Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Miscellaneous Acts

Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 2008The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) assailing orders of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the AERA Act 2008 relating to tariff imposition on certain services. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 812All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023Object – The 2023 Rules have primarily two objects: Firstly, to make the movement of such tourist vehicles across the country through different States seamless and smooth; and secondly, the revenue to be generated by the Centre to be proportionately shared with the State Governments, also taking into account their previous revenue generation, and also, keeping in mind that their earlier revenue income was not reduced in any manner. The Rules, 2023 superseded the All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorization/Permit) Rules, 2021. After the coming into of the Rules, 2023, the power of levying/collecting Border Tax/Authorization Fee by the State Governments at various border check posts from vehicles carrying All India Tourists Permit was to be done away with. (Para 4) Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2024 SC 3496Atomic Energy Act, 1962The petitioner, a physicist and Indian citizen residing in the US, sought a license for his technology designed to trigger nuclear fission for clean energy production with reduced radioactive waste compared to traditional fusion reactors. The petitioner contended that the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, unduly restricts the involvement of private entities in the licensing process for nuclear power. The relevant provision, Section 14 of the Act, prohibits the acquisition, production, possession, use, or disposal of prescribed substances and equipment related to atomic energy without a license, which is generally granted only to government bodies or institutions. Held, the provisions of the 1962 Act were enacted for the welfare of the people of India and to ensure strict control over nuclear energy to prevent misuse and accidents. These provisions were not arbitrary and did not infringe upon the petitioner's fundamental rights. Sandeep T.S. v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 711Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994Rule 7 – Directions against misleading ads – Held, before an advertisement is printed/aired/displayed, a Self-declaration shall be submitted by the advertiser/advertising agency on the lines contemplated in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The Self-declaration shall be uploaded by the advertiser/advertising agency on the Broadcast Sewa Portal run under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. No advertisements shall be permitted to be run on the relevant channels and/or in the print media/internet without uploading the self-declaration as directed above. Further held, the directions shall be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 23 & 24) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381 : (2024) 8 SCC 46Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules, 2015Object – To provide food subsidy in cash directly into the bank accounts of entitled households to purchase the entitled quantity of food grains from the open market. (Para 6) Anun Dhawan v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2024 SC 1248Commercial Courts Act, 2015Section 2(1)(c)(vii) - Merely because the dispute is related to an immovable property wouldn't per se make it a commercial dispute unless the immovable property is 'actually used' exclusively in trade or commerce. S.P. Velayutham v. Emaar Mgf Land Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 179Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005A statutory body like the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) cannot invoke Article 32 to seek a writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights, as Article 32 is primarily intended for citizens. Reliefs sought by the petitioner were dismissed as they were deemed vague and beyond the scope of the statutory functions of the NCPCR under the 2005 Act. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 763Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974Section 3 - The High Court had previously dismissed the appellant's writ petition, which claimed that relevant documents were not supplied, impairing the detenue's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Held, the grounds for detention were nearly identical to those in a prior case where the High Court quashed the detention orders due to the non-supply of similar documents, particularly WhatsApp chats. The Court emphasized the necessity for judicial discipline and adherence to precedent within the same High Court, ruling that the second Division...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Miscellaneous Acts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Miscellaneous Acts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers