Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To 16 July 2023

Gurugram Prime Plot 'Sold' Through Fake GPA: Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Land Scam; Questions Role Of Sub-Registrar's OfficeCase title: Pratibha Manchanda And Anr. v. State of Haryana And Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 514The Supreme Court, recently, directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate a land scam that involves officials at the office of land Registering Authorities and other accused persons allegedly duping an elderly NRI couple. The Apex Court categorically stated that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram is personally responsible for monitoring the day-to-day investigation. The SIT will be headed by an officer, not below the rank of DySP and will have two inspectors as its members.Ballistic Expert's Evidence Important In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms: Supreme CourtCase title: Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs State of PunjabCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516The Supreme Court observed that, in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.Reappreciating the evidence on record, the court noted that evidence as to whether the gun belonged to the accused was not available and even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges.Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Appropriateness Of Prayer Sought Is Not An Issue To Be Considered While Deciding Application Seeking Rejection Of Plaint: Supreme CourtCase title: Sajjan Singh vs Jasvir KaurCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517The Supreme Court observed that the appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue that should be considered while deciding an application seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure."Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in the manner in which it had been done in the facts and circumstances arising in the instant case. Therefore, to that extent, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified.", the bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh observed.Supreme Court Rejects Argument That 'Piecemeal’ Extensions Will Affect Independence Of Directors Of CBI & ED; Upholds Amendments To CVC Act & DSPE ActCase title: Dr.Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, while upholding the validity of the 2021 amendments to the Central Vigilance Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, rejected the argument that granting extensions of only one year at a time to the terms of the heads of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation would threaten the independence of the agencies. The bench held:“It is not at the sweet will of the government that the extensions can be granted to the incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI or the Director of Enforcement. It is only on the basis of the recommendations of the committees which are constituted to recommend their appointment and that too when it is found in the public interest and when the reasons are recorded in writing, such an extension can be granted by the Government.”Nullification Of Court Direction By Legislation Impermissible Without Altering Basis Of Judgment: Supreme Court In ED Director's CaseCase title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol noted that ignoring the direction given by the Supreme Court in the 2021 judgment in the case Common Cause vs Union of India that SK Mishra should not be given further extensions, the Union Government extended his tenure two times after that, in November 2021 and November 2022.Referring to various precedents such as Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2021), Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala and others,Madan Mohan Pathak and another v. Union of India and others, the bench observed that the legislature can nullify the effect of a judgment by taking away its base or curing the defects in the law. This can be done retrospectively also. However, an enactment which merely nullifies a judgment is unconstitutional.Supreme Court Invalidates Extensions Of ED Director SK Mishra's Term; Permits Him To Continue Till July 31Case title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as illegal the extension given to the term of Enforcement Directorate chief SK Mishra for violating the mandate of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case that he should not be given further extension. However, the Court allowed him to continue in his post till July 31, 2023, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Union Government...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To 16 July 2023

Suraj Kumar

Tags