Supreme Court Weekly Round Up May 31- June 6, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Constitute Committees To Hold Preliminary Inquiries Before Lodging Sedition Cases Against Senior JournalistsCase: Vinod Dua vs. Union of India [WP(Crl) .154 of 2020] Citation: LL 2021 SC 266In its judgment quashing sedition case against Journalist Vinod Dua, the Supreme Court rejected the plea to direct the State Governments to constitute committees to conduct preliminary inquiry before FIRs are registered against senior journalists.That would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran observed.The Court, however, clarified that that every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh judgment. It added that every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh.Dua had prayed for a direction that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee. He suggested that such committee should be constituted by every State Government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State.Also Read: 'Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment' :Supreme Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod DuaAlso Read: Citizen Has Right To Criticize Government As Long As He Does Not Incite People To Violence: Supreme Court In Vinod Dua Case2. CBSE Byelaws Existing On Date Of Results Declaration Will Apply For Certificate Correction : Supreme CourtCase: Jigya Yadav vs. C.B.S.E. [CA 3905 OF 2011] Citation: LL 2021 SC 264The Supreme Court has clarified that the byelaws of the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) which exist as on the date of declaration of result will apply to an application seeking changes or corrections in the mark certificates.A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari settled this position while deciding a batch of petitions challenging the CBSE byelaws on certificate corrections.The byelaws which exist as on the date of application for correction or changes will be irrelevant for consideration of changes or corrections in the certificates. The Supreme Court noted that there was a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts as regards the point of time which would determine the applicability of Byelaws. The CBSE has amended the byelaws from time-to-time to modify the period of limitation within which the application should be made. Also Read: Embargo In CBSE Byelaws On Change Of Name "Post Publication Of Examination Results" Unreasonable: Supreme CourtAlso Read: CBSE Certificates - 'Students May Fail To Notice Errors Due To Young Age & Inadvertence' : Supreme Court Calls For 'Different Approach' In Time-Limit For Changes/Corrections3. Trial Courts Have To Clearly Specify Whether Sentences Would Run Concurrently Or Consecutively: Supreme CourtCase: Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 267 Citation: LL 2021 SC 267The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Courts, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, have to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.Any omission to carry out this obligation causes unnecessary and avoidable prejudice to the parties, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.The court reiterated that the omission to state whether the sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently or would run consecutively essentially operates against the accused because, unless stated so by the Court. The omission to state the order of consecutive running cannot ipso facto lead to concurrent running of sentences, the bench said.In this case, the appellants were convicted of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court sentenced the appellants to several punishments, but did not specify as to whether the punishments of imprisonment would run concurrently or consecutively. The High Court, though modified the Trial Court judgment, did not clarify on this aspect in its judgment. While so, the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, while issuing certificates of confinement, stated that the accused had undergone 10 years and 1 month of imprisonment but, there being no mention in the sentencing order about concurrent running of sentences, they were serving 22 years of imprisonment. IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES1. Supreme Court Seeks Comparison Between Indian & International Prices Of COVID VaccinesNoting that the Centre had financed and facilitated the production of vaccines through concessions or otherwise, the Supreme Court sought clarification on whether it...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up May 31- June 6, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags