100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC [Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. V. State of A.P. & Ors.]
A Constitution bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that 100 per cent reservation of teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category at schools situated in "Scheduled Ares" is constitutionally invalid. The Bench also quashed the Government order issued under the hand of Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and imposed costs on both Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons from the Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations.
Also Read: [100% Reservation Unreasonable] Questions Referred And Answers Given By Constitution Bench
Also Read: Affluent & Advanced Within SC/ST Not Permitting Reservation Benefits Trickle Down To Needy : SC Calls For List Revision
State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If State's Price Is Higher Than Centre's 'Minimum Price': SC [West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Prades & Ors.]
A Constitution bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and S Ravindra Bhat held that both Centre and State have concurrent powers to fix the prices of sugarcane and that the price' fixed by the State Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the 'minimum price' fixed by the centre. The Bench also put the conflict between two judgements of the same strength to rest, i.e. Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [AIR 1956 SC 676] and U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Others [(2004)5 SCC 430], concluding thereby that there existed no conflict between these two decisions and that there was no need for reference to a 7-judge bench.
SC Rejects Challenge Against Regularization Of Teachers In HP After 15 Years Of Service [Chander Mohan Negi and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]
Supreme Court rejected the challenge against a decision of Himachal Pradesh Government, to regularize teachers who were appointed under Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) scheme, Para Teachers Policy and other schemes. In this case, an appeal had been filed against the division bench order of the High Court which had directed the state to regularize those teachers who were appointed for filling up of vacancies of Junior Basic Training (JBT) Teachers as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. A bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantangoudar & R. Subhash Reddy held that as and when the appointees under the scheme completed 15 years of service and had acquired professional qualifications, they could not be denied regularization.
SC Upholds The Constitutional Validity Of Rule Empowering RAW To Compulsorily Retire Officers [Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr.]
Upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 135 of the RAW (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975, which gave power to the Central government to voluntarily retire RAW Officers, whose identity has been exposed or compromised, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by an ex-female employee of RAW, who had been compulsorily retired after she made allegations of sexual harassment against two senior officials of RAW.
Arbitration Award Fixing Price Of Land Can't Be Executed Like A Decree For Specific Performance Of Sale Agreement : SC [Firm Rajasthan Udyog & Ors. V. Hindustan Engineering Industries Ltd.]
Applying the principle that an "executing Court cannot travel beyond the relief granted in a decree", the Supreme Court held that an arbitration award fixing the price of the land cannot be executed like a decree for specific performance of sale agreement, when the reference to arbitrator was only for determining the compensation under the sale agreement. A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran further observed that for an award or instrument creating any right, title or interest in immovable property, it would be required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act for succesful execution.
NDPS - Quantity Of Neutral Substances In Mixture Must Be Taken Into Account With Actual Drug Weight To Determine 'Small Or Commercial Quantity' : SC [Hira Singh & Another V. Union of India & Another]
While overruling an earlier 2008 decision titled E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and M R Shah held that the quantity of neutral substances in a mixture containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances must be taken into account along with the actual weight of the offending drug while determining 'small or commercial quantity' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
SC Upholds The Constitutional Validity of Clause(f) of Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 [Union Of India & Ors. V. Exide Industries Limited & Anr.]
Reversing the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, Supreme Court bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari upheld the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court decision which had declared the aforementioned clause to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was thereby reversed.
Consent Of The State In Which Accused Resides Or Employed Not Necessary For CBI Investigation When The Offence Is Committed In NCT Of Delhi: SC [Kanwal Tanuj V. State Of Bihar]
A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that the Central Bureau of Investigation can investigate into an specified offence committed by an accused within the Union Territory, who is residing in, or employed in connection with the affairs of another State. For the said purpose, the consent of the state is also not necessary. Central issue in the case was whether the CBI was authorised to register cases against the public servants employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of Bihar which was answered by the top Court in the affirmative.
Insurance Law - Storage, Unpacking, Assembly Of Helicopter Outside Scope Of 'Ordinary Course Of Transit' : SC Sets Aside Insurer's Liability To Compensate MP Government [Balance Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Top Court set aside National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order requiring Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to pay Rs. 64 lakh by way of compensation to Madhya Pradesh government, for wrongful repudiation of a claim of damages to a helicopter in transit from Canada to Bhopal. Bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi answered the question of whether storage, unpacking and assembly of the helicopter at New Delhi would fall outside the scope of the expression "ordinary course of transit", terminating coverage under the policy in the affirmative.