100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 2 [26-50]

Part 1 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here. Part 4 can be read here.26. Judicial Service | 'High Score In Written Exam Alone Doesn't Determine Merit' : Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Mark Criteria For InterviewCase Title: ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS. | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 350Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar MishraThe Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat.27. Supreme Court Issues Directions Against Misleading Ads: Self Declaration Forms By Advertisers; Influencers Must Endorse ResponsiblyCase Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin AmanullahThe Supreme Court, in a pivotal order passed a slew of measures to protect consumers from misleading advertisements. The directions included equal responsibility of advertisers and endorsers qua misleading ads and the uploading of a self-declaration form by advertisers before issuing any advertisements.The Court declared that the the fundamental right to health encompasses the right of a consumer to be made aware of the quality of products being offered for sale by manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies.28. Supreme Court Discusses Concept Of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' In Child Custody DisputeCase : Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra SharmaThe Supreme Court has discussed the concept of "Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS)" in a judgment delivered in a case between an estranged couple for the custody of their children.PAS is a syndrome whereby one parent, who has custody of the child, promotes feelings of disaffection against the other parent in the mind of the child, which ultimately influences the child's preference for one parent in a court litigation for custody.29. Can Time-Barred Debts Be Recovered Through Remedies Other Than Civil Suits As Per Special Laws? Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge BenchCase : KP Khemka and anr vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation Limited and orsCoram: Justices Surya Kant and KV ViswanathanThe Supreme Court has referred to a 3-judge bench the question whether debts, which cannot be recovered by filing civil suits as they are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1963, can be recovered by invoking other remedies under special statutes for debt recovery.30. Supreme Court Prescribes 30 Days Time Limit To Prefer Appeal Against Juvenile Justice Board Preliminary Assessment OrderCase Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh BindalNoting that no time limit has been prescribed under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to prefer an appeal against the preliminary assessment order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme Court in a recent judgment deemed it appropriate to fill up this gap by prescribing 30 days' time limit for preferring appeal against the JJB's preliminary assessment order.31. Sub-Classification Permissible Within Scheduled Castes To Give Separate Quotas For More Backwards : Supreme CourtCase Details : State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And OrsA 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court(by 6-1) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.The verdict means that States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota.The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class. Four judges of the majority also opined that the 'creamy layer' among Scheduled Castes must be identified and excluded from quotas.32. Advocates Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act For Deficiency Of Services : Supreme CourtCase Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 372Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj MithalThe Supreme Court eld that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. The Court held that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade. Reports about the judgment can be read here.33. Prabir Purkayastha's Arrest By Delhi Police & Remand Illegal : Supreme Court Orders NewsClick Editor's Release In UAPA CaseCase Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State, Diary No, 42896 ...

100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 2 [26-50]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags