The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-I]

Abkari Act Abkari Act, 1077; Section 57A- Offence under Section 57A is not limited to the holders of the license under the Act, but refers to anybody who mixes or permits to be mixed any noxious substance, likely to endanger human life with any liquor. (Para 43) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974 Abkari Act, 1077; Section 55 - Alcohol as mentioned in Section 55, has been defined under Section 3(10) as any liquid consisting of or made of alcohol. Therefore, Section 55 applies to the transmission of methyl alcohol. (Para 48) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974 Abkari Act; Section 8 - The testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined - the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such an investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application. (Para 16-26) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : AIR 2023 SC 4627 : (2023) 11 SCR 95 Abortion Foetus has no separate identity from its mother; Women can't be forced to undergo pregnancy at risk of physical and mental trauma. In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881 Woman alone has the right over her body; she's the ultimate decision maker on abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680 'Forcing woman to have child born out of rape against constitutional philosophy': Supreme Court allows survivor's plea for abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680 'What is happening in Gujarat High Court? We don't appreciate HC's counterblast to our Order': Supreme Court in abortion case. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680 Access to Justice Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 Administrative Law A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 Administrative Law - MD, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar - in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure- to prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. [Para 19] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 Administrative Law - Principles of - MP Jain and SN Jain's treatise - If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him - the principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. [Para 17] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 Administrative Law - T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India - A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication - if it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. [Para 18] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 Administrative Law – Well established principle of - An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. [Para 17] Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533 Article 323A does not ...

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-I]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags