- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up : ...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up : July 17-23, 2023
Suraj Kumar
24 July 2023 9:03 AM GMT
IBC Overrides Electricity Act; Dues To Secured Creditors At Higher Footing Than Electricity Dues: Supreme CourtCase details: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Raman Ispat Private LimitedCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534The Supreme Court observed that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.The provisions of the IBC treat...
Case details: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Raman Ispat Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534
The Supreme Court observed that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The provisions of the IBC treat the dues payable to secured creditors are at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said
The judgment analyzes the scheme of IBC, especially the 'waterfall mechanism' under the Section 53 IBC and noted that the government debts have lower priority that the debts owed to unsecured financial creditors.
"The priority of claims, indicated in the hierarchy of preferences, under the waterfall mechanism is therefore:
Firstly, insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs;Secondly, workmen’s dues for the period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security;
Thirdly, wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of 12 months preceding the liquidation commencement date; Fourthly, financial debts owed to unsecured creditors; Fifthly, any amount due to the central government and the state government and debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest; Sixthly, any remaining debts and dues; Seventhly, preference shareholders; and Eighthly equity shareholders or partners.
This hierarchy or order of priority thus accords government debts [clause (e)] and operational debts [clause (f)] lower priority than dues owed to unsecured financial creditors"
Case title: Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535
The Supreme Court held that the decision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter is for the legislature to take. The court cannot force the legislature to come out with a specific law even in its writ jurisdiction. The court also took note of the steps taken by the state governments for the protection of cows.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal against NGT’s decision which declined a plea seeking a specific direction for the prohibition of cow slaughter. Agreeing with the NGT's view, the Court observed, “We may observe that this is something which is for the competent legislature to decide. Even in writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot compel the legislature to come out with particular legislation. Ultimately, it is for the appellant to persuade the legislature. “
Fill Vacancies In Central Govt Industrial Tribunals By August 31 : Supreme Court To Union
Case Title: Labour Law Association v. Union Of India | W.P.(C) No. 562/2023 PIL-W
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to complete the process of appointing judicial officers to the vacant seats of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals before August 31, 2023. The direction was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra.
The petitioner in the matter, Labour Law Association had submitted that as many as nine out of twenty-two benches of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals were vacant and three more were to soon fall vacant in 2023. Upon this submission, the Apex Court had earlier directed for a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) to be formed. Accordingly, an SCSC, chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India was constituted by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on March 6, 2023.
Case title: Pawan Bhasin v State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537
The Supreme Court held that where a cheque is dishonoured, the interim compensation can be directed to be paid only after the accused has pleaded not guilty as per section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the present case, the court noted that the magistrate had directed to pay 10% of the cheque amount before the plea of accused was entered. The court held that such orders being passed before the plea was taken into account is unsustainable in law.
Therefore the court observed that “ In the present case, the Magistrate did not issue the order after the plea of the accused was entered, but before that i.e. after he answered the summons. The party's counsels were present at an intermediate stage of proceedings, but before the plea of “not guilty” was entered. In these circumstances, clearly, there is an infraction of Section 143A (1).”
Case details: P Yuvaprakash v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538
The Supreme Court observed that school transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register cannot be relied on to determine age of the victim in POCSO cases.
While acquitting an accused, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar noted that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
"Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court", the bench noted.
Case Title: Lokendra Gurjar V State Of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9682/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540
The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant who sought the constitution of a ‘special neutral bench’ with judges who neither belong to OBC nor to unreserved category, to hear a matter pertaining to enhancement in reservation in public service filed by candidates in OBC and unreserved category candidates.
The plea was filed before the Apex Court challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had refused to allow the application filed for constitution of a special bench.
A Division Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal while imposing costs observed: “The only infirmity that we find with the impugned order of the High Court is that heavy cost was not imposed on the litigant who filed a mischievous I.A. No.1873/2023 seeking constitution of a bench as he wanted, to the writ petition. this mis-conceived Special Leave Petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner.” The Court went on to state in its order
Case Title: Girisha Chandra Mishra and Others V Union of India, WPC (C) No.908/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541
The Supreme Court recently allowed teachers from 10 different states who had jointly filed a plea challenging the revised selection process for National Award to Teachers issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry in 2018 as "opaque and discriminatory", to approach the Centre with their representation.
The Court took note of the submission of the Union that the criterion for the award was a matter of policy.
The Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the Petitioners to approach the Centre with their grievance by submitting a representation: the only relief that we can grant to the petitioners herein is to grant liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent so that the same could be taken into consideration, in the event, the respondent intends to revise the selection procedure in future.
It is needless to observe that if the respondent finds that the representation has certain aspects which could be considered for revision of the selection procedure and implemented, the same may be accordingly considered.”
Case Title: Seema Girija And Anr. v. UoI And Ors. Diary No. 29329/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all State Governments to comply with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 [“RPwD Act”] expeditiously before September 30, 2023. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the States to appoint Chief Commissioners for persons with disabilities by August 31, 2023.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551
While referring the Delhi Government's challenge against the Centre's Ordinance on services to a Constitution Bench, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that contours of the powers of the Parliament under Article 239AA(7) of the Constitution were not considered in either of the earlier Constitution Bench judgments of 2018 and 2023 in the GNCTD vs Union of India cases.
The 3-judge bench noted that the power of Parliament over "services" is not in dispute. The issue is whether such an exercise of power is valid.
"The power of Parliament to enact a law granting the Union of India executive power over services is not in contention. It is now a settled position of law. However, this Court while deciding the constitutional validity of the 2023 Ordinance must decide if the exercise of such a power is valid".
In this regard, the bench noted that there isn apparent conflict between Article 239AA(7)(a) and Article 239AA(7)(b), which has not been considered in earlier Constitution Bench judgments.
"While Article 239-AA(7)(a) states that the law must only give effect to or supplement the provisions of Article 239-AA, Article 239-AA(7)(b) states that the law shall not be deemed an amendment to the Constitution even if it has the effect of amendingArticle 239-AA.A primary reading of Article 239-AA(7)(a) indicates that the law shall not alter the existing constitutional structure envisaged for NCTD in Article 239-AA. However, a prima facie reading of Article 239-AA(7)(b) denotes that the law enacted under Article 239-AA(7)(a) could alter the existing constitutional structure of governance of NCTD. This apparent conflict between the two clauses on the nature of law making power vis-à-vis NCTD’s constitutional structure of governance needs to be resolved by this Court".
Case Title: State of Gujarat V. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
The Supreme Court on Monday held that if a person is summoned under Section 69 (Power to arrest) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording of his/her statement, the provision of Section 438 (Anticipatory Bail) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 cannot be invoked.
A division bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed:
“Thus, the position of law is that if any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording his statement, the provisions of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 cannot be invoked. We say so as no First Information Report gets registered before the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is invoked and in such circumstances, the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.“
The Court also observed that in such a circumstance, the only way to seek protection against arrest would be to approach the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
DHJS Exam 2022: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order Allowing Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheet
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that permitted re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination 2022 on the ground that there was no ‘material error’ warranting interference.
Agreeing with the Appellant that in light of Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the answer to question No.9 of Law Paper-I of the respondent was wrong and the examiner was right in giving him ‘zero marks’ for it, the division bench of Justice C T Ravikumar and Justice Manoj Misra observed:
“the respondent got no case that Section 134 (2) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 is not the specific provision applicable as relates question No.9 of Law Paper-I and therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to how he could attribute ‘material error’ warranting interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court, while granting bail to human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, observed that the accused not filing an application for quashing the FRI/Chargesheet is not a relevant consideration for deciding bail application.
If such a position was to be accepted, then no bail application be can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings, the Apex Court had observed.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Inclusion Of Rajasthani Language In Eighth Schedule
Case Title: Ripudaman Singh v. Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 387/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the inclusion of "Rajasthani" language in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The petition was filed by Advocate Ripudaman Singh who argued before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra.
At the very outset, the bench expressed its disinclination towards entertaining the petition. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that it was not within the court's authority to mandate the inclusion of any language in the Eighth Schedule. The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is a list of officially recognized languages. At present, the Eighth Schedule includes 22 languages
Case Title: State of Tripura V. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 34826/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the order of the Tripura High Court that directed the State Government to pay former judge of the Gauhati High Court, Justice Alok Baran Pal who retired as the Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board to be paid remuneration at the rate of the salary of a High Court judge minus the pension during the period he held the sole post as Chairman of the Board
Case Details: Mohd Azharuddin v. Nalgonda Cricket Association & Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 26604 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain former Indian Test Cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin’s plea against a contempt notice issued by the Telangana High Court in a dispute between the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and the Nalgonda District Cricket Association (NDCA). Azharuddin, who was the president of the former, is facing contempt proceedings for ‘willful disobedience’ in complying with certain orders of the high court allowing the Nalgonda district association to participate in the HCA league matches.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra was reluctant to admit Azharuddin’s petition at this stage since the high court had only issued a contempt notice, despite his counsel vehemently urging the court to take the matter on board.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Akhil Gogoi's Plea Challenging Sedition Law And Similar Offences
Case Title: Akhil Gogoi v. Union Of India |
W.P.(C) No. 672/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in the writ petition filed by the Assamese activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition contained in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences “which employ similar logic of sedition inasmuch as they entail the same ingredients”.
Case Details: The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Youth for Equality & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10404 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of as infructuous a plea against a May 4 order of the Patna High Court issuing an interim stay on the ongoing caste-based survey in Bihar, in view of a division bench of the high court finally hearing the matter and reserving its verdict earlier this month.
Case title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Crl. 177/2023
The Uttar Pradesh Police failed to act as per the Allahabad High Court's order to ensure the safety of gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed's brother Ashraf Ahmed, said Advocate Vishal Tiwari who has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking independent investigation into the killings of Ahmed brothers in police custody.
In a rejoinder filed to the UP government's affidavit, Tiwari alleged that the state government has suppressed material facts. Tiwari referred to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court on March 21, 2023, in a petition filed by Ashraf praying for his safety and protection during transit in police custody. In its order, the High Court noted that Ashraf had serious apprehension about his life. The High Court directed that the state shall ensure the safety of Ashraf during jail transit from Bareilly to Prayagraj.
The Supreme Court has further modified the criteria to designate senior advocates by removing the 5-year limit for considering reported and un-reported judgments in which the applicant has appeared and also pro bono/amicus curiae work
In a fresh notice issued on Friday, the Supreme Court Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates informed that the 5 year limit has been removed. On July 17, the Supreme Court had published the revised guidelines for senior designation pursuant to the judgment in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India which modified the criteria.
As per the new guidelines, in the application form, the candidate has to specify the number of reported and unreported judgments (excluding orders that do not lay down any principle of law) in the last five years in cases in which the candidate has appeared as a lead arguing counsel or an assisting counsel. For pro-bono/amicus curiae work also, 5 year limit was there.
Case title: Saranya Mandal v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 710/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that the National Testing Agency should consider accommodating students from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes(ST) categories who are not in possession of SC/ST certificates as on the last date of applying for NEET exams.
“You have to see from their perspective. The certificate is only evidence of the status. You've to implement it in a proper spirit. You can add columns- when the certificate was availed and so forth. So they can avail benefit at the time of filling the form", Justice Bhat said..
Case Title: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5526-5527/2023]
On Friday, Supreme Court Judges were taken aback that Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, who is undergoing life sentence in Tihar jail after being convicted in a terror funding case, was present in the Apex Court to appear before it in person.
The matter in which Malik was appearing is an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation assailing orders of Special Court in Jammu whereby fresh production warrant was issued for Malik's physical appearance. His physical appearance was sought for cross-examination of witnesses in relation to the killing of four IAF personnel; abduction of Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of Mufti Muhammad Sayeed in 1989.
Case Title: Mamta Rani vs Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 713/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking the revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certificate (CBFC) for the movie "Adipurush". The bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with film certifications based on the "sensitivities of each individual"
Justice Kaul orally said– "Why should we entertain this under 32? The cinematography act provides for the method to get certificate. Everybody now is touchy about every thing. Every time they will come before the Supreme Court for it. Is every thing to be scrutinised by us? The level of tolerance for films, books, paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt maybe sometimes genuinely, maybe sometimes not. But we will not under Article 32 start entertaining them."
Case Title: Committee Of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14275/2023
The Supreme Court, on Friday, sought details from the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court the civil suits filed in respect of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura, which were sought to be consolidated and transferred to the High Court from the trial court.
"Looking to the nature of the matter, is it not better that the High Court tries the matter?. Thinking aloud, if it is tried at a higher level...pendency of matter causes its own disquiet, one side or the other", Justice Kaul observed. Noting that multiple suits have been filed on the issue, Justice Kaul said :
"Multiplicity of proceedings and prolongation are not in the interest of anybody. The objective as we see it is to ensure that further proceedings are not filed in the present matter. It is in the larger interest of everybody that the matter is decided at a higher level".
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by Congress leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Gandhi seeking suspension of his conviction in a criminal defamation case over 'Modi thieves' remark, which resulted in his disqualification from the Lok Sabha.
As soon as the matter started, Justice Gavai said that his father was associated with Congress and his brother is still associated with the party and asked if there was any objection to him hearing the matter:
"Before we start with the matter, I must express some difficulties on my part to both sides. My father was associated with the Indian National Congress, though he was not a Congress member. He was associated with Congress for more than 40 years. He was a member of both the Parliament and the state legislature with Congress' support. My brother is still in politics and associated with Congress. In this background, you have to take a call on whether I should take up this matter. In that Victoria Gowri matter also, I said I had a political background and been a judge for more than 20 years, but it has never affected my [judgment]. Please take a call."
Taking exception to the explanation called from Railway Officials at the instance of one of the judges of the Allahabad High Court over the 'inconvenience' caused to him during a train journey, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has written a letter to all Chief Justices of the High Court sharing his displeasure and concerns regarding the entire issue.
In his letter, CJI Chandrachud has stressed that protocol facilities available for the judges should not be used in a manner that is "liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary."
"Protocol 'facilities' which are made available to Judges should not be utilised to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authority. A wise exercise of judicial authority, both on and off the Bench, is what sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence which society has in its Judges," the letter states.
Case Title: M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Limited. v. Rambha Devi
Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Constitution on Thursday issued notice to the Union Government to seek its view on the issue whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra opined that the the position of the Union Government and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways was necessary to decide the reference. The Court has sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani.
On Thursday, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed displeasure as one of the Counsels had failed to file a written synopsis in a final hearing matter, despite the same being stipulated in the cause list.
The Bench comprising Justice Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a plea challenging an order of the NCLAT. During the course of the hearing, Justice Kaul asked the Counsel, “Where is the note/synopsis?”. The Counsel apprised the Judge that he is yet to file the same.
Justice Kaul, irked by the non-filing of synopsis, told the Counsel, “Sorry, I will assume that you do not want to assist the Court…You should lose the matter only on the level of assistance.”
He added, “It is time that the legal fraternity decides that they must properly assist the court. In a final court if you walk in like this, I don’t know what would be happening in other Tribunals and courts.”
Supreme Court Decides To Appoint DERC Chairperson Ad-hoc Due To Deadlock Between Delhi Govt & LG
The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor could not agree on a name for the appointment of Chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). In view of this deadlock, the Supreme Court said that it will appoint a person for the post as an ad-hoc measure till the issue is finally decided. The Court made it clear that the appointment will be on a pro-term basis as in interim arrangement.
On July 17, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had urged the Delhi Government and the LG to "sit together" and decide a name. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by the Delhi Government challenging the appointment of former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Umesh Kumar as the DERC Chairman on the ground that the name was unilaterally proposed by the LG without the Government's concurrence. Earlier, the Supreme Court had allowed the oath-taking ceremony of Justice Kumar to be deferred during the pendency of the matter.
The bench said that it cannot allow the DERC to remain "headless" as it will affect public interest. Ultimately, the bench decided to pick a name and posted the matter to next Friday.
Case Title: Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995
Less than a week after the death of the eight cheetah translocated to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park from the African continent, the Centre told the Supreme Court of India on Thursday that the death of fifty percent of the cheetahs was not ‘alarming’ and actually anticipated.
Responding to a query by the bench regarding the death of almost forty percent of the cheetahs, Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati said: “The highest authorities have taken cognisance. This is a prestigious project for our country. We are making our best efforts. In terms of my instructions, [the deaths] were anticipated. Up to fifty per cent deaths in first year on translocation is not a very alarming figure. Our status report contains all details. There are several considerations.”
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an application moved by an expert committee constituted to ‘guide and direct’ the National Tiger Conservation Authority with respect to India’s ambitious cheetah reintroduction programme. The expert committee has urged the top court to direct the NTCA to keep it apprised of latest developments and accept their advice and submissions.
Case title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kirpal Singh
Citation: C.A. No. 4478/2013
The Supreme Court recently dealt with a peculiar case in which the persons who were allotted land by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were entangled in an impasse in view of a web of litigations pending over thirty years.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta took note of the peculiar circumstances and held that a holistic view has to be taken in the wake of 3 issues of validity of acquisition, regularisation, and the fate of allottees . It requested the Chief Justice of Delhi HC to post matters for hearing immediately and finish it expeditiously within 6 months.
The Supreme Court observed that different sets of writ petitions seeking quash of acquisition/ regularisation and direction to hand over possession to allotted have been listed before different benches at different points of time which has resulted in the issuance of directions that authorities may find difficult to give effect to.
The court noted that the allottees cannot be handed over possession under the new scheme unless physical possession of the property is allowed to be taken over by appellants free from all encumbrances. Similarly, if the competent authority decides to regularise, the allottees cannot be handed over plots though they may be entitled to some other relief.
The Supreme Court on Thursday took suo motu cognizance of the horrific video showing two women in Manipur being paraded naked and subjected to sexual violence amidst the ethnic conflict in the State. The Court asked the Centre and the State Government to inform it of the steps taken to bring the perpetrators into law.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had sought for the presence of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta today morning. When the Court assembled, addressing the AG and the SG, CJI said : "We are very deeply disturbed by the videos which have emerged yesterday about the two women who were paraded in Manipur. We are expressing our deep concern. It is time that the government really steps in and takes action. This is simply unacceptable".
"Using women as instrument in an area of communal strife to inflict gender violence is deeply deeply disturbing. This is the grossest of human rights violations", CJI said. Though the video was of May 4, it does not make a difference, CJI said.
"We will give a little time for the government to take action otherwise we will step in", CJI warned.
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8503 of 2023
In a significant development, not only was social activist Teesta Setalvad’s bail application allowed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, but a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta also asked a number of incisive and critical questions during the hearing.
In its order, the bench noted that the considerations that weighed with the Supreme Court when it granted Setalvad interim bail, were “still available at this stage”.
“The consideration that the appellant is a lady does not change. The fact that the offence related to 2002 and that the FIR pertained to documents which were sought to be presented or relied upon in 2022 also does not change. The fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was available for seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody also does not change. Another factor that deserves to be taken into consideration is that even after being released on interim bail, she has admittedly not been called for investigation even on a single occasion. Taking into consideration that most of the evidence in the present case is documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency and further, the charge sheet has been filed, we do not find custodial interrogation would be necessary.”
Case Title: National Council of Educational Research and Training V. Parth Trivedi
Citation: Civil Appeal No 4403 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court that directed the NCERT to determine the merit of students afresh in the National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) of 2013 after considering their marks scored in the language test
The Court observed that 8 years had passed since the examination was conducted and that scholarships had already been awarded to students all over the country based on the result. The Court accordingly set aside the order without touching upon the issue in reference.
“If the judgment of the Single Judge were to be upheld, as has been done by the Division Bench, the result would have to be recast at this point of time, nearly eight years after the examination has been concluded. In the meantime, following the declaration of the results the award of scholarships following the NTSE has already taken place to a large number of students situated all over the country. In this backdrop and without this Court expressing any opinion on the broader question of law which was sought to be raised, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court which we accordingly do” the Court said in its order.
Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors.
Citation: C.A. No. 2634/2013
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Tuesday(July 18) reserved its judgement in the batch of petitions raising the issue of whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process for posts has begun. The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Title: Sadaqat Pathan V. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8885/2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that a journalist or a reporter doesn’t have the license to take the law into their own hands. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea by a journalist who was denied anticipatory bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The case of the journalist was that he was trying to expose a racket involving the illegal sale and purchase of a newborn child. However, an FIR was registered against him alleging that he sought illegal gratification to suppress the news
“At the outset, we note, this Court while directing notice to the respondents on 28.11.2022 had granted interim protection against the arrest of the petitioners herein. At this stage, we have the benefit of the counter statement filed on behalf of the state. Though at this stage we will not go into the nature of allegations, the petitioners are also involved in other cases, we see no reason to continue the interim protection granted by this Court. Further, as per the learned counsel for the State, the investigation against the petitioners has been completed. That being the position, whether there is a need to take the petitioners into custody is a matter to be considered by the investigating officer.” the Court dictated in its order.
Case Details: Suneetha Narreddy v. YS Avinash Reddy & Anr.
Citation: SLP (Crl) No. 7449/2023
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to Suneetha Nareddy’s plea challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Lok Sabha member YS Avinash Reddy by the Telangana High Court. Besides this, the top court also directed the central agency to file, in a sealed cover, a copy of the charge-sheet, as well as that of original case files pertaining to the murder of former Andhra Pradesh minister YS Vivekananda Reddy.
Case Title: M. Sivasankar v. UoI And Anr
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5590/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the Enforcement Directorate two weeks' time to file its response in the plea by M. Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, seeking bail on medical grounds.
Sivasankar had approached the Top Court seeking bail in a money laundering case in connection with the LIFE Mission corruption case on grounds of ill-health. LIFE (Livelihood, Inclusion and Financial Empowerment) Mission project is a housing project initiated by the Kerala Government for the homeless.
Supreme Court Agrees To Consider Early Listing Of Pleas Challenging Marital Rape Exception
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that it would consider listing the pleas concerning the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which provides exception to non-consensual matrimonial sex from the offence of rape. The batch of petitions was to be listed on May 9, 2023 after it could not be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala on March 21, 2023 owing to Justice Pardiwala's absence.
CJI DY Chandrachud responded– "Marital rape we will have to resolve first...We will list it. After the CB hearings are over, maybe after that we'll keep it. I'll talk to the Registrar in the evening."
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Independent Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounters In Assam
Case Title: Arif Md Yasin Jwadder v. State Of Assam & Ors
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed against the Gauhati High Court’s refusal to entertain a PIL filed in 2021 seeking independent investigation of alleged fake encounters in Assam.
The bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Aravind Kumar said, “Issue notice. Let notice be also served through standing counsel for the State.
The petitioner had sought the compliance of the sixteen guidelines for the investigation of illegal encounters issued by the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors before the High Court.
The petitioner had also sought the designation of a Human Rights Court in every district of Assam in conformity with Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Relating To Effects Of Radiation From Mobile Towers On September 5
Case title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Justice I.S. Israni (Retd)
Citation: SLP(C) No. 1349/2013
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted to September 5 a bunch of petitions relating to the effects of electromagnetic radiation generated by mobile phone towers.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was hearing appeals arising out of a Rajasthan High Court judgment which upheld a government notification prescribing a minimum distance of 500 meters for mobile towers from schools, playgrounds, hospitals etc.
While adjourning the matter, Justice Bopanna said in a lighter vein that the lawyers who are opposing mobile towers should deposit their mobiles before arguing.
Case Title: Akhil Gogoi v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 672 of 2023
Assamese activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition contained in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences “which employ similar logic of sedition inasmuch as they entail the same ingredients
The petitioner also claims that he is an object of prejudice because his ‘dissenting speech’ critical of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill or Citizenship (Amendment) Act is “always seen as a symptom of some deep-rooted conspiracy”. “Similarly,” the petition states, “Misdemeanours, or even IPC offences are elevated to the level of ‘terrorist activities’ as defined under the UAPA.
Relying on a 2022 order, by which the Supreme Court directed the 152-year-old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code to be effectively kept in abeyance till the union government reconsidered the provision, the petition argues that not just the offence of sedition, but also the logic – the ingredients that made up the provision – was also vulnerable to judicial review.
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the selection process to judicial services conducted by the Gauhati High Court, Gujarat High Court and Patna High Court in a batch of matters being heard by the Top Court in a reference made to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540.
A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra was hearing a reference on the issue whether appointing authorities can change the norms of selection during the middle of the process. The reference was made in view of conflicting judgments on the point "whether the rules of the game can be changed after the game has begun".
The Supreme Court had noted that the provisions of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 (the 1961 Rules) provided that aggregate of the written test and the viva voce would be taken into consideration for appointment. The exam scheme and the recruitment notification also did not stipulate any cut-off for viva-voce. Hence, the process was held to be "ultra-vires" the rules. However, the Court refrained from invalidating the selection of candidates in view of the fact that six years have elapsed since their appointment, during which the appointed candidates have performed judicial functions. "Unseating them would be harsh and would result in a situation where higher judiciary would lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over the last six years", the Court observed in the order
Plea To Publish Clinical Trials Data Of Rotavac Vaccine : Supreme Court To Hear After 3 Weeks
Case title: S. Srinivasan v. Union Of India And Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Secretary
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 289/2016 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in a PIL seeking publication of the segregated date of the clinical trial (phase III) of the vaccine Rotavac administered to infants to protect against diarrhoea..
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was hearing a petition filed by S Srinavasan in 2016 seeking the publication of the data of the clinical trial of the vaccine against Rotavirus conducted between 2011-2013.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the trial data has to be disclosed to the general public as per Helsinki guidelines, 2015, Bioethics Committee, and ICMR guidelines, 2017.
Supreme Court Stays ED Probe Against Chhattisgarh Government Officers In Alleged Liquor Scam Case
Case Title: Yash Tuteja And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to not proceed with investigation against Yash Tuteja, in relation to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Yash is the son of Anil Tuteja, IAS officer, whom the ED has identified as a kingpin of the syndicate for illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh. The Apex Court had previously directed the agency to refrain from taking any coercive steps against Yash Tuteja.
The Court recorded in the order, “Apart from the order already passed of no coercive action the concerned respondent authorities must hold their hands in all manner.”
On Tuesday, while passing the order staying probe, the Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia indicated that the same order would apply to the 35 Government officers being proceeded against in relation to the same matter.
Case Title: St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7636-7637 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the Delhi High Court would be ‘at liberty’ to hear a writ petition filed by St Stephen’s college against a 2023 notification by the University of Delhi (DU) mandating that all categories of students – including those belonging to minority communities – would be admitted to undergraduate and post-graduate courses only on the basis of the marks obtained in the Common University Entrance Test (CUET).
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala was considering an appeal preferred last year by St Stephen’s college against a Delhi High Court order restraining it from conducting interviews for non-Christian applicants for admission to undergraduate courses, in addition to considering their CUET scores. In the last academic year, pursuant to this order, the college admitted Christian students on the basis of an 85:15 formula, with 85 per cent weightage given to the result of the entrance examination and 15 per cent to its own interview. However, with respect to the current academic year, the University of Delhi has issued a notification insisting on hundred percent weightage on CUET scores for admission to minority quota in minority institutions such as St Stephen’s
Case Title: Dr.Cyriac Abby Philips and Ors v Union of India
Citation: WP(C) 1352/2021
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Ministry of Ayush, Central Council for Research Homoeopathy and the State Of Kerala in a plea seeking to restrain the administration of homeopathic medicine "Arsenic album 30" to children and elderly persons over 65 years of age as a preventive measure of Covid-19 or for boosting immunity.
A division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice SV Bhatti directed all the respondents in the matter to file their affidavits. The writ petition filed by Dr.Cyriac Abby Philips has also challenged the Guidelines, Advisories and Fact Sheets issued by the Ministry of Ayush permitting administration of homeopathic medicine.
Case title: Union Of India v. Rhea Chakraborty
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 2127/2021
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the Rhea Chakraborty case interpreting the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act will not be treated as a precedent in any other cases.
While granting bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty in October 2021, the High Court had interpreted the scope of Section 27A of the NDPS Act to hold that mere giving of money to buy drugs and mere concealment of drug use by a person will not amount to "financing illicit trade" and "harbouring of offender" as per the said section. Challenging the High Court's order, the Narcotics Control Bureau approached the Supreme Court.
“At this stage the challenge to impugned order may not be required. However, the question of law would be kept open. This judgment of HC would not be taken as a precedent for any other case", the bench stated in the order.
Case Details: Andhra Pradesh Amateur Wrestling Association v. Assam Wrestling Association and Ors
Citation: Diary No. 25626-2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted the interim stay imposed on the elections to the executive committee of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the Gauhati High Court.
The division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice SV Bhatti, was hearing a plea by the Andhra Pradesh Amateur Wrestling Association against the interim order of the Gauhati High Court. The bench also issued notice on the plea while staying the interim order of the High Court.
Case title: Mizoram Chakma Students Union v Union of India
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14073/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 17) issued notice on a plea challenging rules for reservation in selection to higher technical courses in Mizoram.
The impugned notification issued by the State in 2021 sub-classified scheduled tribes of Mizoram into the majority Zo(Mizo) tribe for whom 93% of seats were reserved, whereas 1% of seats were for Non-Mizos comprising Chakmas and communities residing permanently in Mizoram. An additional requirement of passing Class XI, XII from Mizoram was imposed on them. The petitioners challenged the notification as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16( 4) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner Mizoram Chakma Students Union submitted that the State's decision will deny all Chakma students and other non-Zo Scheduled Tribes (STs) access to higher & technical education and further increase the educational gap between majority Mizo tribals on one side and the minority non-Mizo tribal people on the other side. After the Gauhati High Court dismissed the PIL filed by the Union, they approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing In SNC Lavalin Case At CBI's Request; Posts To September
Case Title: Kasthuri Ranga v. State Rep. By Addl. Superintendent Of Police CBI And Ors. Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7801/2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other accused in the SNC Lavalin Case to September 12.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta adjourned the hearing following a request made on behalf of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represents the CBI. Though the CBI sought for posting to next week, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Pinarayi Vijayan, said that he has some difficulty next week. The bench then decided to post the matter in September as Justice Surya Kant will be a part of the Constitution Bench hearing in the Article 370 case in August.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Akshai M Sivan
Citation: T.P.(C) No. 1310-1312/2023
The Supreme Court has transferred to itself the petitions pending in the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Bombay challenging the enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order on Monday allowing the transfer plea filed by the Bar Council of India.
The cases transferred consist of separate ongoing petitions concerning the issue of high enrolment fee of State Bar Councils in the Kerala High Court, the Bombay High Court, and the Madras High Court.
Case Title: U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023
Expressing doubts about the reasons for which the Kerala High Court suspended the conviction of MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case, the Supreme Court of India on Monday considered remitting it to the high court to be considered afresh.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a couple of pleas – one by the administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, and another by the complainant who accused the parliamentarian of attempting to murder him – challenging a January 25 order of a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court suspending Faizal’s conviction and sentence.
The expenditure of conducting a by-election was cited as one of the reason to stay the conviction by the high court. However, during the hearing today, the top court raised its concerns about holding a conviction and sentence in abeyance only on the ground of the monetary loss caused to the exchequer in organising this administrative exercise. “Because there is going to be a disqualification, we are going to suspend his conviction...That cannot be the reason,” Justice Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to August 7, the hearing in a clutch of pleas against the premature release of the life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, after recording that the service against all the respondents – both through direct service and paper publication – was complete.
After the retirement of Justice KM Joseph, a bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna will now begin hearing from the first Monday of August, the challenge against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
Case Details: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6056 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as withdrawn, a petition filed by former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, who has been in jail since February 23, 2022 following his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition filed by Malik against May 2 order of the Bombay High Court adjourning his medical bail application to June 6.
However, since the current petition challenged only an order of the high court adjourning Malik’s bail hearing, the court pointed out that it had become infructuous. “You will have to withdraw this petition and challenge the order rejecting interim bail,” Justice Khanna
Case Details: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed its reservations about a plea filed by a non-governmental organisation, Association for Democratic Reforms, seeking a declaration that every voter had the fundamental right to verify that their vote has been ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded’.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the NGO before a division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi. Right at the outset, Justice Khanna asked the counsel, “Mr Bhushan, aren’t we being over suspicious?”
Bhushan replied, “I agree with one part, that sometimes we are over suspicious. I myself have been saying that the view that EVMs can be hacked may not be correct. But there are three ways in which EVMs may not reflect correct count or voting.”
The bench pronounced: “Let an advanced copy be served on the nominated/standing counsel for the Election Commission of India. Our attention is drawn to an order dated December 13, 2019, passed in Association of Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr. wherein notice was issued and writ petition was directed to be tagged with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1389 of 2019. Re-list after three weeks.”
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal And Ors. v. Suvendu Adhikari And Ors.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 6283-6286/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to Friday a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the cases related to Ram Navami violence to the National Investigation Agency.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra asked the parties to verify if the six FIRs registered over the Ram Navami violence cases overlap and pertain to the same rally.
Case Title: National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. The Registrar, Circuit Bench At Port Blair And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 13609/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the order of the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, which had imposed a cost of Rs 100 crores on the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCR) for failing to repair the National Highway-4 (NH-4) in North and Middle Andaman on a timely basis. Although the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra stayed the order of the High Court, in order to hold the NHIDCR accountable, it also directed the NHIDCR to file within three weeks, a comprehensive status report indicating the status of the repairs carried on the NH-4 and a time period required for completely repairing the same.
Case Title: Indian Olympic Association v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14533/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the time to file objections to the draft constitution of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) framed under the supervision of Justice L Nageswara Rao for a period of two weeks. The bench further stated that all objections to the Draft constitution should be made to Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj who was then given the responsibility of collating all objections and submitting the same before the Apex Court by the next hearing of the matter. The matter has been listed next for August 11, 2023.
Case title: Advocate Farhat Wasi v Anubhav Singh Bassi
Citation: W.P. C.No.489/2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a plea filed by an Advocate against stand-up comedian, Anubhav Singh Bassi, alleging that he has humiliated ‘advocates and the judicial system’ in his stand-up special, Bas Kar Bassi.
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were displeased that such a frivolous petition was filed by an advocate. In this regard, Justice Kaul remarked, “I think there are better things for you people to do than this”
Ten Opposition Leaders Move Supreme Court Against ECI's Draft Delimitation Proposal for Assam
Case Details: Lurinjyoti Gogoi & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 28012 of 2023
Ten opposition leaders from Assam have approached the Supreme Court challenging a draft proposal recently published by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the delimitation of Assam's 126 assembly constituencies and 14 Lok Sabha constituencies.
Besides this, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which forms the statutory foundation of the exercise of this power by the Election Commission, on the ground that it is arbitrary and opaque. Not only this, but it has also been alleged that the aforesaid provision is discriminatory towards the State of Assam since the process of delimitation for the rest of the country - such as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir - has been conducted by a high-powered body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. However, the Election Commission has been prescribed as the authority to conduct delimitation with respect to Assam and three other northeastern states.
Case Title: STATE OF MANIPUR vs ARIBAM DHANAJOY SHARMA ALIAS PAOJEL CHAOBA AND ORS
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14732/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Manipur High Court's order which directed the Manipur Government to restore internet in a limited fashion in the State affected by ethnic conflicts. However, the Court granted liberty to the State of Manipur to approach the High Court to apprise it of the the difficulties faced by the in implementing the High Court's.
Case Details: Selva Mary v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 391 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail of Gnana Prakash, an associate of the slain forest brigand Veerappan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 in the Palar bomb blast case. The sexagenarian life convict – diagnosed with advanced stage cancer – was released last year after spending almost 30 years under incarceration, pursuant to the top court’s direction in a writ petition filed by his wife, Selva Mary.
Case Title: Common Cause v. Abhijat And Or.
Citation: Conmt Petition(C) No. 550/2015 in WP(C) No. 821/1990
The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to file an affidavit setting forth the instances wherein any State Bar Association across the county has called for strikes in the last one year and the action taken in that regard. The BCI is to file the affidavit within a period of two weeks.
“BCI to also file affidavit within 2 weeks setting forth where any Bar Association has called for strike in the last one year and what action has been taken.”
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt petition filed by Common Cause inter-alia alleging that the BCI is not taking steps to prevent advocate’s strikes and is not looking effectively into its disciplinary control side.
Case title: State of Jharkhand v Nishikant Dubey
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7844/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice in the petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the Jharkhand High Court's order quashing the FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari and few others in the Deoghar Airport case. The FIR was lodged over allegations that the accused had threatened and forced ATC to permit the takeoff of private aircraft in violation of security regulations at Deoghar Airport in September 2022.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol issued notice to Dubey, Tiwari and other accused in the State's plea. The High Court had held that IPC offences are not attracted since there’s a special Act, i.e. Aircraft Act, 1934(Act). Further, it was opined that FIR was not maintainable since only a complaint can be made to DGCA as per section 12B of the Act.
Case Title: P.T. Sheejish v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by a lawyer against the Kerala High Court's dismissal of a plea to direct the Southern Railways to permit a stop for the 'Vande Bharat Train Service' at Tirur Railway Station in Malappuram District.
At the very outset, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra expressed its disinclination towards entertaining the plea. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked– "Now you want us to decide which station a train stops at? Do we will also take a call on stations from Delhi to Mumbai Rajdhani?"
Noting that it was a policy matter, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea
Case Title: Abdul Maudany Vs State of Karnataka
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8084-8092/2013
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relaxation of bail condition to Abdul Nasser Maudany, accused in the 2008 Bangalore blasts case, permitting him to travel and stay in his home town in Kerala. As part of the bail condition imposed by the Apex Court on 11.07.2014, the Kerala People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chairman was to stay in Bengaluru till the trial in the blasts case is over.
