Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 19 to April 25, 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. 'Ad-Hoc Judges Not An Alternative To Regular Appointments' : Supreme Court Passes Guidelines On Appointment Of Ad-Hoc Judges In HCs Under Article 224ATitle : Lok Prahari through its General Secretary V N Shukla IAS (Retd) vs Union of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 225A bench comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant this week passed a slew of guidelines regarding the appointment of ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution.The bench passed the judgment in the case Lok Prahari vs Union of India. Lok Prahari, an NGO, had approached the Top Court through a PIL filed under Article 32 seeking the invocation of Article 224A to tackle the problem of mounting case arrears in High Courts.While agreeing that the discretion of the High Court Chief Justice cannot be curtailed, the bench said that certain general guidelines are needed so that the power under Article 224A is exercised in a transparent manner. The Supreme Court has laid down 5 trigger points which can activate the process under Article 224A.The Trigger Point cannot be singular and there can be more than one eventuality where the it arises –a.If the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.b.The cases in a particular category are pending for over five years.c.More than 10% of the backlog of pending cases are over five years old.d.The percentage of the rate of disposal is lower than the institution of the cases either in a particular subject matter or generally in the Court.e. Even if there are not many old cases pending, but depending on the jurisdiction, a situation of mounting arrears is likely to arise if the rate of disposal is consistently lower than the rate of filing over a period of a year or more.Read Also: 'If Vacancies Are More Than 20% Sanctioned Strength' : Supreme Court Lays Down 5 Trigger Points To Appoint Ad-Hoc Judges In High Courts2. Consent Of Parties Cannot Obviate Duty Of Court To Indicate Its Reasons For Granting Or Refusing Bail: Supreme CourtCase: Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli)Citation: LL 2021 SC 221The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refuse bail.The observation came while setting aside the orders of the High Court of Gujarat granting bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to six murder accused who were arrested for their alleged involvement in five homicidal deaths. In the order granting bail, the High Court recorded that 'Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order'."The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victims of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. The consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail." the Bench observed.3. Indian Parties Can Choose A Foreign Seat For Arbitration: Supreme CourtCase: PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited Vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited [CA 1647 OF 2021]Citation :LL 2021 SC 226A three judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman this week held that parties to a contract who are Indian nationals or Companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India.The bench was considering the question whether two companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India in the case PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited.4. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued For Setting Up An Adjudicatory Body Or Tribunal: Supreme CourtCase: John Paily vs. State of Kerala [WPC 428/2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 227Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed this week that a mandamus cannot be issued by this Court for setting up an adjudicatory body or tribunal.The court observed thus while dismissing a writ petition filed by John Paily and others who sought a direction to set up an independent Tribunal comprising of retired High Court judges who can look into the claims of each parish Church to determine which faction/denomination must have control over each such Church. They also sought...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 19 to April 25, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags