Supreme Court Weekly Digest July 21 - 31, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 760Anti Defection Laws - Speaker's power under Tenth Schedule - Timelines for deciding disqualification petitions - Judicial Review of Speaker's inaction - Petitions were filed alleging speaker's inaction and delay in disqualification petitions - Supreme Court urges Parliament to revisit provisions allowing speakers to decide disqualification under Anti-defection law and recommended constituting a tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court or some other outside mechanism to ensure that disputes are decided swiftly- Held that speaker issued notice only after matters were filed or heard before Supreme Court, this inaction over 7 months was not considered “expeditious” - the original intent of entrusting disqualification proceedings to speaker was to ensure expeditious decisions, preventing matters from being dilly-dallied and tossed about in the Courts of law - Allowing such delays frustrates the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule and amounts to 'playing fraud on democracy' - Speaker's failure to exercise jurisdiction by leaving the disqualification question undecided was considered a fundamental error warranting interference - Speaker while discharging functions under tenth schedule, acts as a Tribunal and his decisions in that capacity are amenable to judicial review - Scope of judicial review under Articles 136, 226, 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to jurisdictional errors i.e. infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity - It is justified in issuing directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a specified period of time to uphold constitutional values and prevent anti-defection law from being rendered otiose by inaction. [Paras 33, 42, 50, 71, 72, 78, 91-94, 100] Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 755 : 2025 INSC 912Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Existence of Arbitration agreement - Interpretation of “May be sought through arbitration” – Held, a clause stating 'redressal of the dispute may be sought through Arbitration and Conciliation Act”- does not constitute binding arbitration agreement - The use of “may be sought” implies an enabling clause that requires a further agreement between parties to resolve disputes through arbitration, rather than indicating a present and binding commitment to arbitrate. High Court had not exceeded the limits set by Section 11(6A) of the Act and had confined its inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement - Upheld order of High Court - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 23-26, 29-31] BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2025 INSC 874Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Scope of Referral Court's power - prima facie existence of arbitration agreement – Held, the reference court is not to conduct a mini trial or a laborious inquiry into existence or validity of the agreement - Rather Courts shall inspect or scrutinize documents to satisfy itself that an arbitration agreement as contemplated by Section 7 of the Act, prima facie exists - Burden of proving that prima facie arbitration agreement exists lies on the party seeking to rely on it. [Para 14-18] BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2025 INSC 874Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 2(4) - Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability - Works contract - Exclusive Jurisdiction - Withdrawal of Reference – Limitation - High Court refused to set aside the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Appellant and reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of M.P. Arbitration Tribunal established under 1982 Act to adjudicate disputes arising from works contract involving State or its instrumentalities – Held, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private party if the dispute involves a public law element, rather than being confined to private contractual obligations, and the private party performs a public duty or is subject to a statutory obligation in relation to a state entity - In cases where a state owned entity-respondent files a writ petition to challenge the invocation of arbitration under 1996 Act due to existence of a statutory remedy under the 1983 Act, the issue pertains to the availability and exclusivity of a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, this involving a public law element, making the writ petition maintainable - Upheld order of High Court and directed appellant to file an application to recall withdrawal order and seek restoration of reference petition. [Para 8] Umri Pooph Pratappur (Upp) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2025 INSC 907Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vs. 1983 Act – Held, disputes arising out of 'work contract' with MP Govt....

Supreme Court Weekly Digest July 21 - 31, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags