- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd February to 28th February 2021]
Nupur Thapliyal
28 Feb 2021 4:40 AM GMT
![Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd February to 28th February 2021]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2020/11/03/750x450_384059-weekly-roundup-sc.jpg "Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [22nd February to 28th February 2021]")
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Ossification Test Conducted On An Accused Aged Around 40-55 Years Cannot Be Conclusive To Declare Him As A Juvenile On The Date Of The Incident: Supreme CourtCase: Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh [Cr. A 175 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 117The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai observed that ossification test conducted on a...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEKCase: Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh [Cr. A 175 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 117
The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai observed that ossification test conducted on a person aged around 40 to 55 years cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident.
"When a person is around 18 years of age, the ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age." The bench held.
In this case, the accused-appellant relied on an ossification test report to contend that he was juvenile at the date of incident (20.7.1982). It was contended that, even considering the maximum age as 55 years as per the Medical Report now submitted, the accused would still be less than 18 years on the date of incident.
Case: Joydeep Majumdar Vs Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar [CA NOS. 3786-3787 OF 2020]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 116
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed that wife levelling allegations which affects career and reputation of husband is mental cruelty against him for the purpose of seeking divorce.
"The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party." The bench observed.
In this case, the husband, an army officer, in his divorce petition, alleged that he was subjected to numerous malicious complaints by the wife which have affected his career and loss of reputation, resulting in mental cruelty. The Family Court granted him divorce, but the High Court reversed it. In appeal before the Apex Court, the husband submitted that the wife filed a series of complaints against him before the superior officers in the Army upto the level of the Chief of Army Staff and to other authorities and these complaints have irreparably damaged his reputation and mental peace.
CASE: Najiya Neermunda vs. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust [Civil Appeal Nos . 606 - 616 of 2021]
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 115
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that the regulation of fee for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges is within the domain of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee which has to ensure that the fee is non-exploitative and reasonable.
The State had approached the Apex Court aggrieved with the Kerala High Court direction to the Committee to examine the audited balance sheets only for the purpose of considering whether the expenditure that is shown by the managements should be excluded or not. It contended that the directions given by the High Court are contrary to Section 11 of the 2017 Act, which refers to factors that have to be taken into account by the Committee for fee fixation. The bench observed thus:
CASE: State of Andhra Pradesh vs.Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No 399 of 2021]
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 113
Division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that salaries and pensions are rightful entitlements of Government employees and the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had allowed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a former District and Sessions Judge and directed the (i) payment of the deferred salary for the months of March-April 2020 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and (ii) payment of deferred pension for the month of March 2020 with a similar rate of interest.
"Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State." the bench held.
Case: V.N. Public Health And Educational Trust vs. State of Kerala [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.703-704 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 109
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari held that grant of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and Consent of Affiliation by the University is not simply a ministerial act.
The court held that essentiality Certificate is mandatorily required by a person before he receives permission for establishment of a Medical College.
"Thus, an EC is mandatorily required by a person before he receives permission for establishment of a Medical College. The Legislative scheme that imposes the requirement of the EC is prescribed in Section 10(A) of the Medical Council of India Act, which requires the previous permission of the Central Government for establishing a Medical College or opening a new course of study or training. Every person or Medical College must submit to the Central Government a scheme as prescribed." the bench held.
Case: Union of India vs. A. Alagam Perumal Kone [CIVIL APPEAL NO.680 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 107
The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme can be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner.
It was observed that when the claim is under a particular pension scheme, unless one fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in the scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right. While observing so, the Court set aside the Madras High Court direction to grant Freedom Fighter's Pension to A. Alagam Perumal Kone under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
CASE: KHUSHI RAM vs. NAWAL SINGH [CIVIL APPEAL NO.5167 of 20104-][DRAFT
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 106
The bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Subhash Reddy held that a consent decree based on admission recognising pre existing rights under Family settlement does not require registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act.
"We, thus, conclude that in view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate to the subject matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be registered under Section 17(2) (vi) and was covered by exclusionary clause. Thus, we, answer question No.1 that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 was not registrable and Courts below have rightly held that the decree did not require registration." the bench held.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATESA division Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah this week denied modification of its last year's judgement granting permanent commission to women officers in the Army, and has directed the officers to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.
The Court observed that suitable remedy for these petitioner officers does not lie before the Supreme Court as a miscellaneous application but as a suitable proceeding before Armed Forces Tribunal where they have liberty to proceed.
A bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy this week reserved its judgment in the challenge made by Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan to the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly Committee to enquire into Delhi riots.
Harish Salve, while concluding his counter arguments submitted "If you want my views, I don't want to talk about peace and harmony in India. Today it may be Facebook, tomorrow it will be somebody else but there has to be a law laid down by your lordships. Please do not permit this kind of expansion of powers through the backdoor and please protect citizens' rights and particularly right to silence. In the noisy times of the present, right to silence is a virtue. And leave it to me to decide, whether or not I want to go and lay down that the summon is an invitation and no more."
The Supreme Court this week commended the recent order of the Delhi High Court appointing court receivers in respect of the donations received at the highly-revered Kalkaji temple of Delhi.
Hearing an appeal from the February 5 order of Justice Pratibha Singh to this effect, Justice DY Chandrachud observed "It is a very good order by Justice Pratibha Singh. It is a tough action, necessary to bring order to such places".
"We are shocked that Pooja is auctioned! We are not concerned with this plea, we are concerned with the religious sentiments! This is a perfect order! ", concurred Justice Shah.
The Supreme Court this week issued notice in the plea by Amazon challenging Delhi High Court's stay on the implementation of its own order passed by the Single Judge bench of Justice Midha, which had directed status quo order on the Future - Reliance retail stake sale deal of nearly Rs. 25000 crore.
The Supreme Court allowed the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) proceedings related to the approval of amalgamation of Future Retail and Reliance to go on but said that the NCLT proceedings should not culminate into any final order on sanction of schemes.
The Supreme Court allowed Congress MP Karti Chidambaram's application to travel abroad on a condition of depositing Rs. 2 crores.
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy further directed that Karti Chidambaram should furnish his itinerary of foreign travel and the places where he is going to stay. The permission is for a period of 6 months.
Karti Chidambaram, son of Senior Advocate and former Union Minister P Chidambaram, has to seek the permission of the top court to travel abroad as he is out on bail in the Aircel-Maxis, INX Media cases.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed Written Submissions in its plea seeking for transfer of custody of BSP MLA Mukhtar Ansari, currently lodged in a prison in Punjab, to face trial in UP in ten cases involving murder, extortion etc.
It has been submitted by the Uttar Pradesh Government that there exists no implicit or explicit bar for filing of a petition under Article 32 by a State as long as there exists a requirement of an order/direction to be passed for the protection of fundamental rights.
Stating that being a history sheeter, gangster and a hardcore criminal, Ansari is expected to have rivalry with many other criminals and therefore, the same cannot be a ground to escape the clutches of law and seek refuge in another State.
The Supreme Court this week reprimanded the Union of India for failing to file its response to a plea challenging the 2019 RTI Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing ex-Union Minister and Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's writ petition challenging the amendments in the RTI Act. The Court had issued notice on the plea in January last year.
Considering the importance of the matter, the bench granted two weeks' time to the Centre to file reply, proceeding to list the matter for final disposal.
"Those who cannot shell out a pound of flesh have no role to play in jails. This is the sad state of prisons ", commented Justice DY Chandrachud on Monday.
The bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah was considering the plea of a Superintendent of Jail, Aurangabad, Maharashtra opposing the decision of the government to initiate departmental enquiry against him for failure to consider applications for pre-mature parole as required by the Bombay High Court.
In connection with the Maradu flats demolition, the Supreme Court directed one of the four builders - Jain Housing Ltd- to deposit a portion of compensation amount due to owners( Rs 12.26 crores) in two equal installments within four months.
The Court said that it will consider Jain Housing's request for permission to dispose of one of its properties after it deposits the first installment.
The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari noted that the Justice K. Balakrishnan Committee has calculated a sum of Rs.28.53 crores towards the share of M/S Jain Housing. By its order dated September 27, 2019, the bench had required Jain Housing to deposit 16.5 crores.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5(3) (iii)(a) and Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which provides multi member representation from a Ward in the Municipal Corporation/Municipality.
Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution of India does not contain any limitation to the effect that there shall be only one member from one Ward, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah said while upholding the Gujarat High Court judgment dismissing the writ petitions challenging the provisions of the Act.
