Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 11 To September 17, 2023

Judgments/OrdersIt Is Duty Of Police To Produce Imprisoned Accused Before Court, Accused Can't Be Blamed For Police's Negligence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Satendra Babu vs. State of Uttar PradeshCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766The Supreme Court recently stated that when accused persons are in prison, it is the duty of the police to produce them before the trial court. If the police fail to produce them before the court, then the accused cannot be made to suffer due to such negligence of the police.Public Servants Lose Immunity In Pre-2014 Corruption Cases; Supreme Court Clarifies That Striking Down Of Sec 6A DSPE Act Has Retrospective EffectCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore | Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007 and other connected mattersCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770In a significant development, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Monday declared that its 2014 judgment, which declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 as unconstitutional, will have retrospective effect. This means that Section 6A is held to not be in force right from the date of its insertion.Section 6A of the DSPE Act required the Central Bureau of Investigation to obtain prior sanction from the central government to investigate corruption cases against an officer of the rank of joint secretary and above. This provision was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of IndiaOnce A Law Is Declared Unconstitutional, It Becomes Inoperative From Its Inception; Void Ab Initio: Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore | Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007 and other connected mattersCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770Once a law is declared unconstitutional on grounds of it infringing any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, it would be held to be unenforceable right from the date of enactment, a Supreme Court constitution bench has observed. While holding that its 2014 judgment declaring Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 unconstitutional, will have a retrospective effect, the court said –“It is crystal clear that once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, stillborn, unenforceable and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements. Thus, the declaration made by the constitution bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. September 11, 2003.”Article 20(1) Of the Constitution Doesn't Bar Retrospective Application Of Procedural Changes In Criminal Trial : Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore | Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007 and other connected mattersCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770A Supreme Court constitution bench on Monday(September 11) reiterated that any change in procedure after an offence is committed would not be unconstitutional on grounds of the bar on the retrospective application of ex post facto laws contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution, since procedural matters were not covered by the said clause.Promotion Given To Employee Continuing In Service On Strength Of Interim Order Will Lose Effect Once Petition Is Dismissed: Supreme CourtCase Title: JAGPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31526 OF 2017Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771If an employee who is continuing in service on the strength of an interim order gets a promotion, such promotion will get nullified once the interim order is dismissed, held the Supreme Court recently.The Court was considering a challenge to a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, as a result of which the services of the petitioner, a temporary Collection Peon, stood terminated, notwithstanding the subsequent promotion earned by him on the post of Collection Amin on the strength of his continued working under the interim order passed by the High Court.Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Order Limiting Bail To Three MonthsCase: Ranjit Digal v. State of OdishaCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 772The Supreme Court recently disapproved of an order passed by a High Court which restricted the bail to a particular period."Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months", the Court observed in the case Ranjit Digal vs State of OdishaIBC- Admitting Claims After Resolution Plan Has Been Accepted By COC Would Make CIRP An Endless Process: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S. RPS Infrastructure Ltd V. Mukul Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773The Supreme Court on Monday said that admitting claims after the Resolution Plan has been...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: September 11 To September 17, 2023

Suraj Parmar

Tags