Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

● Coverage Of 'Flood & Inundation' Insurance Includes Damage Caused By Heavy Rains And Not Just Overflowing Of River [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v M/s J K Cement Works Ltd] The issue before the Court was that whether these words included only damage caused by overflowing of rivers, or they included damages caused by heavy rains as well. To decide the matter, the Division Bench comprising Justice Mohan M Shanthanagoudar and Justice Subhash Reddy referred to the meanings of these words as defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary. Based on these, the Court held that floods can be broadly divided into the following categories: coastal floods, fluvial floods (river floods), and pluvial floods (surface floods). Pluvial or surface floods refers to the accumulation of water in an area because of excessive rainfall. These floods occur independently of an overflowing water body. "Inundation" was said to be referring to both the act of overflow of water as well as the result of such overflow. ● SC Dismisses Nirbhaya Convict Mukesh's Plea Against Mercy Rejection By President [Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.] A bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna reserved orders on the plea filed by Mukesh Singh, one of the four death row convicts against the rejection of his mercy plea. With this, the last legal remedy available for the convict against the death sentence has been extinguished. The court held that there was no merit in the contention that no material was placed before the President for decision. The bench added that alleged ill-treatment and cruelty in jail is no ground to grant mercy. Also, that the President has acted expeditiously is no ground to hold that there was non-application of mind, said the Court. The court also held that the quick consideration of the mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. ● Reasonable Possibility Of Acquittal: SC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused [Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat] The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta granted bail to an accused charged under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the ground that there is a reasonable possibility that he may be acquitted. The prosecution case against Sujit Tiwari was that he was aware of what his brother, accused in the NDPS case, was doing and was actively helping his brother. The Court noted that, other than a few WhatsApp messages and his own statement which he has resiled from, there is no other evidence. The Court also has imposed stringent conditions while granting bail. ● Regular Inquiry Needed When Termination Of Employee's Service Is Stigmatic And Punitive [Dr Vijayakumaran CPV vs Central University of Kerala and others] A 3-judge bench of the SC led by Justice A M Khanwilkar held that regular inquiry as per the service rules is necessary for the termination of the services of an employee when it is stigmatic and punitive. The Court was dealing with the appeal by Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V, an Associate Professor of Central University of Kerala, whose services were terminated after he was found to have sexually harassed some students. He was on probation then. When complaints of sexual harassment were raised against him by 40 students at various points of time, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted as per the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (for short, 'the 2015 Regulations'). ● Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances [Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.] The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. Justices MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments agreeing with each other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran concurred with the conclusion reached by both the judges. The Court also held that life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases. ● Rights Cherished By Citizens Are Fundamental, Not The Restrictions [Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.] Rights which the citizens cherish deeply are fundamental- it is not the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags