Supreme Court Monthly Digest-January 2019

Significant Rulings and Happenings Collegium Recommendations and Controversies On January 10, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice Sanjiv Khanna to Supreme Court. This decision became controversial as it was in reversal of the previous decision taken on December 12, 2018, to recommend the elevation of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Rajendra Menon, Chief Justices of Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts, respectively. Some former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including former CJI Justice RM Lodha, Justice AP Singh, and Justice Chelameswar, voiced their opinion on this 'change' of decision by the Collegium. Former Delhi High Court judge and Senior Advocate Kailash Gambhir wrote to the President of India, questioning the Supreme Court Collegium recommendation. On January 16, the President of India appointed them as SC judges. Their swearing in was on January 18. CBI v. CBI Judgment and Aftereffects Alok Kumar Verma v. Union of India On January 8, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Central government and the CVC that had divested CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma of the charge of the probe agency, reinstating him to the post with immediate effect. However, it refrained him from taking any major policy decisions until such time his case is finally disposed of by the Selection Committee under Section 4A of the DSPE Act. Subsequently, the CJI nominated Justice AK Sikri to the Special Committee. Two days later, the committee consisting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, SC judge Justice AK Sikri and Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge decided (2:1 Kharge dissented) to transfer him to the post of Director General Fire Services, for his residual term. A controversy triggered as media reported that Justice Sikri was nominated to this post in London-based CSAT by the Central government in December. Justice AK Sikri then withdrew his consent to be nominated to the post of president/member of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT), which was offered by the Central government. NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj filed PIL challenging M Nageshwar Rao's continuation as the interim CBI Director. The case was listed before Justice Sikri on January 24, after the Chief Justice saw it unfit to hear it himself in the wake of his impending participation in the meeting of the high-powered committee. Justice Sikri also recused from hearing the matter. On January 31, Justice NV Ramana also recused from hearing the plea, citing personal acquaintance with Rao. The CJI-headed bench also dismissed Advocate ML Sharma's PIL by which he sought, inter alia, the suspension of erstwhile CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Read our report on the story of CBI acting chief, and of conflicting interests and recusals. No Gratuity to Teachers? The Judgment and Prima Facie Error Birla Institute of Technology s. State of Jharkhand On January 7, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that, irrespective of the type of educational institute he/she is working, is not an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, has no right to invoke the Act for claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On January 8, Live Law published an article on why this judgment denying gratuity to teachers is 'Per Incuriam'. It had quoted the 2009 amendment and 1997 notification and some high court judgments post 2009 amendment. On January 9, the bench headed by Justice Sapre suo motu listed the appeal and passed order observing that it finds prima facie error in this judgment. It then stayed the operation of our judgment and directed the registry to post the appeal for rehearing. As Justice Indu Malhotra was on medical leave, the matter is yet to be reheard. Constitutional Validity of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Upheld Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 in its "entirety". The court, however, held that to attract the bar under Section 29A from participating in resolution process, "related person" should be a person connected to the defaulting entity. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha had reserved orders on January 15 on the petitions challenging the validity of IBC. The bench also observed that the experiment conducted in enacting the Code is proving to be largely successful. It noted that the flow of financial resource to the commercial sector in India has increased exponentially as a result of financial debts being repaid. The defaulter's paradise is lost. In its place, the economy's rightful position has been regained", this is how Justice Nariman summed up the judgment. Madras HC Disciplinary Rules for Lawyers Quashed...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest-January 2019

Ashok Kini

Recap of everything that happened in the Supreme Court of India in the first month of the year 2019.

Tags