third extension granted to Director of Enforcement Directorate Sanjay Kumar Mishra. A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath sought response from Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission and Sanjay Mishra on the plea filed seeking directions to quash the order granting extension of tenure as Director of Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court passed orders to the State Government of Odisha and the State Police to take stringent actions against lawyers who indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike over a long-standing demand for a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court in the western part of the state, at Sambalpur. A Bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka further ordered the State Government and the Director General of Police, including the Police Officer In-Charge of the Sambalpur District, to be present before the court through video-conferencing, explaining what steps have been taken against the protesting lawyers.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka refused to quash the criminal defamation case filed against Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over the statements made against him by Sisodia in a press conference on June 4, 2022. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Sisodia submitted that, "The petitioner had not made any false statement. I said you have given a contract. It is a fact. You later on said that this contract was given for charity. That you have said after it came in public domain. Now I have nowhere said that you have received money. He has nowhere said that she has received money."
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a plea moved by Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain seeking expeditious hearing of his bail application in a money-laundering case. Satyendar Jain was arrested on May 31 in cases pertaining to black money, benami properties, ghost companies, money laundering and disproportionate assets. He is currently in judicial custody.
Parity Of High Court Judges' Pension: Supreme Court To Hear Pleas In Second Week of January, 2023
The Supreme Court stated that plea seeking parity in pension of High Court judges who are appointed from subordinate judiciary and those elevated from the Bar would be taken up for hearing in the second week of January, 2023. At the outset, the Bench comprising CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Dutta noted that the matter would require 'a little hearing because High Court judges who are appointed from subordinate judiciary are seeking pension as per judges of High Court elevated from the Bar'.
The Supreme Court indicated that it would have Bilkis Bano's petition seeking review of the judgment of the Apex Court allowing the Gujarat Government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts placed early for hearing. Appearing before a Bench comprising the CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S.Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Dutta, Advocate, Ms. Shobha Gupta representing Bilkis Bano apprised the Bench that though Bano's writ petition challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts sentenced to life for gang rape and murder during 2002 Gujarat Riot have been listed, the Registry had not yet listed her review petition.
India Can't Be International Arbitration Hub If There Is No Enforcement Of Award : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court orally observed that India cannot aspire to be an international arbitration hub if there is no enforcement of arbitration awards. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath made this observation while considering a petition filed by Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in relation to the enforcement of the award to the tune of Rs 7200 crores passed in its favour against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).
Will the Supreme Court lay down a general principle that every accused facing murder charges will be released after one year custody? Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave asked this question when the Court contemplated whether it should grant bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, considering the fact that he has undergone custody for over a year. "If your lordship can lay down a general principle that in all 302 cases accused will be released after one year, then I bow down. But do not make an exception in this case", Dave submitted before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari. He contended that ordinarily, the Supreme Court will not interfere if bail has been concurrently refused by the trial court and the High Court in a serious crime like murder.
The Supreme Court, allowed the plea filed by Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Ritu Maheshwari IAS, inter alia, challenging Allahabad High Court's orders seeking her personal presence before it and issuing non-bailable warrant against her after she failed to appear in a contempt case. "We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 28.04.2022 and 05.05.2022."
Supreme Court To Hear Challenge Against Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 In February 2023
The Supreme Court indicated that it would list the plea preferred by Madras Bar Association that assailed the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 (now Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021)for final disposal in the third week of February, 2023. "Third week of February we will hear the Madras Bar Association (main matter) for final disposal." The plea challenges the Ordinance to the extent it amends Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017. Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017 give Central Government rule-making power in relation to the mode of appointment, terms of service, allowances of members etc., of various Tribunals.
Face-off Between DRT Member & Advocates : Supreme Court Leaves Matter To Be Decided By DRT Chairman
The Supreme Court of India disposed of a plea moved by the Judicial officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the High Court's order dated October 27 that restrained him from passing adverse orders in pending matters. The Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had moved the High Court, arguing that the judicial member had been passing adverse orders deliberately.
In the cases related to the rift in the Shiv Sena party, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Uddhav Thackeray group, submitted before a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court that the matter needs to be referred to a 7-judge bench, to consider the correctness of the 2016 judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench in Nabam Rebia versus Deputy Speaker. In Nabam Rebia, a 5-judge bench ruled that a Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending. Sibal submitted before a 5-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha that the correctness of this proposition laid down in the Nabam Rebia is one of the issues referred to the Constitution Bench.
The Supreme Court of India has listed matters concerning the validity of the marital rape exception in the second week on January 2023. The issue was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha by Senior Advocate CU Singh who stated that the matters needed to be listed urgently. Senior Advocate CU Singh stated–
"One is the batch of petitions filed against the split verdict passed by the two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court on the criminalisation of marital rape. That is before a bench of Justice Rastogi. One is the Karnataka matter."
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Raj Kundra In Pornography Case
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Raj Kundra and other co-accused in the several FIR's arising out of the porn videos case registered by Nodal Cyber Police Station, Bandra. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, taking into consideration that the State of Maharashtra did not oppose the application for anticipatory bail filed by the Petitioner, allowed the application
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court posted the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act inserted by way of an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord, for directions, on 10th January, 2023. The 5-Judge Bench comprised Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha.
Supreme Court Pulls Up LLM Student For Filing PIL To Remove Reservation System
The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking to remove the system of reservations in the country while terming the said PIL "an abuse of process". The PIL, which was filed by an LLM student was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Supreme Court judge Justice Bela Trivedi recused from hearing the writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts sentenced to life for gang rape and murder during 2002 Gujarat Riots. The writ petition was listed before a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi. When the matter was taken, Justice Rastogi told Advocate Shobha Gupta, petitioner's lawyer, about the recusal of Justice Trivedi.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by Rashtriya Hindu Swabhiman Party challenging the refusal of the Election Commission of India to register it as a political party. The petitioner's counsel argued that the ECI has taken a "contradictory stand" as it has stated in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that it has no power to refuse registration of parties with religious names.
The Supreme Court closed the plea assailing order of the Sikkim High Court refusing to quash summons issued by a Gangtok magistrate against Managing Editor, Managing Director and Joint Managing Editor of Malayalam newspaper, Mathrubhumi in defamation case filed by Santiago Martin in 2020. Martin had filed the complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code aggrieved by the publication of a defamatory statement - "lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala" which was said by the then Kerala Finance Minister Thomas Issac.
The Supreme Court declined an oral request made on behalf of Cardinal George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church, for exemption from personal appearance before the Magistrate in the criminal case related to alleged land sale scam. The submission was advanced by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on behalf of the Cardinal before a Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Dr.Rajasree MS seeking to review the judgment which set aside her appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Kerala Technological University. While rejecting the review, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that in the impugned judgment, the Court has not opined anything about the salary, emoluments and perquisites drawn by the petitioner and hence there is no question of review on that ground.
In a matter pertaining to compensation sought by homebuyers of Supertech Twin Towers, that has now been demolished, the Supreme Court directed the disbursal of INR One crore that has been deposited by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Supertech Ltd. with the Apex Court's Registry on 8th December, 2022. The amount has been directed to be distributed to the 15 homebuyers (applicants) on a pro rata basis. It also directed that the additional INR 1 crore to be deposited by the IRP on 31st January, 2023 be disbursed to the 15 homebuyers in a similar manner.
Supreme Court Extends Gautam Navlakha's House Arrest Till January Second Week
The Supreme Court extended the interim protection granted to human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon Case, allowing him to stay in house arrest till the second week of January. The matter was listed for interim orders before a bench of Justices K M Joseph and BV Nagarathna. Counsel appearing for Navlakha apprised the court that the house arrest of Navlakha had remained "smooth".
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 5 Names For Elevation To Supreme Court
The Supreme Court collegium recommended names of 5 High Court Chief Justices/Judges for elevation to the Supreme Court.
1. Justice Pankaj Mithal, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court (PHC: Allahabad)
2. Justice Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice, Patna High Court (PHC: Himachal Pradesh)
3. Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Chief Justice, Manipur High Court (PHC: Telangana)
4. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judge, Patna High Court, and
5. Justice Manoj Misra, Judge, Allahabad High Court.
SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices For High Courts Of Jharkhand, Gauhati And J&K&L
Supreme Court Collegium has recommended names of 3 judges for elevation as Chief Justices of the respective High Courts as follows: Justice Sanjay Mishra, judge of the Uttarakhand High Court as CJ of Jharkhand High Court, Justice N Kotiswar Singh, judge of the Gauhati High Court, as CJ of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Justice K Vinod Chandran, judge of the Kerala High Court, as CJ of Gauhati High Court.
After Supreme Court's Cautioning, Indian Army Agrees To Have SSB For Promotion Of Women Army Officers
On 13 December, the Indian Army informed the Supreme Court of India that special selection board for the women officers in the Army will be commencing from 9 January 2023, when cases of approximately 246 women officers will be heard. The information was provided to a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha by the Army responding to an application filed in a plea seeking rank promotion for women army officers.
Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud revealed that his chambers are almost paperless since all his notes and case files are received in digital format. "I don't receive any physical files from Courts. My Law Clerks send me all notes digitally and my chambers is almost paperless," he said. The CJI was delivering his inaugural speech at the opening of District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDH) in 10 districts of Odisha in virtual mode in the presence of Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and the Judges of High Court.
In a matter related to the demolition of four illegal buildings in Maradu, Kochi two years ago, the Supreme Court of India directed the properties of two of the builders, namely, Alfa Ventures Private Limited and K.P. Varkey and V.S. Builders, to be 'de-attached' and their bank accounts unfrozen. The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, directed the applicant builders to provide a security of Rs 25 crores and Rs 10 crores respectively for being allowed to regain control of their properties and bank accounts. The security has to be furnished to the satisfaction of the committee led by former Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair, who is overseeing the compensation claims.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud agreed to list the petitions challenging the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. "We will examine and give a date", CJI said. Earlier, former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit had said that the pleas would "certainly" be listed after the Dusshera breaks. However, the petitions did not get listed.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a SLP filed by Srinivas Kodali, an engineer from Hyderabad, alleging that Election Commission of India has indulged in "voter profiling" by deploying an "undisclosed software" to link voter records to Aadhaar. A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha orally remarked, "It is an important issue". Kodali had earlier approached the Telangana High Court which dismissed his PIL.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. One Lakh on the School Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu for challenging the pensionary benefits of a former sanitation worker.
"(We) are inclined to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay as also these petitions with the imposition of exemplary costs where unnecessarily this matter relating to pensionary rights of a Sweeper-cum Sanitary Worker is sought to be dragged in further litigation", a Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said.
The Supreme Court issued notice on two petitions seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court in pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India. The petition was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. At the outset, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy and Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners stated that the matter was concerning marriage equality. The petitions in question were under consideration in the Delhi High Court and were requested to be transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court To Consider Petition Seeking Proper Implementation Of Child Protection Law
While hearing a miscellaneous application filed in the PIL Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. UoI And Ors. filed in WP(C) No. 906/2014, seeking directions to urgently implement safeguards available in child protection laws, the Supreme Court ordered the petition to be clubbed with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 496/2021 titled In Re The Menace of Drug Mafia Network Operating In The Country, in which the Supreme Court had taken a suo motu notice on the basis of a letter petition sent to the then CJI NV Ramana regarding drug mafia in the country.
While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's 2021 notification as per which OCI students are entitled to apply only to NRI seats in NEET admissions, the Supreme Court orally asked whether Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) are entitled to be treated at par with Indian Citizens. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat remarked, "Where is your entitlement? You are not an Indian Citizen. You are a foreign student. Whether it is NRI or you.... In fact we allow quota for everyone. An Indian citizen is discriminated against. You are not an Indian citizen. You are here on visa. All of you want quota separately. What happens to our own citizens who are born and brought up here?."
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition filed by a same-sex couple seeking legal recognition of their marriage in India. The petitioners in this case– an Indian national and a Citizen of the United States of America (USA) married and registered their marriage in the USA in 2014 and now seek to register their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there is no requirement to create new Benches of the Orissa High Court in a day and age when the use of technology, such as virtual courts and e-filing, is so widespread. It categorically rejected the resolution of the Central Action Committee of the Bar Associations which had proposed to withdraw the strike only if their demand for formation of a Bench in Sambalpur is met. The Apex Court directed the Committee to withdraw the strike unconditionally.
The Supreme Court sternly asked the Odisha Government and the police authorities in the State not to 'mollycoddle' the lawyers who have indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike demanding formation of new Benches of the Orissa High Court. The Apex Court said that it would not let the litigants' interest be sacrificed at the altar of such unruly strikes by lawyers. The Court endeavoured to remind the advocates that their duty is to assist the litigants in attaining justice and not act as an impediment to their cause.
KSRTC Moves Supreme Court Challenging High Court Direction To Remove Ads From Buses
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved Supreme Court challenging Kerala's High Court direction to remove advertisements from buses. Kerala High Court division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar had ordered that transport vehicles owned or operated by KSRTC and KURTC shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements since they are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. Noting that even after the order was passed, KSRTC buses continued to paste advertisements on the body, the High Court had directed the Transport Commissioner and State Police Chief to take the necessary steps to ensure that no such vehicles are allowed in public places by KSRTC or KURTC.
"What is the purpose of awarding a death sentence? If a death sentence is to be executed after 20-25 years, what is the use of that?", the Supreme Court asked the state of Maharashtra, in the latter's challenge to the Bombay High Court commuting the death penalty of 2 sisters to life imprisionment citing inordinate delay in disposing off their mercy petitions.
The Supreme Court gave a deadline of three months to the Centre to complete the process of constituting the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal to resolve the Pennaiyar river dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. A Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar directed, "In the facts & circumstances of the case & considering the facts stated herein above, we grant three months to the Central government to complete the process of constituting the Tribunal to resolve the dispute between the two states."
Don't Suspend Whole Day's Work To Condole Death Of Lawyers : Supreme Court To Odisha Courts
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the practice in Odisha of suspending the whole day's work for condolence meetings at District Courts and High Court. While the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka were hearing the plea, inter alia, about lawyers' strike in Odisha, demanding a new High Court bench at Sambalpur, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar apprised it about a peculiar problem that District Court and High Courts in Odisha are facing. He submitted that whenever a lawyer of the District Court passes away, the Bar Association calls for a meeting in the morning session, at 11AM. He alleged the same disrupts the functioning of the District Courts.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the order of the Madras High Court which granted bail to 5 accused persons in the Kallakuruchi student suicide case. A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath sought response on the plea filed by the mother of the victim. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra assisted by AOR Rahul Shyam Bhandari and Advocate G Priyadarshini appeared for the petitioner.
Don't Confine Scribes To Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court To CLAT Consortium
The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging stringent conditions imposed by CLAT consortium on persons with disabilities intending to avail scribes. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. At the outset, the petitioner, a disability rights activist, submitted that the consortium was only providing the services of a scribe to people with benchmark disabilities. He submitted that this was against the Supreme Court's judgement in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission. While referring to the policy of only providing scribes to people with benchmark disabilities as "exclusionary", the petitioner also stated that the consortium was only permitting scribes who had not yet graduated 11th standard.
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to execute within three months the arbitral award of Rs 7,200 crore won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) run by Reliance Infrastructure against the state-owned Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), of which an amount of Rs 2,600 crore has already been disbursed. A division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath came down heavily on the government corporation, saying, "The law with regard to execution is not different for statutory corporations or the government." The High Court was directed to execute the award and take recourse to such remedies as permitted under the law, including initiating contempt proceedings, if required.
The Supreme Court expressed anguish at the attempt made by the Union Government to delay an international arbitration proceedings initiated by the Reliance Industries and asked if this is the way to create a business friendly environment. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Reliance Industries, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud the issue regarding the delay in the commencement of the international arbitration, although two foreign arbitrators are present in India. He said that the Centre's application seeking the termination of the panel of arbitrators on the ground of bias was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Yet the proceedings have not been commenced on the ground that the Centre is seeking to challenge the High Court's order.
Supreme Court Allows Request Of Goa Govt To Resume Mine Dumping Activities
The Supreme Court approved an application filed by the Government of Goa to carry out mine dumping activities in the state, subject to the condition that the recommendations given by an expert committee constituted earlier by the top court were followed. This decision by a Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath comes as a major relief to the state government, which had, in December 2021, ahead of the 2022 assembly elections, cleared a new policy for permitting mining companies to export low-grade iron ore extracted from dumpsites and was waiting to be given a go-ahead by the top court.
Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Preventing Attacks Against Forest Officers
The Supreme Court sought a comprehensive report from Central Empowered Committee giving suggestions for preventing incidents where forest officers are attacked while discharging their duties. A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath was hearing an application filed by Senior Advocate A. D. N. Rao, Amicus Curiae in the matter(TN Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India) where he had highlighted that the forest officers implementing Court's orders are being murdered.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition mentioned by the government of West Bengal seeking liberty for the registration of an FIR against the current leader of the Opposition in West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari, in relation to a stampede at a blanket distribution event in Bengal's West Burdwan district. The State approached the Supreme Court saying that the Calcutta High Court has passed a blanket order barring the registration of FIRs against Adhikari without its prior permission.
The Supreme Court granted bail to a convict named Farook, sentenced to life in the Godhra carnage case, considering the fact that he has undergone 17 years sentence and that his role was of stone-pelting at the train. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha passed the order in an interlocutory application filed by him in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court adjourned till the last week of January 2023 the hearing in the cases challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners Association for Democratic Reforms, submitted before a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath, that the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench as "weighty issues of public importance" are involved, on which an "authoritative pronouncement" is required.
The Supreme Court granted time to the State of Karnataka till 31-03-2023 for the purpose of submitting the Commission's report, constituted based on the directions of the High Court, on the question of political reservation and reservation for OBCs in local bodies.
Supreme Court Seeks Status Report From States & HCs On Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Hima Kohli ordered all the State Governments and High Courts in the country to file status reports/reply within a period of 8 weeks from in a plea seeking establishment of "Gram Nyayalayas" as per the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008 in the States across the country.
The Supreme Court on December 14 issued notice in a plea filed by five specially-abled MBBS students seeking to set aside a Delhi High Court order upholding the retrospective application of the amendment to Regulations of Graduate Medical Examination 1997. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. In 2019, the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019 were passed to amend the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reckoned that in corruption cases where public servants are accused, the complainants and teh prosecution should make sincere efforts to see to it that that corrupted public servants are punished, in order to eradicate corruption from administration. "We hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and the governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption."
Ensure No Disabled Candidate Is Denied Access To CLAT: Supreme Court To NLU Consortium
The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging the stringent conditions imposed by CLAT consortium on persons with disabilities intending to avail scribes. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court permitted the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association at Jaipur to conduct elections for the post of office-bearers on December 16 strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Rajasthan High Court and without contravening the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote'. This decision by a Division Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar comes as a major relief to the bar association since the petitioner, Bar Council of India, had stayed the election on receiving a complaint regarding the lack of fairness and transparency in the process. Although the state High Court had held the bar council's order in abeyance, the final hurdle before the bar association came in the form of an appeal by special leave against the High Court's decision.
'Do Not Dig Well When House on Fire': Supreme Court Cautions Punjab Govt, Cites Bihar Hooch Tragedy
"Do not dig the well when the house catches fire," the Supreme Court warned the government of Punjab to immediately adopt strict measures to address the large-scale manufacture and sale of illicit liquor in the state. The state government told the bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, that they had already taken steps in the right direction "because of this court's indulgence". "We have implemented all the directions issued by this court, including issuing a circular holding local police accountable if illegal bhatthis are found. We have conducted awareness campaigns, appointed informers who will be rewarded,' the bench was informed. "Have you seen Bihar today?" Justice Shah asked, referring to the Bihar hooch tragedy in Saran district that has claimed the lives of at 39 people, with the death toll still rising. "This is exactly what we want to avoid!" the judge exclaimed.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To TN Govt On Plea Alleging Taking Over Of 38,000 Temples By HR&CE Dept
The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Government of Tamil Nadu in a petition alleging that the government indirectly took over the management of around 38,000 temples in the state of Tamil Nadu by appointing executive officers but refraining them from putting in place temple trustees. As per the petition, this has resulted in mismanagement of huge temple funds. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Andhra Pradesh Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Division Of Assets & Liabilities With Telangana
The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking a "fair, equitable and expeditious" division of assets and liabilities between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana including the Institutions/Corporations specified in Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. The petition pointed out that not a single institution specified in Schedule IX (91 institutions), Schedule X (142 institutions) and Institutions not mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (12 institutions) have been apportioned between the States following their reorginazation in 2014. The petition specified that the total amount of fixed asset which was to be divided of the institution is about Rs. 1,42,601 crores. The petition also stated that Telangana would be the state that would be benefitted by the non-division of assets as 91% of these assets are in Hyderabad which has become the Capital City of Telangana.
Do Not Insist On Benchmark Disabilities To Grant Facilities Of Scribe: Supreme Court To SBI
The Supreme Court of India directed the State Bank of India to not insist on granting the facility of scribe to only the candidates who had benchmark disabilities. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court of India directed the National Medical Council to not disturb the admission of a NEET-UG candidate who passed her 10+2 courses as a private student from National Institute Of Open Schooling (NIOS). The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The petitioner, a NEET-UG candidate, averred that though she has been admitted for counselling, the States of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab were insisting that she submits her Class 11 marksheet. She claimed that other States were not urging on making such submissions. The petitioner, along with the counsel of NIOS, submitted that providing a Class 11 marksheet was not possible as the NIOS curriculum was such that when a student undertook class 12th examination, they also undertook class 11th examination.
No Supreme Court Benches During Winter Break : CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud informed morning that there will be no regular benches for the Supreme Court during the winter break. The Court will reopen on January 2, 2023.
The Supreme Court on December 15 issued notice on a Writ Petition seeking reservation for persons belonging to the SC/ST/OBC/PWD categories in respect of appointments to Central Government posts and services in temporary appointments which are to last for 45 days or more and, to positions in autonomous bodies/institutions/universities that are receiving grants-in-aid from the Government of India.
The Supreme Court asked the National Medical Council to broaden its framework to be more inclusive towards persons with disabilities and form a committee for the have a relook at the provisions barring persons having more than 40% disability from MBBS admissions. The remark was made by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha in a petition challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to the extent that it precludes candidates with speech and language benchmark disability (quantified at 40% or above) from availing reservation and taking admission in MBBS courses. As per the regulations, the petitioner, who had 55% speech disability had been denied admission in medical colleges.
No Offence Found Against Ex-Judge Tahilramani : CBI Says On Reference Made By Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi
The Lok Sabha was informed that the Central Bureau of Investigation's scrutiny of the allegations of impropriety, corruption and political bias against a former chief justice of the Madras High Court, Justice V.K. Tahilramani, did not reveal the commission of any cognizable offence. In 2019, the then-Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi had directed the central agency to take action against her 'in accordance with the law' on the strength of a five-page report by the Intelligence Bureau flagging Justice Tahilramani's allegedly illegal acquisition of property in Chennai, the decision to dissolve a special bench dealing with idol theft cases, and her alleged close ties with a Tamil Nadu minister.
Supreme Court To Hear Andhra Pradesh Plea For Division Of Assets With Telangana In January 2023
The Supreme Court adjourned the petition filed by the government of Andhra pradesh seeking a fair, equitable and expeditious division of assets and liabilities of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, in terms of the Apportionment made under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and ordered it to be listed in the second week of January.
The Supreme Court of India agreed to the request made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan to decide whether the guidelines made under the case of Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India are applicable to the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner, even after the retirement of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Former Indore Law College Principal In FIR Over Library Book
The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of the now resigned principal of Indore's Government New Law College, Dr Inamur Rahman, in an FIR registered over an allegedly "Hinduphobic" book in the college library. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. The complaint was filed by a third year LLM student. The counsels for petitioner Advocate Aljo K Joseph and Abhinav P Dhanodkar submitted that the book in question was published in 2014 and purchased by the college in 2014 as well. As per the petitioner, he was a professor in the college at that time and not the Principal of the college.
CJI DY Chandrachud Announces Launch Of 'Advocate Appearance Portal'
The Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud announced the launch of 'Advocate Appearance Portal' - an online portal through which the advocates can record their appearance. The online portal will do away with manual filing of appearance slips and is a step taken towards making the registry paperless.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a circular stating that any advocate who is seeking relief in urgent matters, either on court holidays or after court hours, can approach a notified officer of the Registry, and if required, a bench will be constituted. Such an officer, who shall be the Vacation Officer, would screen the papers, seek directions from the Competent Authority and thereafter inform the advocate concerned about the directions.
PILs Are Becoming An Instrument Of Blackmail Against Infrastructural Projects: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court remarked that PILs were becoming an instrument of blackmail when infrastructural and building projects were concerned. The remark came up in a matter heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. An appeal had been filed against an order of the Bombay High Court which had imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a society for filing a PIL devoid of any public interest. The petitioner in the matter, Sarthi Seva Sangh had moved the Bombay High Court challenging redevelopment of a plot at Worli, citing ecological concerns. Once the High Court read the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner society, it found that promoting ecology was not the society's object. Thus, stating that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands, the Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL with ₹1 lakh costs.
Can Fishermen Be Allowed Use Purse Sein Nets Beyond 12 Nautical Miles? Supreme Court Asks TN Govt
The Supreme Court asked the Tamil Nadu government if a regulation can be brought to allow fishermen to continue purse-seine fishing beyond the 12 nautical miles, outside the zone prohibited by the state government, so that it does not affect their livelihood.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the election of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi from Wayanad constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Dutta dismissed the petition filed by Saritha Nair, an accused in the high profile solar scam case, whose nomination to contest from Wayanad seat was rejected. She approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in October 2019 to reject her election petition.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Bilkis Bano seeking review of the May 2022 judgment which held that Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to decide the remission applications of 11 convicts, who were sentenced to life for gangrape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
In May 2022, a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath had ruled that the Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to consider the remission request as the offence took place in Gujarat. The bench further directed the Gujarat Government to decide the application as per the remission policy of 1992 within a period of two months. The Gujarat High Court had earlier held the remission had to be considered by the State of Maharashtra, as the trial was held in Mumbai, upon transfer from Gujarat.
CBI Moves Supreme Court Challenging Grant Of Bail To Anil Deskhmukh By Bombay High Court
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved to the Supreme Court of India challenging the Bombay High Court order granting bail to former Maharashtra home minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in a corruption case over alleged llegal gratification from bar owners and corruption in police transfers and posting in Maharashtra.. The Bombay High Court, through its order dated December 12, had provided the CBI with ten days to appeal against the order of bail.
