Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 7, 2024 To October 13, 2024

→'Acknowledge Women's Struggles In Occupying Public Offices': Supreme Court Flags Discriminatory Attitude Towards Women RepresentativesMANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 783While granting relief to a female Sarpach of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.The Court observed that the matter related to the removal of an elected representative should not be taken lightly, especially when it concerns women in rural areas.→Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Watchman Convicted For Dacoity And MurderShivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 784The Supreme Court recently set aside the death sentence of a watchman convicted for the dacoity and murder of his employers to life imprisonment.A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra, and Justice KV Vishwanathan set aside the death penalty imposed by the Bombay High Court in 2022. “The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the material placed on record had come to a considered conclusion that the present case does not fit in the category of the 'rarest of rare' cases. Therefore, unless the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge was found to be perverse or impossible, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same”, the Court held.→Supreme Court Disapproves Uttarakhand HC Judge's Proclivity In Making Unjustified Remarks Against AdvocatesSiddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785The Supreme Court recently set aside two orders of the Uttarakhand High Court that contained adverse remarks made by a High Court judge against an advocate.A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the comments made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the HC regarding the advocate's conduct were unjustified and illegal. “We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of”, the Court added.→When Can Official Superiors Be Liable For Abetment Of Suicide Of Employee? Supreme Court ExplainsNipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786In a recent case, the Supreme Court explained when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official.The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that behind the act of suicide can be categorized into two broad categories i.e., where the deceased is having sentimental ties with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.→'No Scheduled Offence In Complaint Or Chargesheet' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In Money Laundering CaseLaxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 787The Supreme Court on Friday (October 4) granted bail to two accused, Laxmikant Tiwari and Shiv Shankar Naag, in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam case.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the absence of a scheduled offence at the time of filing of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).→Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Judgment Which Was Signed & Uploaded After Judge's RetirementState through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 788The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1) restored a quashing petition related to a corruption case to the file of the Madras High Court, noting that the judgment in the case was signed and uploaded after the judge, Justice T. Mathivanan, had retired.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted the report of the Registrar General and the Joint Registrar of the Personal Assistance Section of the Madras HC that indicated that the detailed judgment was received from the judge after his retirement on May 26, 2017.Justice Abhay Oka, after dictating the order, emphasized, “There should not be a single incident like this” referring to the issuance of the detailed judgment after the judge's retirement.→Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC's Orders For Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lakshadweep Judicial OfficerK. CHERIYA KOYA VERSUS MOHAMMED NAZER M.P. & ORS. ETC., SLP (CRL.) NO(S).11916-11919/2023, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789The Supreme Court recently set aside orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer, noting that the records pertaining to the case alleged to have been mishandled by him were not considered by the Kerala High Court at the time of passing of orders for suspension and enquiry. The same rendered the initiation of disciplinary...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 7, 2024 To October 13, 2024

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: October 7, 2024 To October 13, 2024

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers