- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug 7-13]
Suraj Kumar
14 Aug 2023 9:16 AM GMT
![Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug 7-13]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/02/13/750x450_458802-supreme-court-weekly-digest.webp "Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug 7-13]")
Judgments/OrdersCentral Civil Service Rules | Retired Employee Can Be Appointed As Inquiry Authority In Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme CourtCase title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra SethyCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority....
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable on allegation of illegal arrest by the ED. The Apex Court clarified that the plea regarding illegal arrest is to be made before concerned the Magistrate, since custody becomes judicial.
Section 41A CrPC Not Applicable To Arrest Made Under PMLA: Supreme Court
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Notice of appearance before police officer) would not apply to an arrest made under the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh observed that when the PMLA itself contains a comprehensive procedure for summons, searches, and seizures, applying Section 41A of the CrPC which requires serving of notice by Police prior to arrest would defeat the purpose of the legislation
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday held that ‘custody' under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and not just the police alone.
While authorizing the detention of an accused, the Magistrate has got a very wide discretion, the Court observed. Referring to Section 167(2) the Court said:
“The words “such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit” would reiterate the extent of discretion available to him. It is for the Magistrate concerned to decide the question of custody, either be it judicial or to an investigating agency or to any other entity in a given case.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday held that any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 (Power To Arrest) of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002, would vitiate the very arrest itself.
A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, observed that:
“Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such non-compliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002.”
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court has questioned the interpretation given by the 1992 judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni that the police or investigating agency can't seek custody of the accused after the first 15 days from the arrest.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife's plea against custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), held that the prescribed 15-day-period of police custody can be an aggregate of shorter periods of custody sought over the entire period of investigation lasting 60 or 90 days, as a whole. Therefore, the bench has referred Anupam Kulkarni (1992) to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Case title: Mahmood Ali v. State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while considering a petition seeking quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of the investigation.
"In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Case Title: A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs Rakesh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court has observed that the protection of Section 197 CrPC is not available to a person working in a Nationalised Bank.
Section 197 CrPC is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.
Case Title: A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court recently held that a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) can proceed against an accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860 even if sanction for prosecution has not been granted in respect of PC Act offences as per Section 19 of the said Act.
Case title: Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court observed that insurance is expected to deal with the insured in a bonafide and fair manner and should not just care for and cater to its own profits.
It is the duty of the insurance company to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally, the bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar observed.
Case title: Kamal v State(NCT) of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the circumstances “must/should be” and not “maybe” established and set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded to 3 persons accused of murder by the Delhi High Court in 2014.
Case title: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court observed that threatening a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code.
The later part of Section 195A makes it very clear that false evidence means false evidence before the Court of law, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, while quashing a criminal FIR, made imperative observations.
It observed that in cases where the quashing of FIR is sought, essentially on the ground that the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
Case Title: S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619
The Court observed: “We are aghast to find that the members, who heard the complaint, have made observations as if they were experts sitting in appeal on the reports of the Loss Assessor and the Experts….It seems to us that the NCDRC made observations in the impugned judgment as if its members were experts in the relevant field and clothed with authority to sit in appeal over the same.”
Case Details: Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court has recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against designated senior advocate at the Gujarat High Court and former assistant solicitor-general Iqbal Hasanali Syed after over a year of legal battle. Syed, along with five others, was slapped with charges of causing hurt, criminal intimidation, extortion, wrongful confinement, etc. on a complaint filed by Ahmedabad-based businessman Viral Shah
Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik v. The Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8836/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to former Maharashtra Minister and NCP MLA Nawab Malik on medical grounds in a money laundering case for two months.
The interim order was passed by a division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Adverse Possession
Case Title: Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621
Supreme Court, in its recent decision, discussed several principles concerning adverse possession.
At the outset, the Court observed, “Possession must be open, clear, continuous, and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party; all three classic requirements must coexist- nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and knowledge.”
Case Title: Government of Kerala & Anr. V. Joseph and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621
The Supreme Court, while placing its reliance on the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) opined that when the disputed land, claimed by way of adverse possession, belongs to the government, the nature of inquiry by the Court must be more serious and effective.
“When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care, and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property.” the court said.
Case Title: Ashok Shewakramani V. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court recently held that under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed.
Case Title: Dev Gupta V. Pec University of Technology
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 9) held that the requirement of a minimum 75% in the qualifying examination imposed by the PEC (Punjab Engineering College) University of Technology for admission through the sports quota, i.e. 2% of the intake of students, was ‘discriminatory’ and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was of the view that the objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota.
Case title: Mohammad Wajid v. State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court observed that the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.
"An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Essential Ingredients Of Section 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code: Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court recently held that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out under Section 506 (Punishment For Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
A division bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice J B Pardiwala observed: "A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant."
Case title: Shaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625
The Supreme Court observed that a Sessions Court has a duty to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder.
Case Title : Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Supreme Court released the judgment passed in relation to the Manipur ethnic violence on Thursday (August 10) late night. On Monday (August 7), a bench led by Chief Justice of India had indicated its plans to constitute a panel of three women judges to oversee the humanitarian works for the victims and to appoint officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes.
In its judgment, the Court has slammed the Manipur police investigation as "tardy" and expressed anguish at the sexual violence committed against women amidst the sectarian conflict.
Case Title : Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
In the judgment pronounced in the matter of Manipur violence, the Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the tardy pace of investigation by the Manipur police in the cases related to ethnic clashes. The Court highlighted that there was an unexplained delay between the occurrence of the crimes in early May 2023 and the registration of the FIRs and the recording of witness statements and making arrests have been few and far between.
Case Title: National Human Rights Commission And Ors. v.The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 16053/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the National Human Rights Commission challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment which set aside the NHRC's decision to appoint its observers for the panchayat elections in the State of West Bengal
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, finding that the interference by the NHRC undermined the ‘autonomy’ and ‘independence’ of the State Election Commission, even though the NHRC had ‘good intentions’.
Case title: Sathyan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627
While upholding a conviction under the Kerala Abkari Act, the Supreme Court observed that the testimonies of official witnesses can not 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", the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol observed
Case Title: Pradyuman Bisht v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to ensure safety within court premises in light of the recent incidents of gun firing within court premises in the National Capital, stressing on the need to 'preserve the sanctity of the court'. The Apex Court also said that the recent incidents of violence has 'disturbed it to no end'.
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta stressed on the need to take immediate measures stating that the safety and security of the stakeholders in the judicial process is 'non-negotiable.
S 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Supreme Court
Case title: Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629
The Supreme Court observed that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case.
"Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.", the bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed
Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. K. Pushpavanam And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (630)
The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that a writ court cannot mandate to the legislature to legislate on a particular subject.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol observed that it is not within the power of a writ court to direct the Government to introduce a particular bill in the legislature and that it can only recommend amendments or point out the necessity to bring about a new law.
Court Has No Power To Modify Award U/Sec 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
Case title: Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631
The Supreme Court reiterated that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award.
The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality, the bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said.
Case Title: M/ S. TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS v. THE UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
The Court held that for fair compensation under the said act, “it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate.”
Case Title: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had made B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) degree holders ineligible for appointment to the post of primary school teachers.
The bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia opined that the fundamental right of primary education in India as guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution as well as the Right to Education Act, 2009 not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children
Case title: Mr Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet@Ranu Yadav Dokh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license of an advocate found guilty of professional misconduct. It was based on the findings in an inquiry by Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council that the advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him.
Electronics Shop Repairing & Servicing Electrical Goods Is “Factory” Under ESI Act: Supreme Court
Case title: M/S JP Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court recently held that the electronic goods shop which sells goods and repairs/services such goods can be said to be engaged in a “manufacturing process” using “power” as defined under ESI Act and Factories Act, 1948
The Court noted that “power” means where any electric energy is transmitted”. So, it was convinced that when electric energy is used for the repair of goods, it can be said to be using “power” as contemplated under the said Acts.
Case title: State of Haryana v Darshan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court recently set aside the directions issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding issuance of summons to prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial.
The High Court, in its order passed on May 27, 2022, had adopted the directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rambahor Saket and others vs State of M.P.(2018) and reiterated those guidelines
News Updates
Case title: Vimlok Tiwari & Ors v. UPSC
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 705/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by 3 civil service aspirants who contended that they were denied reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category due to a clerical error made in the Certificate by the competent authority.
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against Calls Made For Social & Economic Boycott Of Muslims
A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking action against the calls made by several groups, following Nuh-Gurugram communal violence, for the social and economic boycott of Muslims.
The plea seeks action against police officers who participated in those rallies and meetings for failure to prevent hate speeches. The applicant further seeks directions to the concerned State police to explain the action taken by them against hate speeches.
Supreme Court Dismisses TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Challenging ED Custody
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging the custody by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case. The Court allowed the Directorate of Enforcement to have Balaji's custody till August 12 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam.
Case: Pranesh Rajamanickam vs Union of India and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 687/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking judicial probe into the alleged voice clips of Tamil Nadu Minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan in which he had allegedly made remarks about the amassing of wealth by the family of TN Chief Minister MK Stalin.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud termed the petition as "bogus" and said that the Court cannot be made into a "political platform".
The Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a notification restoring the membership of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in view of the Supreme Court's August 4 order suspending his conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark. The Top Court's order had paved the way for his reinstatement as a Lok Sabha MP.
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 30965 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday adjourned the hearing of a petition filed by non-governmental organisation 'Ek Soch Ek Prayas' against the decision of the Patna High Court to uphold the Bihar government's caste-based survey. This verdict was delivered by a division bench of the high court, which rejected the contention that an attempt to collect data on the basis of caste amounted to a census and held the exercise to be "perfectly valid initiated with due competence". Other petitions have also been filed challenging the high court's decision.
Case Title: GO AIRLINES INDIA LIMITED v. SMBC AVIATION CAPITAL LIMITED
Citation: SLP(C) No. 16762-16769/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the appeal filed by the Resolution Professional of Go Airlines India Ltd against the Delhi High Court order which had permitted various lessors to carry out inspection and interim maintenance tasks of their aircrafts, which are currently on lease with crisis-hit Go First airline
Do the men convicted for brutally gang-raping Bilkis Bano and killing her entire family in front of her eyes deserve the leniency they have been accorded, Advocate Shobha Gupta asked the Supreme Court of India on Monday, while arguing that the punishment befalling the convicts ought to be proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime committed by them
Case title: Tragedy Victim Association Morbi v. State of Gujarat
Citation: SLP Criminal Diary No. 27055/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed challenging the bail granted by the Gujarat High Court to Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Topia, who was the ticket issuing person at the Morbi bridge on the day it collapsed on October 30 last year resulting in the death of around 135 persons.
Case Details: Common Cause v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 291 of 2021
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 7) disposed of as infructuous a plea by the non-governmental organisation ‘Common Cause’ against the appointment of Praveen Sinha as an interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2021 after the expiry of the previous incumbent, Rishi Kumar Shukla.
Case Title: Sathyan Naravoor v Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 1353/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the 2021 Kerala High Court Judgment that had quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against Dr. Jacob Thomas, Former Director General of Police of Kerala in the dredger scam case in which he has been accused of engaging in tender rigging.
The CJI said– "In a constitutional democracy, seeking the opinion of people has to be through established institutions. So long as democracy exists, any recourse of will of people has to be expressed by established constitution. So you cannot envisage a Brexit type referendum. That's a political decision that was taken by the then government. But within a constitution like ours, there is no question of a referendum.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
While hearing the Bilkis Bano case on Tuesday, the Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by one of the convicts in 2022, in which the Court had passed an order allowing the State of Gujarat to decide on the premature release of the life-convicts.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for the petitioners, contended that the manner in which the Centre abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be justified "unless a new jurisprudence comes to light that they can do whatever they like as long as they have majority".
In this context, Sibal further said, "now one of your esteemed colleagues has said that in fact basic structure theory is also doubtful".
Responding to Sibal, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, after taking a moment's pause, said, "Mr Sibal, when you refer to a colleague, you have to refer to a sitting colleague. Once we cease to be judges, whatever we say, they're opinions, they are not binding".
Case Title: Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court on Monday closed the plea regarding the deaths of Cheetahs translocated to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park from the African continent, taking on record the submission of the Centre that all the members on the Consulting Panel of Cheetah Project Steering Committee are being consulted to carry on the project in a proper manner and to ensure further deaths are prevented. However, the Apex Court orally stated that the number of deaths recorded so far is not low.
Case title: M/s Bhaskar Raju v. M/s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur
Citation: Curative Petition (Civil) No 44 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently listed a curative petition against its 2020 ruling that had held that an arbitration clause in an insufficiently stamped agreement cannot be acted upon by the court, for open court hearing on 24th August 2023.
Supreme Court Bar Association Raises Concerns Over New Mentioning Procedure In Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has penned a letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India, outlining significant concerns regarding the process of mentioning, filing, and listing of matters before the country's apex court.
The SCBA states that earlier miscellaneous fresh matters for hearing were mentioned before CJI immediately after receiving the diary number of the case. But as per the new circular dated 28th June, 2023, the mentioning is only permitted once verification is done.
Case Title: M. G. Devasahayam v. Union of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1253/2021
After the Election Commission of India affirmed that the names of voters will not be deleted from the electoral rolls without giving them prior notice, the Supreme Court recently disposed of a PIL which challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Allowing third parties to challenge remission orders in a public interest litigation would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ by opening a ‘floodgate of litigation’, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, raising a preliminary objection over the maintainability of the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed against the premature release of Bilkis Bano’s rapists.
On the fourth day of the Indian Supreme Court's hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that asymmetric federalism, autonomy, and consent were the three pillars of Article 370. He also stated that the exercise of power under Article 356 could not clothe the Government with legal authority under Article 370
70% of Government Litigation Frivolous’: Supreme Court Judge BR Gavai
70 percent of government litigation is frivolous and can be curtailed to lessen the court’s workload, Supreme Court judge BR Gavai remarked on Friday, while rejecting a plea filed by the Union of India.
Case Details: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the bail application of Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally who is facing charges of money laundering in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. This 2021-22 liquor policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party-led government in the national capital, was scrapped following allegations of irregularities in the framing and implementation. Boinpally has been in custody since October last year.
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah v. State of Bihar And Ors.
Citation: WP(Crl) No. 204/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(Aug 11) allowed the Bihar Government to file a further affidavit with regard to the remission granted to former MP who was serving a life term in the 1994 murder case of then Gopalganj District Magistrate G. Krishnaiah.
Our Colleges and Universities Are Indispensable to Our Liberal Democracy:Justice BV Nagarathna
Supreme Court Judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the presidential address at the 12th Convocation and Founder’s Day of O.P. Jindal Global University. It was titled: ‘Nurturing our constitutional culture, a high-calling for universities.’
She commenced her address by stating: “Our core democratic institutions are vital intermediaries between citizens and governments; we have the political institutions in the legislatures, we have the apolitical institutions in the form of courts, we have the independent media, voluntary organizations, and community organizations but the past several years have occasioned introspection or soul-searching within many of these institutions. One critical institution that has been absent from these conversations are namely our college and universities which are indispensable to our liberal democracy guided by the rule of law.
No More Queues For Supreme Court Entry Passes; Online Portal For E-Passes Launched
The Supreme Court has launched an online portal named "SuSwagatam" through which advocates, litigants and visitors can apply for passes to enter the Court. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud announced the launch of the portal today morning, before the commencement of the Constitution Bench hearing in the Article 370 case
The Apex Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur.
The Court observed: "Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group"
The streamlining of the process of oral mentioning of urgent matters, however, has left the SCAORA unhappy. Expressing its dissatisfaction, the lawyers’ body said that this new mechanism has proven to be a ‘great impediment’ in listing of urgent matters, and is neither transparent, nor efficient leading to a spate of complaints from its members.
During the fifth day of the ongoing hearing in the Article 370 case, the Supreme Court Constitution bench orally observed that the surrender of Jammu and Kashmir's sovereignty to India had been unconditional and absolute. It was further underlined by the bench that fetters placed on the Indian Parliament in terms of its law making powers in relation to Jammu and Kashmir does not mean any dilution of the sovereignty vested in India.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Detention Of Rohingya Refugee
Case title: Sabera Khatoon v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Criminal No. 318/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice in a writ petition filed for releasing a Rohingya refugee from indefinite detention in a detention center in Delhi.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra while issuing notice, also granted the liberty to serve the copy of the petition on the Central Government. The petitioner's lawyer submitted that the both the petitioner and the detenu have refugee cards issued by the UNHCR.
Case Title: Yash Tuteja And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to not take any coercive action in the FIR registered against Chhattisgarh government officials, including Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Anil Tuteja, over alleged making of duplicate holograms in connection with the liquor scam case. The Court has however not restrained the UP Police from investigating the matte
The brutal gang-rape of five-months-pregnant Bilkis Bano and the murders of her family members including kids amidst the 2002 Gujarat riots was a ‘crime against humanity’, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
During the constitutional hearings concerning the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370, Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud announced that a new building facility for the Supreme Court was presently under construction. He stated that the building will be positioned behind the existing building and will house various essential components.
The ground floor of the upcoming building will be designated for entities such as the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), and a dedicated area for women lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court, CJI Chandrachud stated.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of four judges of the Gujarat High Court to other High Courts.
Among the judges proposed to be transferred is Justice Hemant M Prachchhak who had refused to stay the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case over his 'Modi Thieves' remark.
The list also includes Justice Samir Dave who had recently recused from hearing Teesta Setalvad's plea to quash FIR over alleged riots case evidence fabrication and Justice Gita Gopi who had recused from hearing Rahul Gandhi's plea to suspend his conviction.
In Major Overhaul, Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer Of 23 High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium consisting of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant in its meeting held on 3 August 2023 has recommended transfer of 23 High Court judges.
On the fifth day of the Indian Supreme Court's hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Senior Advocate Zaffar Shah, appearing for the J&K High Court Bar Association argued that the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had retained some constitutional autonomy as it had signed an Instrument of Accession (IoA) and not a merger agreement.
The Union Government today introduced three bills in the Lok Sabha aimed at replacing the core legal framework governing India's criminal justice system. The bills, introduced for consideration, seek to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).
Notably, the Home Minister Amit Shah indicated a major shift in the government's stance on the contentious issue of Sedition Law and stated that the proposed IPC replacement bill, known as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the Bill), would completely repeal the offence of sedition(Section 124A IPC).
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday permitted petitioners, who are seeking action against certain calls made for the social and economic boycott of Muslims, to approach the nodal police officers appointed in terms of the 2018 judgment dealing with mob violence crimes.
The Court also mulled over the idea of directing the Director General of Police of the States to form a committee to assess the content and veracity of hate speech complaints and issue appropriate directions to station house officers (SHO).
The Supreme Court Collegium today reiterated its recommendation dated 3.08.2023 to transfer Justice Sudhir Singh from Patna High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Collegium consisted of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant.
On 3 August 2023, the Collegium had proposed the transfer of Justice Singh to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for better administration of justice.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking to stop 26 opposition political parties from using 'the acronym “I.N.D.I.A" (Indian National Democratic Inclusive Alliance) as name of their alliance for the campaigning and advertisements, in the upcoming 2024 general Lok Sabha elections.
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1158 of 2021
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned why the Centre had not filed a response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) seeking a reintroduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha. More formally known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008, this proposed amendment seeks to introduce 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Despite this bill being passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2010, it has not yet been tabled before the Lok Sabha yet.
Case Title: Debabrata Saikia v. The State of Assam & Ors
Citation: Diary No. 17161-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by the leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia, against the Assam Government's "forced eviction drive" which took place in the Darrang District of the State of Assam from September 21-23, 2021.
However, it stated that the question of rehabilitation was still a surviving issue. In this context, the families (around 100) who had not yet been rehabilitated were directed to be heard by the deputy commissioner and reasoned orders were directed to be passed in 6 months.
Case title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India| Aisha Noori v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Crl. 177/2023| W.P. Crl. 280/2023
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday sought a "comprehensive affidavit" from the State of Uttar Pradesh on the progress of investigation/prosecution into 183 police encounter killings that have allegedly taken place in the State since 2017.
The Court sought the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the extent of compliance with the past guidelines issued in relation to police encounters. The Bench said that it needed an affidavit from a senior DGP level rank officer. It also mulled framing further guidelines to deal with the issue of custodial killings.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case after Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused.
The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra. As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Bopanna said, "This will come before some other bench. There is some difficulty on part of my brother".
