Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2020

There were 11 Constitution Bench judgments/orders of the Supreme Court in 2020. Due to the advent of Covid-19 pandemic, many of the hearings took place through video conferencing mode. Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited To A Fixed Period Except In Special And Peculiar Circumstances[Sushila Aggarwal And Others V/S State (NCT Of Delhi)]The Supreme Court 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. 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.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 judges said that the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 565 needs reiteration. It overruled the judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (1) SCC 667 which restricted the scope of Section 438 of the Cr.PC. It also overruled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 694, to the extent it held that no conditions can be imposed while granting an order of anticipatory bail, is incorrect. Land Acquisition : No Lapse Of Proceedings Under Old Act If Compensation Is Deposited In Treasury[ Indore Development Authority V/S Manoharlal ]The Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not lapse if the compensation has been tendered by deposit in treasury. The Court held that land owners cannot insist that the amount should be deposited in Court so as to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the old Act on the commencement of the new land acquisition law with effect from January 1, 2014.The bench affirmed the view in the 2018 Indore Development Authority case, overruling the 2014 judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat had heard the matter. The case involved the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. As per this provision, compensation proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will lapse on the commencement of the 2013 Act, if "compensation has not been paid".SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks[ Pandurang Ganpati Ghaugule vs. Svishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited ]The Supreme Court has held that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act 2002 is applicable to cooperative banks. "The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi State cooperative banks are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the Constitution Bench.Merely Because The Investigation Officer And Complainant Are The Same The Trial In NDPS Cases Will Not Be Vitiated And Accused Cannot Be Acquitted On That Ground[Mukesh Singh V/S State (Narcotic Branch Of Delhi) ]The Supreme Court held that it cannot be held as a general proposition that an accused under NDPS Act is entitled to an acquittal merely because the complainant is the investigating officer. "Merely because the informant and the investigating officer is the same, it cannot be said that the investigation is biased and the trial is vitiated", the bench observed while specifically overruling Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.In Mohanlal, it was held by a three judge bench that the trial of cases under NDPS Act will be vitiated if the informant and the investigating officer is the same person. "It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof.", it was held in the said judgment.Medical Council Of India Has No Power To Make Any Reservation For In-Service Candidates; States Have[Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI)]The Constitution Bench held that Medical Council of India has no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in any particular state. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR...

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Constitution Bench Judgments Of 2020

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