- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Roundup-...
Supreme Court Monthly Roundup- August 2023
Suraj Kumar
4 Sep 2023 5:06 AM GMT
Judgments/OrdersUAPA - 'Watali' Precedent Won't Apply If Evidence Is Of Low Probative Value On Surface Level Analysis: Supreme CourtCase title: Vernon v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused and activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira appears to have carved out a crucial exception in an otherwise...
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused and activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira appears to have carved out a crucial exception in an otherwise unyielding interpretation of the court’s bail-granting powers under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which flows from the Zahood Ahmad Watali judgment.
In Vernon, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a plea for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act would not pass muster of the prima facie test envisioned in Watali without “at least surface-analysis of the probative value of evidence” and if the court is not satisfied of the worth of the probative value of such evidence.
While Watali restricts a court from ‘weighing’ the evidence at the stage of adjudicating a bail application, Vernon (2023) has given birth to a new species of analysis – shallow enough to not run contrary to the precedent that holds the field, but deep enough to catch low-value evidence in its net, to be eventually disregarded.
Case details: Yogendra Prasad Singh (D) v. Ram Bachan Devi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582
The Supreme Court observed that the use of the expression 'ta khubzul badlain' in a sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction.
When there is a specific recital in the Sale Deed that the title and possession in the property has been passed to the seller, the same are very crucial which cannot be brushed aside, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said.
Case Details: Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583
The Supreme Court of India on Monday reiterated the guidelines laid down by the top court for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment.
Not only this, a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar has also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgment to ensure strict compliance.
Case details: K Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584
The Supreme Court observed that it is only when the conviction in a cheque case arise out of a single transaction, a concurrent sentence would be merited. But when there are several transactions, the judgment in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 211 cannot be relied upon, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mittal observed.
Case details: Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585
The Supreme Court altered the conviction of a woman accused of killing her husband from Section 302 IPC(murder) to Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
"The possibility of the accused causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to her daughter cannot be ruled out", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed. The Court held that the case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (sudden and grave provocation).
The court also observed that the weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and that cannot be called a deadly weapon.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court that declared Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M. M. Sundresh while setting aside the High Court order observed: “The High Court, in our considered view, has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the first appellant [State] which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act [Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957].
Case title: Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587
In the case of vehicle theft, the Supreme Court held that any violation of the condition of the insurance policy should be in the nature of a fundamental breach to deny the claimant insurance coverage. Here, the insurer had repudiated the claim by saying that the driver had left the vehicle unattended on the public road with the key on the ignition.
The Court held that even if there was some carelessness, it was not a fundamental breach of condition for totally denying the insurance claim altogether. Therefore, a claim up to 75% must be awarded on a nonstandard basis.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To M Sivasankar For 2 Months On Medical Grounds
Case Title: M. Sivasankar v. UoI And Anr
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5590/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to M Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, for 2 Months on Medical Grounds.
Sivasankar had approached the Top Court seeking bail in a money laundering case in connection with the LIFE Mission corruption case on grounds of ill-health. LIFE (Livelihood, Inclusion and Financial Empowerment) Mission project is a housing project initiated by the Kerala Government for the homeless.
The interim bail was granted by a division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh, on the ground that he required surgery and post operative care. However, the Apex Court made it clear that he cannot visit any other place other than the hospital and his home, during the period of bail.
Case Title: In Re: Prajwala
Citation: SMW(CRL.) NO. 3/2015
The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for controlling the indiscriminate circulation of child pornography and videos of gang rape and rape through WhatsApp and other social media after the expert committee constituted by the Court for the matter, submitted its report on how it proposes to address the issue.
Case Title: Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588
The Supreme Court on Tuesday recently the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a cost Rs.10,000/- to all four persons whose premature release directed by the Apex Court had been delayed by the state.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol imposed costs stating that there was no explanation from the authorities for the long delay in releasing the convicts.
IBC- NCLAT Can 'Recall' Its Judgment, Can't 'Review' Them: Supreme Court Affirms NCLAT Ruling
Case Title: Union Bank of India v Financial Creditors of M/s Amtek Auto Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Union Bank of India v Financial Creditors of M/s Amtek Auto Limited & Ors., has upheld the ruling of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) five-member bench, wherein it was held that NCLAT is empowered to recall its judgment but not to review them. The Supreme Court has affirmed the NCLAT’s ruling and dismissed an appeal filed against the order.
Case Title: Yadaiah and Anr. v State of Telangana and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590
The Supreme Court has held that only fundamental determinations of the Court are hit by res judicata in subsequent proceedings. If the Court makes any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations, which are not fundamental but ‘collateral’ to the final determination, then those ‘collateral determinations’ would not be hit by res judicata.
The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Yadaiah and Anr. v State of Telangana and Ors., has laid down a test to distinguish between ‘fundamental determination’ and ‘collateral determination’. The test is to see whether the concerned determination is so vital to the decision, that without it the decision cannot stand independently
Case title: Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co Ltd
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4758 OF 202
In a case relating to an insurance claim, the Supreme Court observed that a litigant should not be made to suffer because of a fault of the counsel. that only due to the fault of counsel, a party should not be made to suffer.
The court observed that “The said complaint was withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, without having express instructions for withdrawal of the said complaint. However, for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer”.
Case details: Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591
The Supreme Court observed that the 'affinity test' cannot be applied as a litmus test during scrutiny of caste claims.
"If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the per Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order", the bench of Justices observed.
"No Evidence": Supreme Court Acquits Two Men Accused In 26-Year-Old Rape Case
Case details: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592
The Supreme Court acquitted two men accused in a rape case observing that there was no evidence brought on record to connect them with the offence.
Gian Singh was acquitted by the trial court noticing the stand of the prosecutrix that there was party faction in the village and both the parties belonged to different sections. The same reasoning will apply to the appellants as well for the reason that in the FIR, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is same in respect of all the accused, as far as the allegation of party faction is concerned", the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed.
The bench observed that the acquittal of Gian Singh has "broken the chain of events and falsified the story projected by the prosecutrix".
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a judicial officer challenging the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to deny him promotion as Additional District & Sessions Judge.
When the suitability of the petitioner for promotion is inter alia based on the quality of judgments, no fault can be found with the decision to decline promotion to the petitioner", the bench observed while dismissing the special leave petition.
Case citation: Rourkela Steel plant v. OPCB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an order passed by the National Green Tribunal for relief and compensation for the victims of a toxic gas leak that happened in the Rourkela Steel Plant in 2021.
A bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Aravind kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the Rourkela Steel Plant. The Court didn’t interfere with the compensation award granted by NGT and directed the appellant to deposit the same within 8 weeks.
A pertinent question of law had arisen in this case- Whether NGT can exercise jurisdiction when the matter is covered under the ESI act? The Court opined that this issue merits consideration. But given the circumstances of the case, chose not to interfere with the compensation given and kept the question of law open for the future.
Case Title: Dinesh B.S V. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a newspaper report is only hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal, while setting aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to two appellants accused of murder due to insufficient evidence, observed:
“….an extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. It is well-established in law that newspaper reports can at best be treated as secondary evidence.”
Case details: State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police vs S. Subbegowda
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court in Corruption Cases on the validity of sanction, without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the accused
Motor Accident Claim Need Not Be Filed Before MACT Of Area Where Accident Occurred: Supreme Court
Case details: Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596
The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred.
“Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the defendant resides”, Justice Dipankar Datta noted while deciding a transfer petition
Case details: Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate (who had opted to hold an inquiry himself under Section 202(1) CrPC) has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses before dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.
The court, perusing the complaint, noted that eight witnesses were specifically named in the complaint and that the Magistrate has not recorded reasons for not recording the statements of other witnesses specifically cited in the complaint.
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598
A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar of the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Gandhi in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark. With the stay of his conviction, Rahul Gandhi's disqualification as MP also now remains in abeyance.
“Particularly when the offense was non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable, the least which was expected from the learned trial judge was to give reasons for imposing the maximum punishment. Though the learned appellate court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, these aspects are not seen considered" the court observed.
Case details: Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599
The Supreme Court observed that 'applications' filed on the pretext of ‘clarification/addition’ while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged.
"Any alternation or addition to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission", the bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari observed.
The court said that the power of Supreme Court under the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 is limited and can only be exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission.
Case Title: E.S.I. Corporation V. M/S. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, Civil Appeal No.3368 Of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Corporation challenging a 2008 Kerala High Court order that had held that the provisions of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 will be applicable to a pathological laboratory from 2007 and not from 2002, by virtue of a 2007 government notification specifying that medical institutions would come under the Act.
Case details Wazir Khan vs State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601
The judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape, the Supreme Court noted while it upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his wife.
"The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case", the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
Case details: Gulshan Bajwa vs Registrar, High Court of Delhi
Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 577/2007
The Supreme Court vacated a stay order in a 16-year-old criminal appeal as it pulled up the appellant's lawyer for seeking repeated adjournments. The bench noted that on more than a dozen occasions the cases were listed, it was either adjourned on the request of the appellant or on account of his absence. When the bench offered to provide legal assistance from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, he declined.
Case title: Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602
The Supreme Court quashed a defamation case against a man accused of making defamatory allegations in his complaint before Sub Divisional Magistrate.
“It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation”, the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted.
Registration Of All BS-VI Diesel Compliant Vehicles Permissible In NCT Delhi: Supreme Court
Case Title: MC Mehta v. UOI
Citation: Writ Petition Civil No. 13029/1985
In a recent order, the Supreme Court has clarified that the registration of all BS VI Compliant diesel vehicles is allowed to be done in NCT Delhi, irrespective of their requirement for the G-20 summit.
Case title: Razia Khan v. State of MP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605
The Supreme Court granted the benefit of probation to a social worker who was convicted of assaulting a public servant and reduced her sentence to 1 month.
While deciding the limited question of sentence, the Court highlighted that the matter was over 30 years old where appellant was out on bail all these years. Now, she’s an old lady of 62 years. The court acknowledged that there was no scuffle as such and the appellant was only raising the concerns of laborers.
The court was cognizant that hurting a public servant is a serious offense where a 10-year jail term can be granted, But the court while considering all the factors in totality was of the view that leniency can be shown to the appellant.
'Trivial': Supreme Court Quashes 2014 Criminal Case Over Petty Office Altercation
Case title: Sunil Kumar v State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606
The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet filed against an executive engineer in connection with an office altercation with his peon long back in 2014. The court took into account the trivial nature of the allegations. The court observed that there was no progress in the trial pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate since 2015.
Case title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.
Case Title: Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye
Citation: Review Petition In Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed against its judgment that held that persons having a Bachelors degree and having a professional experience of at least 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. should be treated as qualified for appointment as President and members of State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums.
Case Title: P. Ravindranath v. P. Milany
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s).4724/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order of the Madras High Court that declared the 2019 Lok Sabha election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party, null and void. The Apex Court has allowed him to continue as a Member of Parliament until further orders from the Court.
Case Details: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7700 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to grant bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor in a money laundering case. He has been accused of receiving illegal gratification in exchange for sanctioning bad loans to high-profile borrowers. The Yes Bank co-promoter has been behind bars since March 2020.
"Normally, the period undergone is substantial. But, this is a case that rocked the entire banking system," Justice Khanna said right at the outset, "That's a fact." Was I not correct when I said his actions affected Yes Bank, he asked. "Did the Reserve Bank of India not have to step in to protect the investors?
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The State Of West Bengal
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8889/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the July 20 order order of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the registration of FIR against BJP MLA Adhikari for allegedly making provocative remarks during the recently held West Bengal Panchayat elections. The Court further requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to decide the plea seeking FIR against the West Bengal Leader of Opposition afresh after granting him an opportunity of hearing.
The Court also clarified that the High Court, in its fresh decision, should not be influenced by the previous orders passed by the HC on September 6, 2021 and December 8, 2022 as per which no FIRs could be registered against Adhikari
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment Of Arun Goel As Election Commissioner
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 436/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as a member of the Election Commission of India.
The division bench Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that the Constitution Bench judgment that had recently directed reforms in the process of appointment of Election Commissioners, did not pass any orders against Goel's appointment though the files related to his appointment were perused. The two judge bench said that it would not be appropriate on its part to entertain the matter, when the matter has already been considered by the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
Cases: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and others
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14853/2023, Diary No. 31345-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stop the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque at Varanasi, except the 'wuzukhana' area where a 'shivling' was claimed to have been found last year. Taking on record an undertaking made on behalf of the ASI that no excavation will be done at the site and no damage will be caused to the structure, the Court allowed the survey to take place.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of a petition filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque at Varanasi) challenging yesterday's Allahabad High Court order which permitted the ASI survey.
Actor Sexual Assault Case: Supreme Court Extends Time For Completion Of Trial
Case Title: P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEP v. THE STATE OF KERALA
Citation: MA in Crl.A. No. 1794/2019
The Supreme Court on Friday extended the time for the completion of the trial in the Kerala actor abduction and sexual assault case.
A division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi granted an extension of time for the completion of trial while directing that the proceedings be completed as expeditiously as possible. The bench passed the order allowing an extension application filed by the trial judge seeking time till March 31, 2024
The Supreme Court recently stayed the order of the Delhi High Court which sentenced the son of a business tycoon to three months simple imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance to his former partner.
The Court also stayed the High Court's direction to issue a Look Out Circular against the appellant. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar passed the interim order while admitting the appeal filed against the order of the Delhi High Court.
Every Case of Improper Investigation Cannot Be Transferred to CBI: Supreme Court
Case Title: Kusumben Patel Varun Punia v. The State Of Uttarakhand And Ors
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5930/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday, while dismissing an SLP seeking transfer of investigation to CBI, orally observed, “every case of improper investigation cannot be transferred to CBI.”
Case Title: Nallathambi And Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu And Anr.
Citation: WP(C) No. 213/2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Government’s decision to construct a 134 ft tall ‘Pen Statue’ in memory of DMK leader M. Karunanidhi.
As a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition to avail of other remedies.
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. DK Shivakumar
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5026-5030 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Karnataka High Court temporarily staying a probe by the central agency against Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar in a corruption case arising out of allegations regarding disproportionate assets. The Court declined interference in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the High Court for final adjudication
Case title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609
The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable on allegation of illegal arrest by the ED. The Apex Court clarified that the plea regarding illegal arrest is to be made before concerned the Magistrate, since custody becomes judicial.
Section 41A CrPC Not Applicable To Arrest Made Under PMLA: Supreme Court
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Notice of appearance before police officer) would not apply to an arrest made under the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh observed that when the PMLA itself contains a comprehensive procedure for summons, searches, and seizures, applying Section 41A of the CrPC which requires serving of notice by Police prior to arrest would defeat the purpose of the legislation
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday held that ‘custody' under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and not just the police alone.
While authorizing the detention of an accused, the Magistrate has got a very wide discretion, the Court observed. Referring to Section 167(2) the Court said:
“The words “such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit” would reiterate the extent of discretion available to him. It is for the Magistrate concerned to decide the question of custody, either be it judicial or to an investigating agency or to any other entity in a given case.
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court on Monday held that any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 (Power To Arrest) of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002, would vitiate the very arrest itself.
A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, observed that:
“Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such non-compliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002.”
Case Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court has questioned the interpretation given by the 1992 judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni that the police or investigating agency can't seek custody of the accused after the first 15 days from the arrest.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife's plea against custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), held that the prescribed 15-day-period of police custody can be an aggregate of shorter periods of custody sought over the entire period of investigation lasting 60 or 90 days, as a whole. Therefore, the bench has referred Anupam Kulkarni (1992) to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Case title: Mahmood Ali v. State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while considering a petition seeking quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of the investigation.
"In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Case Title: A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs Rakesh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court has observed that the protection of Section 197 CrPC is not available to a person working in a Nationalised Bank.
Section 197 CrPC is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.
Case Title: A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court recently held that a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) can proceed against an accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860 even if sanction for prosecution has not been granted in respect of PC Act offences as per Section 19 of the said Act.
Case title: Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court observed that insurance is expected to deal with the insured in a bonafide and fair manner and should not just care for and cater to its own profits.
It is the duty of the insurance company to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally, the bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar observed.
Case title: Kamal v State(NCT) of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the circumstances “must/should be” and not “maybe” established and set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded to 3 persons accused of murder by the Delhi High Court in 2014.
Case title: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court observed that threatening a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code.
The later part of Section 195A makes it very clear that false evidence means false evidence before the Court of law, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, while quashing a criminal FIR, made imperative observations.
It observed that in cases where the quashing of FIR is sought, essentially on the ground that the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
Case Title: S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619
The Court observed: “We are aghast to find that the members, who heard the complaint, have made observations as if they were experts sitting in appeal on the reports of the Loss Assessor and the Experts….It seems to us that the NCDRC made observations in the impugned judgment as if its members were experts in the relevant field and clothed with authority to sit in appeal over the same.”
Case Details: Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court has recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against designated senior advocate at the Gujarat High Court and former assistant solicitor-general Iqbal Hasanali Syed after over a year of legal battle. Syed, along with five others, was slapped with charges of causing hurt, criminal intimidation, extortion, wrongful confinement, etc. on a complaint filed by Ahmedabad-based businessman Viral Shah
Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik v. The Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8836/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to former Maharashtra Minister and NCP MLA Nawab Malik on medical grounds in a money laundering case for two months.
The interim order was passed by a division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Adverse Possession
Case Title: Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621
Supreme Court, in its recent decision, discussed several principles concerning adverse possession.
At the outset, the Court observed, “Possession must be open, clear, continuous, and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party; all three classic requirements must coexist- nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and knowledge.”
Case Title: Government of Kerala & Anr. V. Joseph and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621
The Supreme Court, while placing its reliance on the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) opined that when the disputed land, claimed by way of adverse possession, belongs to the government, the nature of inquiry by the Court must be more serious and effective.
“When the land subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has been claimed, belongs to the Government, the Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care, and circumspection as it may lead to Destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property.” the court said.
Case Title: Ashok Shewakramani V. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court recently held that under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed.
Case Title: Dev Gupta V. Pec University of Technology
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 9) held that the requirement of a minimum 75% in the qualifying examination imposed by the PEC (Punjab Engineering College) University of Technology for admission through the sports quota, i.e. 2% of the intake of students, was ‘discriminatory’ and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was of the view that the objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota.
Case title: Mohammad Wajid v. State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court observed that the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.
"An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter.", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Essential Ingredients Of Section 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code: Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
The Supreme Court recently held that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out under Section 506 (Punishment For Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
A division bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice J B Pardiwala observed: "A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant."
Case title: Shaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625
The Supreme Court observed that a Sessions Court has a duty to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder.
Case Title : Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Supreme Court released the judgment passed in relation to the Manipur ethnic violence on Thursday (August 10) late night. On Monday (August 7), a bench led by Chief Justice of India had indicated its plans to constitute a panel of three women judges to oversee the humanitarian works for the victims and to appoint officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes.
In its judgment, the Court has slammed the Manipur police investigation as "tardy" and expressed anguish at the sexual violence committed against women amidst the sectarian conflict.
Case Title : Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
In the judgment pronounced in the matter of Manipur violence, the Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the tardy pace of investigation by the Manipur police in the cases related to ethnic clashes. The Court highlighted that there was an unexplained delay between the occurrence of the crimes in early May 2023 and the registration of the FIRs and the recording of witness statements and making arrests have been few and far between.
Case Title: National Human Rights Commission And Ors. v.The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 16053/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the National Human Rights Commission challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgment which set aside the NHRC's decision to appoint its observers for the panchayat elections in the State of West Bengal
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP, finding that the interference by the NHRC undermined the ‘autonomy’ and ‘independence’ of the State Election Commission, even though the NHRC had ‘good intentions’.
Case title: Sathyan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627
While upholding a conviction under the Kerala Abkari Act, the Supreme Court observed that the testimonies of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined.
"The person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same", the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol observed
Case Title: Pradyuman Bisht v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to ensure safety within court premises in light of the recent incidents of gun firing within court premises in the National Capital, stressing on the need to 'preserve the sanctity of the court'. The Apex Court also said that the recent incidents of violence has 'disturbed it to no end'.
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta stressed on the need to take immediate measures stating that the safety and security of the stakeholders in the judicial process is 'non-negotiable.
S 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Supreme Court
Case title: Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629
The Supreme Court observed that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case.
"Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.", the bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed
Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. K. Pushpavanam And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (630)
The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that a writ court cannot mandate to the legislature to legislate on a particular subject.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol observed that it is not within the power of a writ court to direct the Government to introduce a particular bill in the legislature and that it can only recommend amendments or point out the necessity to bring about a new law.
Court Has No Power To Modify Award U/Sec 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
Case title: Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631
The Supreme Court reiterated that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award.
The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality, the bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said.
Case Title: M/ S. TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS v. THE UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
The Court held that for fair compensation under the said act, “it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate.”
Case Title: Devesh Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had made B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) degree holders ineligible for appointment to the post of primary school teachers.
The bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia opined that the fundamental right of primary education in India as guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution as well as the Right to Education Act, 2009 not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children
Case title: Mr Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet@Ranu Yadav Dokh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license of an advocate found guilty of professional misconduct. It was based on the findings in an inquiry by Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council that the advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him.
Electronics Shop Repairing & Servicing Electrical Goods Is “Factory” Under ESI Act: Supreme Court
Case title: M/S JP Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court recently held that the electronic goods shop which sells goods and repairs/services such goods can be said to be engaged in a “manufacturing process” using “power” as defined under ESI Act and Factories Act, 1948
The Court noted that “power” means where any electric energy is transmitted”. So, it was convinced that when electric energy is used for the repair of goods, it can be said to be using “power” as contemplated under the said Acts.
Case title: State of Haryana v Darshan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court recently set aside the directions issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding issuance of summons to prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial.
The High Court, in its order passed on May 27, 2022, had adopted the directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rambahor Saket and others vs State of M.P.(2018) and reiterated those guidelines
Case title: Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 006534 - / 2023
Upholding the fundamental right of a person to choose a life partner, the Supreme Court on Monday (August 28) overruled a Madras High Court judgment which held that the marriages performed in the offices of the Advocates are not valid as per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Case Title: HARISHANKAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS
Citation: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 35325/2023
In a temporary relief to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) degree holders in Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court recently stayed an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which excluded B.Ed candidates from the recruitment process for Assistant Teachers.
The High Court had passed the order relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 which held that B.Ed candidates are not eligible to be appointed as Primary School Teachers
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With P&H HC Stay On Wrestling Federation Of India Elections
Case: ANDHRA PRADESH AMATEUR WRESTLING ASSOCIATION v.HARYANA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION
Citation: Diary No. 33632-2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 29) refused to interfere with the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which stayed the elections of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).
Case title: Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Citation: SLP(C) No. 004268/ 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 28) imposed a cost of 2 lakh on the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (a state undertaking distributing electricity power in Uttar Pradesh) while dismissing its challenge to a Labour Court award passed for paying salary arrears to a workman.
The Court directed the corporation to pay the workman as sum of Rs.10,54,311/- towards salary arrears from 22.12.1995 till 21.09.2006 along with 11% interest till the date of payment. Further, the Corporation was asked to pay a cost of Rs 2 lakhs.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Selection Process Of ED Director
Case title: Common Cause v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 843/2023
The Supreme Court on August 25 refused to entertain a petition challenging the process of appointment of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Case Title: Lijesh M.J @ Lijeesh Mullezhath V. State of Kerala Represented by Director, Directorate of Culture & others
Citation: SLP (C) No. 18559/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J against the order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022. The Division Bench had upheld the order of dismissal by a single bench of the High Court that had found the plea to be 'frivolous'.
"No case to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is made out" a division bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice J B Pardiwala recorded while dismissing the appeal.
Case Details: Chinnam Sai Yasaswini & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 916 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the Telangana government’s newly introduced policy of 100 percent reservation for local candidates in 'competent authority quota' in medical colleges established after June 2014.
Registration Of FIR Mandatory If Information Discloses Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case title: Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court recently reinforced the obligatory nature of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the police received information pertaining to a cognizable offense.
Case title: Hind Offshore Pvt Ltd v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court recently held that in marine insurance, if the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness. It also observed that the mere knowledge of an insurer about a breach of warranty does not automatically equate to a waiver unless explicitly stated.
The Court held that an insured party seeking insurance coverage based on a Classification Certificate for a vessel must proactively bring any shortcomings or defects to the attention of the Classification Society before the certificate is issued. This is important as the insurance coverage is based on the assumption that the Classification Society has diligently assessed all aspects before issuing the certificate.
Case title: Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641
"To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. In as much as we do not find any merit in evidence to support the case of the prosecution that there was a suicide, thereby the statement recorded from LW25 itself shows that the deceased was ailing and therefore, not keeping in good health.", the court added.
Correctness Of Witness Statements Cannot Be Decided In Section 482 CrPC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case title: Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet while considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all, the bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed.
Case title: Palanisamy v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643
The Supreme Court ordered the release of a vegetable vendor who was convicted of possessing 43 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.10.
The court modified the sentence to the one already undergone while retaining the conviction.
Case Title: Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that no protection should be given to persons who secure public employment through false caste certificates. The Court set aside a judgment of the Orissa High Court which directed a public authority to consider reinstating an employee, who was found to have obtained employment in reserved post on the basis of a false certificate(Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors).
The Court held that it is immaterial whether the caste certificate was submitted fraudulently or due to a genuine mistaken belief. Intent is of no consequence.
Case title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645
The Supreme Court recently underlined the significance of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while dismissing a PIL which sought a direction to the Government of India to constitute a "Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India" to regulate media.
Can't Pass 'One Size Fits All' Direction For Page Limit On Petitions: Supreme Court
Case Title: Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand v. Secretary General SCI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 646
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to limit the pages in petitions filed in Court. While the Top Court said the concern of the Petitioner was ‘laudable’, the Court was of the view that it would not be proper to issue a ‘one size fits all’ direction.
The Apex Court disposed the plea leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Secretary General of the Supreme Court on any ‘concrete’ suggestions he may have for expeditious disposal of cases.
Case title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647
The Supreme Court recently set free a life convict, who despite being granted remission by Andhra Pradesh government, was not released on the ground that his sentence for a subsequent offence would start running from the date of remission(State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa).
The court noted that for an escaped convict, the second conviction starts only when he serves the remaining term of his previous conviction. But for a life convict, it's impossible to determine what was the remaining sentence.
The Court took into aid section 427(2) CrPC to hold that the second sentence would run concurrently with the previous life sentence. Therefore, the convict may be released upon grant of remission.
Case Title: SHREE NILKANTH DEVELOPERS v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648
A Division bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, discussed the objective and purpose behind setting up a Settlement Commission under the Income Tax Act 1961. The Court opined:
“We find that there is a real object and purpose of setting up of the Settlement Commission as an Assessee, who is given an opportunity to disclose the undisclosed income in order to seek benefit in the form of immunity from penalty and prosecution.
Case Title: Case Title: Asma Shaw v. The Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, Civil Appeal No.4951 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649
The Supreme Court recently directed the Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar under the University of Kashmir to give a Lecturer the benefit of pay protection holding that the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was wrong in holding that she was appointed against a short-term vacancy and not against a substantive post.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Denis Chem Lab Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court has ruled that in order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease.
The top court made the observation while ruling that the veterinary products ‘Calcium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ and ‘Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)’ manufactured by the assessee, M/s. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., fell under the description of “Intravenous Fluids”, and thus were eligible for exemption from excise duty
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: MA 1740/2023 in C.A. No. 4039/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the time granted to the Delhi Government to finalise the Delhi Motor Vehicle Aggregator and Delivery Service Provider Scheme, 2023 for regulation of two-wheeler aggregators till September 30th.
Case Title: News Broadcasters Association v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: Diary No. 10801-2021
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its concerns about the ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism set up by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), namely, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBSA).
While acknowledging the NBDA's stance against pre-censorship or post-censorship on news channels through the statutory mechanism, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stressed the necessity for an effective self-regulatory mechanism.
CJI Chandrachud questioned the adequacy of the existing penalties imposed by the NBDA, citing a need for proportional fines that reflect the profits earned from news channels by airing disputed news. The bench noted that the penalty for violations is Rupees 1 lakh, a figure which was set in 2008.
Case Title: Agnostos Theos V. Union Of India & Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 651
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the setting up of a National Internal Security Council to deal with organised crime in the country such as smuggling, interstate trafficking, cybercrimes and large-scale political violence.
The PIL also sought for all national and state-level investigation agencies to be brought under the control of such a body. The Apex Court dismissed the PIL on the ground that the reliefs sought for were in the nature of policy and in the domain of the legislature and hence the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be exercised for the same
Case Title: Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, held that: “The police have independent power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an offence. This power is not curtailed by the provisions of the 1960 Act (Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act).
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation
Case Title: Youth Bar Association of India v. Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(SC)653
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 14) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought for directions for mandatory pre-litigation mediation in certain matters such commercial cases, partition suits, probation petitions. The PIL had also sought for guidelines or a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to give effect to pre-litigation mediation.
The Court observed that provisions for pre-litigation conciliation and settlement already exist under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 also provides for pre-institution mediation and settlement and hence there was no requirement for the reliefs sought for to be entertained by the Court.
Case Title: HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. ASHISH JAIN & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654
While hearing a bunch of appeals, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal, held, "Public interest need not remain exclusively limited to ensuring maximum revenue accrual for the Government. Instead, public interest includes, without limiting itself to, a fair, transparent & stable process which any and all executive action must adhere to.”
Partition Can Also Be Effected Under A Settlement Or Oral Understanding: Supreme Court
Case title: H Vasanthi vs A. Santha (D)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655
The Supreme Court observed that a partition can also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding.
There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and SV Bhatti said.
Case Title: Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657
Last week, the Supreme Court sought the responses of the chief secretaries to the state governments of Meghalaya and Sikkim and the union territory administration of Ladakh with respect to their failure to establish regulatory authorities as well as appellate tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Responses have also been sought from the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and West Bengal, and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir for not establishing real estate appellate tribunals. These states have notified the rules and established regulatory authorities under the RERA.
The court has also issued notice to Nagaland, which is the only state to not have notified the rules under the Act yet.
Case title: Bhasker & Anr. v. Ayodhya Jewellers
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court recently referred a pertinent question of law for reconsideration by a larger bench. The court grappled with the question of determining the starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of CPC, 1908. These provisions relate to a situation where property of a person is sold through public auction to satisfy a decree passed by the court.
In the present case Bhasker & Anr. v. Ayodhya Jewellers, the Court referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattam Sardar Khan & Anr (1996) 5 SCC 48 which held that it is not necessary for auction purchaser to file sale certificate along with the application under Rule 95 of Order 21. But the Court disagreed with such interpretation since Rule 95 clearly states that unless a certificate of sale is granted under Rule 94 of Order XXI, the auction purchaser does not get a right to apply for delivery of possession by invoking Rule 95 of Order XXI
Case title: YP Lele vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Citation: 2023 INSC 732
The Supreme Court observed that, under explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court can record the presence of that party alone who has led evidence or substantial evidence and thereafter failed to appear.
"Under Order XVII Rule 2, the Court would proceed to pass orders with respect to any of the parties being absent or both the parties being absent. Whereas the explanation is confined to record the presence of that party and that party alone, which has led evidence or substantial evidence and has thereafter failed to appear.", the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.
Case Title: SECUNDRABAD CLUB ETC. v. C.I.T.-V ETC.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court has ruled that the interest income earned on fixed deposits (FDs) made by Clubs in the banks that are members of those Clubs has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on FDs made by Clubs in the banks irrespective of whether the banks are corporate members of the Club or not.
Case Title: DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP v. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, while hearing an appeal reiterated the trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions. The Court elucidated: “Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed.”
Pension | Past Service As Contractual Employee To Be Taken Into Account For Pension: Supreme Court
Case title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663
The Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of pension, past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. The court directed the state of Himachal Pradesh to finish the entire process within 3 months and issue orders fixing pensions for these employees engaged in education and ayurvedic department.
Case title: MALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3992-4000/2011
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, while hearing a bunch of appeals reiterated the established law that while determining the deduction for development charges, the courts should take into consideration important factors including the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of acquisition etc. This exercise is required for ascertaining the percentage of deduction by the Courts.
Case title: Kavita Yadav v. Secy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Citation: CA No-5010/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday(17 Aug) held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the employer to pay maternity benefits as would have been available in terms of Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and payment to be made within 3 months.
The court underlined that the statute itself envisions the continuation of benefits beyond the term of employment, asserting that entitlement to medical benefits, as stipulated under Section 5, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 goes beyond the confines of employment duration.
Case Title: Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) convicted Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case of 1995, reversing his acquittal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Patna High Court.
The Apex Court heavily criticized the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court in the case, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial. The Apex Court also said that the three main stakeholders in the criminal trial, i.e, the Investigating Officer, part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, failed miserably in performing their respective duties and responsibilities.
Case Title: Harendra Rai V. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court called the trial "shabby" and the investigation "tainted", which showed the "highhandedness of the accused-Respondent no.2, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party".
Case Title: Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No.1726 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
The Supreme Court held that the First Information Report (FIR) is a public document defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
The statement by an injured person recorded as FIR can be treated as a dying declaration and such a statement is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, the bench of Justices observed while convicting Prabhunath Singh, a former Member of Parliament.
Case title: Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
"While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of an obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Ramathal vs K Rajamani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666
In a judgment delivered on Thursday (17 August 2023), the Supreme Court explained the requirements for a successful plea of non-est factum.
A plea of non-est factum is a latin maxim that literally means “it is not the deed". It is a defense available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document that she/he may have executed/signed.
The court said that a plea of non-est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it.
Case title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667
The Supreme Court on Friday(Aug 18), passed an order relating to the appointment of support persons under the POCSO Act and their qualifications. The Court issued directions for framing guidelines on their appointment.
“A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child. This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings – in many ways a support person, acts as guardian ad litem for the child", the Court observed.
Case title: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668
The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract.
The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Bhole vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669
The Supreme Court observed that in a case involving 149 of the Indian Penal Code, a witness cannot be expected to speak with graphic detail about the specific overt act that can be attributed to each of the accused.
Case title: Ejike Jonas Orji vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670
Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners violates the constitutional principles of dignity and liberty, the Supreme Court observed while relaxing a bail condition imposed on a Nigerian accused.
The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal said that the liberty of an accused who is facing a prolonged trial deserves the attention of the Court.
Case title: T G Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 671
The Supreme Court reiterated that the principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India. It is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth, the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed while dismissing a criminal appeal.
Law Presumes Marriage When Man & Woman Cohabits For Long Time: Supreme Court
Case Title: Smt. Shirambai v. The Captain, Record Officer, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court recently observed that when a man and a woman have continuously cohabited for a long time, there is a presumption of marriage.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed: “Law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity.”
When Does An Order Become A Binding Precedent? Supreme Court Explains
Case title: Secunderabad Club vs CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) | 2023 INSC 736
The Supreme Court observed that its brief orders that are meant only for the purpose of closure of the controversy involved in a particular case and with a view to conclude the case, cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East vs Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673
The Supreme Court has recalled its Division Bench judgment dated 10 April 2023, where the top court had ruled that Duty-Free Shops situated in the arrival or departure terminals of Airports are outside the customs frontiers of India and therefore, they cannot be saddled with any indirect taxes like the Service Tax.
SC Order Dismissing An Appeal Without Any Reasons Cannot Be Treated As Precedent: Supreme Court
Case title: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674
The Supreme Court observed that its order dismissing an appeal without any reasons being recorded cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
Precedents cannot decide questions of fact, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan observed in the judgment
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. M/s 3I Infotech Ltd
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, while hearing appeals, held that “Assessee cannot be subjected to a penalty on the basis of a show cause notice containing a completely erroneous category of service.” Therefore, Court rendered the demand made on the basis of the said show cause notice illegal.
Case title: Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur(Dead) Thr Lrs.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The court held that “the observation made by NCDRC that the ventilator was connected belatedly is not justified. Therefore, the finding that there was a delay that led to negligence would not hold true. The adverse observations against the appellant doctor and hospital are set aside. Having taken note that the state commission had directed payment of 2 lakhs and since the said amount has already been paid, the matter is disposed of.”
Case Title: Manoj V. State of UP, SLP(Crl) No. 7696/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a contempt petition filed by an Advocate on Record against the Secretary-General and Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court for allegedly not listing a matter, despite the direction of the Court to do so. The Apex Court expressed its strong displeasure and called it a ‘browbeating tactic’ and an abuse of the process of law.
Case title: Pesala Nookaraju v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court clarified that the 3-month time limit prescribed by Article 22(4)(a) pertains to the period before the Advisory Board's report is obtained. Depending on the Board's opinion, the State Government, as per Section 12 of the Act, can either confirm the detention order, extend the detention for a maximum of twelve months as outlined in Section 13 of the Act, or release the detainee without delay.
The Court added, “Article 22(4)(a) applies at the initial stage of passing of the order of detention by the State Government or by an officer and not at the stage subsequent to the report of the Advisory Board”.
Case title: Moorthy v. State of TN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court recently held that while extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances.
Case title: Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The presumption of innocence is a human right, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside concurrent conviction in a 1995 murder case.
The court observed that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities.
"When this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence", the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Supreme Court has ruled that in case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors, the court has held.
The court said that the Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956
Case Title: Amrit Malik v. The Medical Counselling Committee and others
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) reiterated that students who take admission in All India Quota(AIQ) seats for Post Graduate medical courses cannot vacate the seats after the second round of counselling for AIQ seats in National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET).
The Court referred to the order passed in May 2017 in the case Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust v Medical Council of India in this regard.
Case Title: Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court recently held that under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale.
Case Title: Gohar Mohammed Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686
The Supreme Court recently criticized the 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance reports on directions issued by the Top Court for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court has allowed the Union Government to notify the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which has been constituted by the Supreme Court for overseeing matters related to forests, as a permanent body.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an application, filed in the main matter of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 Of 1995, allowed issuance of notification for constitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent body. The Bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case title: Mursaleen Tyagi v State of UP
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 000898/ 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 23) emphasized that bail with onerous conditions should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and not in ordinary matters. The bench asserted that pre-trial detention should only be employed when there is a clear threat to society or a genuine concern that the accused could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The court also referred to the case of Yashik Jindal v Union of India (2023) and held that a similar course needs to be adopted
Case Title: Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya
Citation: 2023 INSC 743
The Supreme Court in the judgment Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors has explained the concepts of 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer'.
Referring to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), the Court observed, “A deeming fiction was added in the negative that a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale”.
Supreme Court Acquits Convict On Death Row; Orders Immediate Release
Case Details: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted a death row prisoner convicted in the murder of his two brothers and own son.
This verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra after hearing the convict’s plea against the Allahabad High Court confirming the death sentence handed to him by a Uttar Pradesh sessions court in 2017. The Court ordered his immediate release from Bareilly Central Prison.
Case Title: Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, re-iterated the established position of law related to Section 100 of the CPC.
The Court observed that the provision clearly indicates that the first appellate court is the final court on questions of facts but only if there is any substantial question of law, a second appeal could be considered and raised by the High Court and such substantial question(s) of law ought to be answered. The bench comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Title: Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court recently held that a revision petition must be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or the party’s counsel, in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.
The Court referred to the ruling in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar,(2007) 7 SCC 623 wherein it was held that a criminal appeal must not be dismissed for default and held that this rule would also apply to criminal revisions.
Case title: Smt Dulu Deka v. State of Assam
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691
In a case pertaining to an Assistant teacher claiming the release of her unpaid salary from 2001 onwards, the Supreme Court recently held that once the appointment has been declared illegal and void ab initio by the Director of elementary education in Assam in 2001, continuing in service becomes untenable in the absence of challenge to the cancellation order.
The Court held that the failure to contest the cancellation order bars the appellant from claiming a legal right to continue in service and consequent salary claims.
Case title: Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court recently held that the age of superannuation for employees is determined solely by statutory rules. It held that even if two job positions share similar tasks, this similarity does not warrant altering an employee's service conditions(Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das).
The Supreme Court held, “The age of superannuation is always governed by the statutory rules governing appointment on a particular post. Hence, even if it is averred that the nature of work involved in the two posts is similar, the same cannot be a ground to increase or alter the service conditions of an employee as each post is governed by its own set of rules.”
Case Title: M/s S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693
The Supreme Court, while restoring an arbitral award passed in 1997 which was set aside by the Trial Court and the High Court under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has emphasised that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not.
The Court while restoring the arbitral award said, “The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate review, which is impermissible in law and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”
Case title: Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court observed that the owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents.
The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation, the bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan observed in Om Gurusai Construction Company vs V.N. Reddy.
Case title: Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque case against a partner of the firm cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that he/she did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques.
Case Details: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, while acquitting a death row prisoner, reiterated that ‘great caution’ must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements. The court held –
“It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.
Antilia Bomb Scare Case | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Mumbai Police Officer Pradeep Sharma
Case Title: Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5764 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to former ‘encounter specialist’ Pradeep Sharma, an accused in the Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder cases.
After reserving the verdict last week, it was delivered today by a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha after hearing Sharma’s bail plea challenging a decision of the Bombay High Court to deny him bail in January of this year.
Case title: Odi Jerang vs Nabajyoti Baruah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court observed that the procedure under Section 202(1) CrPC is mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
"There cannot be any doubt that in view of the use of word "shall" in sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC and the object of amendment made by the Act No. 25 of 2005, the provision will have to be held as mandatory in a case where the accused is residing at a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate” the court observed.
Case title: Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of the Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same, the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India - Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court held that a dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. In appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar observed that the awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly.
Case title: Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act is not mandatory.
"It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit", the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed.
Case title: Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Ltd vs Oneup Entertainment
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cheque cases, the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant can be permitted to be taken on affidavit.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal noted the following guideline issued by the Constitution Bench in the case of "In Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881":
"For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses."
Case Title: Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal challenging the grant of bail to the accused in a gang rape case, observed:
“The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of यत ननायर्यस्तत पपूज्यन्तत रमन्तत तत दतवतनाताः (where women are respected Gods live there) would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law.
Case title: CBI v. Narottam Dhakad
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
The Supreme Court held that a charge sheet filed in a language other than the language of the Court or the language that the accused does not understand is not illegal.
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed that if both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet.
Case Title: Dr Prakasan MP and others v. State of Kerala and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708; 2023 INSC 772
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by a group of teachers in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala seeking an increase of their retirement age from 55 years to 60 years at par with the teachers of other Medical Colleges.
The bench explained that "the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government".
"It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges...", the judgment authored by Justice Kohli said.
Case Title: Drakshayanamma and ors vs Girish and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court recently cautioned against filing of bulky synopses in matters before it. The Apex Court made the observation while considering a Special Leave Petition against an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The Top Court expressed its disappointment that the order of the High Court that was being challenged only consisted of 6 pages, while the synopsis of the SLP was more than 60 pages. Additionally, the Apex Court also noted that the order of the trial court that was challenged before the High Court contained only 10 pages.
Case title: Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. The Chairman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court recently applied the doctrine of harmonious construction in a case related to ambiguity in consent terms between parties recorded by the High Court in relation to an award in a land acquisition matter.
"As per the rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, the document has to be read as a whole and in its totality. If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of the clauses of the document, the courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with the other clauses and with the purpose and intent of the parties executing it", the Court observed.
Case Title: Smt. Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition by treating the decree for possession as inexecutable, merely on the basis that the property has been lost to a third party/encroacher.
“If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder’s right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed,” the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.
Case Title: Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Of Orissa v. Late Surgeon Vice Admiral Gp Panda Through His Legal Heirs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court recently upheld the judgment by the Orissa High Court in a land dispute involving the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO) and the heirs of a late Surgeon Vice Admiral
A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti while dismissing the appeal held that the High Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
“The serious objection of the State against impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, we consider that the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected” the Apex Court said.
Case title: State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714
In a case related to “suppression of material information” about a pending criminal case by a candidate, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial aspect of specificity when seeking information from candidates during the verification process.
It reiterated the principle laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 held that- “For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases, action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.”
Case title: Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717
The Supreme Court recently pronounced a notable judgment explaining the factors which a Government should take into account while deciding to grant remission of sentence to convicts as per Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The government should also take into account factors such as age, health, familial relationships, reintegration possibilities, extent of earned remission, and post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being.
The Court suggested that the government could also benefit from a report prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting with the convict. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the individual's post-conviction development, rehabilitation efforts, and potential for reintegration into society.
Case title: S K Khaja v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court observed that a conviction of an accused under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) can be sustained even if the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature.
What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused, the bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta said.
Case Title: XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to cancel the bail of Jitendra Narain, former chief secretary of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar, who, along with other top government officials, has been accused by a 21-year-old of gang-raping her.
Case title: State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719
The Supreme Court recently held that the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings depends on the specific nature of the charge leveled against the respondent and the explanation they provide.
It observed “It is well settled that, in a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation”.
Case: M Sivadasan (Dead) through LRs v. A.Soudamini (Dead) through LRs and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721
The Supreme Court has reiterated that for a Hindu female to claim rights under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, she has to be in possession of the property.
Section 14 states that the property of a female Hindu will be her absolute property. "Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner", Section 14(1) says.
Case Title: Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner V. M/S G4s Security Services (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722
The Supreme dismissed an appeal by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner against an order of a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that when the term ‘basic wage’ has been described under Section 2(b) of the Employee Provident Fund Act 1952, there is no need to make a reference to definition of ‘minimum rate of wages’ under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to give it a more expansive meaning.
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 Powers To Reinstate English Lecturer In College
Case Title: Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors., 2023INSC775
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 723
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal challenging Bombay High Court order, invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to reinstate the appellant to the post of lecturer in English.
“Therefore, for doing substantial justice this is a fit case where we should invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to continue her appointment on full-time basis.
Case title: Mina Pun v. State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Supreme Court observed that if the accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, it is a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: National Commission For Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726
The Supreme Court recently deprecated the practice of directing admission to educational institutions by way of interim orders, while considering a Special Leave Petition against an interim order of the Gujarat High Court that had directed the National Commission For Homeopathy to admit students in vacant seats of the Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal, an association of self-financed homeopathy colleges in Gujarat, until disposal of the writ petition.
Case title: Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of GujaratCitation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2495 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728
In a recent order, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at an order passed by the Gujarat High Court granting bail to an accused in a murder case on the basis of a 'settlement' between him and the original complainant(son of the deceased victim).
The Court raised questions about the appropriateness of allowing personal settlements in serious criminal cases of such magnitude and the implications of granting bail based on an individual's lack of prior convictions for serious offenses.
Case Title: U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Kerala High Court suspending the conviction of Lok Sabha MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case and asked the High Court to take a fresh decision within six weeks.
Even while remitting the matter to the high court, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the benefit of the suspension of conviction will continue till the high court disposes of the application, enabling the Nationalist Congress Party leader to continue as a Member of Parliament (MP) representing Lakshadweep.
Case Title: Yash Tuteja and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
ED (Directorate of Enforcement) cannot be a law unto itself, orally observed the Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) while extending the interim protection from coercive action to certain Chattisgarh government officials in the UP Police FIR over alleged making of duplicate holograms in connection with the liquor scam case.
Case Title: Amrit Malik v. Medical Counseling Committee
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.121/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to a disabled student and lowered her penalty of Rs 15 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs after she withdrew her admission from a PG Medical course seat in Tamil Nadu. The plea was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No. 33790 - 2023
Forcing a woman to have a child conceived as a result of rape is against our constitutional philosophy, the Supreme Court observed on Monday, while allowing a plea for termination of pregnancy by a 25-year-old rape survivor. Noting that such pregnancy affected the physical and mental health of the woman, the court set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court that had earlier dismissed the survivor's petition for a medical termination of pregnancy.
Woman Alone Has Right Over Her Body; She's The Ultimate Decision Maker On Abortion : Supreme Court
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No. 33790 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday has reiterated that a woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. This observation was made by the court while allowing a plea for termination of pregnancy by a 25-year-old rape survivor.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. St. Stephen's College & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17344 of 2023
In a major relief to Delhi's St Stephen's College, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Delhi University and University Grant Commission’s pleas against the college adopting an 85-15 formula for minority applicants, with the university’s Common University Entrance Test (CUET) contributing 85 percent to the overall score considered at the time of admission and the rest 15% counted on the basis of performance in interviews.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 22) set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order allowing badminton players to participate in tournaments unrecognised by the Badminton Association of India (BAI). Allowing an appeal filed by the BAI, the Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta asked the High Court to reconsider the matter.
The Supreme Court observed that the ex-parte interim order passed by the High Court was in the teeth of the Apex Court’s judgment in Devraj v. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (civil) 2084 of 2004 where it was held that relief in the nature of final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage unless a very strong prima facie case is established.
Case Title: Sreeram Venkittaraman v. State of Kerala
Citation: Diary No.- 27504 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(August 25) dismissed Kerala IAS officer Sreeram Venkittaraman’s petition challenging the Kerala High Court’s order which resorted culpable homicide charge against him in the 2019 drunken driving case that led to the killing of a journalist named KM Basheer.
A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar refused to interfere with the High Court’s order. The bench however clarified that the observations made by the High Court are limited only to the criminal revision and won’t prejudice the trial.
Case title: Aditi Trivedi v. UPSC
Case No: W.P. C. No. 878/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(Aug 22) granted permission for the withdrawal of a petition that sought publication of the answer key and cutoff marks for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2023. The decision comes in light of the fact that a similar issue is already under consideration by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court had reserved its decision on the matter on 2nd August 2023.
Case Title: S. VE. SHEKHER V. AI GOPALSAMY
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9522- 9525/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court that refused to quash a batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists.
The cases were registered after Sheker had allegedly forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018. The High Court had said that persons forwarding social media messages are liable for its contents
NEWS UPDATES
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5442 of 2023
The Supreme Court granted a one-time modification of a bail condition preventing Islamic scholar Kaleem Siddiqui from leaving the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi on account of his brother’s death, allowing him to travel to his native village in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: State Of Andhra Pradesh V. Play Games 24 And 7 Private Limited, SLP(C) No. 19057-19059/2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Andhra Pradesh High Court to consider afresh issues relating to online rummy in light of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 notified by the Central Government.
The Supreme Court on Friday (25.08.2023) permitted former Member of Parliament (MP) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Prabhunath Singh who was convicted in a double murder case of 1995 by the Apex Court on 18th August 2023 to appear virtually to be heard on the question of his sentence.
In its judgment dated 18th August, the Court had directed Singh be produced before the Court on 01.09.2023 by the Secretary, Department of Home, State of Bihar and the Director General of Police, Bihar. However, on an application by Singh, the order was modified.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Attorney General for India to look into decision of Jammu and Kashmir Education Department to suspend a lecturer, who had argued in the Article 370 matter before the Constitution Bench last week.
Prison Reforms : Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre, States On Suggestions Of SC-Committee
The Supreme Court on Tuesday took on record the report submitted by the Supreme Court Committee on prison reforms and sought the responses of the Union Government and all State Governments.
The Court said that it should be assisted on the issues of women and children in detention, transgender prisoners, and death row convicts on the next date of hearing. The Court also noted that there are other issues like availability of medical facilities to inmate in jails, vocational training, availability of IT, and infrastructure in jail premises for assisting visitation rights.
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1898 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of a plea by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking to be discharged in a criminal case arising out of his controversial ‘Khuda believers’ remark, granting him four weeks' file to file a rejoinder to the State's counter-affidavit.
The Supreme Court, on the eleventh day(August 28) of the Constitution Bench proceedings in the Article 370 pleas, asked the Union Government if the action of downgrading the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory was really consistent with the federal doctrine.
In a significant development during the twelfth day of the Constitution Bench hearing in the Article 370 case, the Supreme Court asked the Union Government to provide a time-frame or roadmap for the restoration of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
The Supreme Court disposed of a plea against a recent demolition drive carried out by railway authorities near the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura on Monday. While it declined a request to grant interim protection by extending an earlier status quo order, a three-judge bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti permitted the residents sought to be evicted to approach the local court currently hearing a suit over the ownership of the disputed land.
Case Title:Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004
The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the consideration of the Centre’s plea for the withdrawal of an oral undertaking made to the court in November last year pledging to maintain the status quo on the release of genetically modified (GM) mustard. This undertaking was made before a bench headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari who has since retired. The central government's recent application will be heard on September 26.
On the eleventh day of the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court orally remarked that Article 35A, which provided special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), had the effect of taking away three fundamental rights of Indian citizens, namely, Article 16(1) (equality of opportunity for employment under the State), erstwhile Article 19(1)(f) (right to acquire immovable property, which is now provided under Article 300A) and Article 19(1)(e) (right to reside and settle in any part of India)
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The Central Government has filed a fresh affidavit in the Bihar caste survey case withdrawing the earlier affidavit which said "No other body under the Constitution or otherwise is entitled to conduct the exercise of either census or any action akin to census".
In a second affidavit filed today evening, the Centre said that the above paragraph had "inadvertently crept in".
The Supreme Court today ruled that advocates, being officers of the court, should abstain from undertaking or volunteering to solemnize 'self-respect marriages' as per Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (as applicable to State of Tamil Nadu) in their professional capacity. However, they may stand as witnesses for marriages in their personal capacities as friends or relatives.
Can Accused Seek Default Bail If Chargesheet Filed Is Incomplete? Supreme Court Seeks CBI's View
Case title: Yatin Yadav v. UT of J&K
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10107/2023
The Supreme Court recently faced an intriguing question as to whether an incomplete chargesheet would entitle an accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if cognisance could be taken based on it.
This question arose in a case where although the chargesheet was filed within 60 days as per section 167 CrPC, the petitioner sought default bail contending that an incomplete charge sheet should not serve as the basis for taking cognizance. This contention was rejected by both the trial court and the High Court.
The Central Government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it cannot give an exact timeline for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. At the same time, it clarified that the Union Territory status of J&K will be temporary.
"I am unable to give an exact time period for complete statehood, while saying UT status is a temporary status", Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a Constitution Bench which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the repeal of J&K's special status.
Jaising reveals that she has not only faced micro-aggressions, but has on occasion also been asked by male colleagues to not raise her voice in court, despite aggression being a cherished trait in top male lawyers of the country.
As the bench was about to rise, the CJI articulated : "One last word - the wide chasm between absolute autonomy as it existed on 26 January 1950 and complete integration as brought on 5 August 2019 - that chasm had been substantially bridged by what had happened in between. In that sense, it was not a complete migration from absolute autonomy to absolute integration. It is obvious that a substantial degree of integration had already taken place between 1950-2019- in 69 years. And therefore what was done in 2019, was it really a logical step forward to achieve that integration?"
Supreme Court Bar Association Condemns Police Violence Against Advocates In Uttar Pradesh's Hapur
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in a resolution passed today (30.08.2023) strongly condemned the violent and 'inhumane' treatment meted out by the police to protesting advocates in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
"..women advocates were also not spared from the brutality. The lathi charge on the advocates, who were protesting peacefully against the alleged high-handedness of the police, is a clear violation of their rights and the rule of law." the resolution reads.
Case Title: UGC v. Priya Varghese
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15816/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on the appeal filed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) against the order of the Kerala High Court that allowed the appointment of Priya Varghese as Associate Professor at Kannur University, treating the period spent by her to pursue her PhD to be counted as teaching experience. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Case Title: Manik Bhattacharya V. Anupam Pal & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 29780/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed two orders of the Calcutta High Court that had directed a fresh probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Trinamool Congress MLA Manik Bhattacharya, former director of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, in connection with the teacher's appointment scam.
A Division Bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar granted relief to Bhattacharya after the unlisted matter was taken up today following an urgent request made by the petitioner before the Chief Justice
Kuno Cheetah Deaths| Mortalities Troubling But Not ‘Unduly Alarming’: Centre To Supreme Court
Case Title: Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995
In the wake of recent deaths of Cheetahs translocated to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park from the African continent, the Centre has informed the Supreme Court that even though the mortalities among the introduced cheetah population are troubling, they are not ‘unduly alarming
“ the general scientific awareness is that being an integral part of the ecosystem, cheetahs in general have low survival rates, I,e around 50% in adults even in non-introduced populations. In the case of introduced population the survival rates are even much lower taking other variables into account which may lead to about 10% survival in cubs, and thus, mortalities though troubling and in need to redressal and curtailment are not unduly alarming.” the affidavit states.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Regarding Gender Imbalance In Judge Advocate General's Recruitment
Case: Arshnoor Kaur and another v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 772/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a writ petition which raised the grievance that lesser number of vacancies are earmarked for women in the posts of Judge Advocate General(JAG).
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcements vs Preeti Chandra
Citation: SLPR 7409/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the Delhi High Court order which had granted bail to Preeti Chandra, the wife of Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra, in a money laundering case probed by Enforcement Directorate. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order and directed Chandra to not leave the NCR region and report once every two weeks to the Investigating Officer.
Case Title: Union of India v. M Mohamed Abbas
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 9384/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order of the Madras High Court granting bail to Mohammad Abbas, a Madurai based lawyer who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for his alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, today issued notice in the plea filed by the NIA challenging the High Court order and posted the matter to 12th September
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing In Karnataka Muslim OBC Quota Case By 4 Weeks
Case Title: L Ghulam Rasool v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing of the petition challenging the Karnataka government’s order scrapping an almost three-decade-old four per cent reservation provided to Muslims in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the state. The Karnataka Government had scrapped the 4% reservation and distributed the same equally among the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas at 2% each.
The matter was listed before the division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti today. The request for adjournment was made by both the State of Karnataka and the petitioners. The matter has been listed after 4 weeks.
'Police Sensitisation Required': Supreme Court Calls For Enduring Solution To Hate Speeches
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Interlocutory Application No. 149401 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a call to action to stakeholders to find an enduring solution to the problem of hate speech. Highlighting that the difficulty lay in implementing and executing the law on hate speech, Justice Sanjiv Khanna suggested appropriately sensitising the police forces to ensure that victims of hate speech could access meaningful remedies without having to come to the court. He said:
"Why don't you all sit down together and find a solution? One difficulty is...The definition of 'hate speech' is fairly complex...and how to understand 'hate speech' within the parameters of free speech. We have enough definitions in several judgments. That's one issue. But the main problem is not the definition, but the implementation and execution aspects. You will have to think about that. The police forces needed to be sensitised in order for these matters to be resolved."
Case: Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 669/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Jayant Nath as the Chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) on a pro-tem basis.
In the last hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor could not agree on a name for the appointment of Chairperson of the DERC. In view of this deadlock, the Supreme Court had said that it would appoint a person for the post as an ad-hoc measure till the issue is finally decided. The Court had made it clear that the appointment will be on a pro-tem basis, as in, it would act as an interim arrangement.
Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till September 4 the bail applications to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia who is facing charges of money laundering and corruption for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has been in custody since February of this year and is being investigated by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Case title: Admiral D.K. Joshi LT. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Island v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibagh Mazdoor Sangh
Citation: Civil Appeal Diary No. 31341/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order passed by the Calcutta High Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench which suspended Keshav Chandra, the Chief Secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, and fined Admiral D.K. Joshi, the Lt. Governor, a sum of Rs 5 lakh to be paid “from his own funds” for not implementing directions.
Case Title: Shah Faesal And Ors. v Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1099/2019 PIL-W and connected matter
In today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Article 370 was no longer a 'temporary provision' and that it had assumed permanence post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of J&K.
The bench enquired why then would Article 370 be placed as a temporary provision under Part XXI of the Constitution, to which Sibal responded that the Constitution makers foresaw the formation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K, and it was understood that this Assembly would have the authority to determine the future course of Article 370.
Thus, in the event of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, whose recommendation was necessary to abrogate Article 370, the provision could not be revoked
Case Title: Shah Faesal And Ors. v Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1099/2019 PIL-W and connected matters
In today's proceedings on the dilution of Article 370, Senior Advocate Kapil, appearing for NCP MP Mohammad Akbar Lone, argued that the Governor of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Government acted in tandem to get rid of Article 370. He stated that the abrogation of the article was a purely political act carried de hors the Constitution.
Case Details-Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023
Congress leader and former MP Rahul Gandhi, in his latest affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in his plea to stay the conviction in the criminal defamation case, has asserted that there is no need for him to apologise for the "why all thieves share Modi surname" remark.
"The petitioner maintains and has always maintained that he is not guilty of offence and that the conviction is unsustainable and if he had to apologise and compound the offence, he would have done it much earlier", Gandhi said in response to the complainant calling him "arrogant" for not showing repentance and apologizing for the remark.
Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India
Citation: WP Civil No. 940/2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged the authorities to ensure that no violence or hate speeches take place in the protest marches being held by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal in various parts of Delhi-National Capital Region today in the wake of the communal violence in Nuh and Gurugram in Haryana.
In a special sitting held at 2 PM to hear an urgent application filed to stop the VHP-Bajrang Dal rallies in Delhi-NCR, the Court asked the Delhi Police, and the Governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to ensure that no untoward incident takes place in the rallies. The Court also directed the authorities to video record the rallies in sensitive areas and preserve the footages.
Plea In Supreme Court To Stop VHP-Bajrang Dal Rallies In Delhi-NCR Following Nuh Communal Violence
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh told Justice Bose that twenty-seven marches have been announced by VHP-Bajrang Dal in various parts of the National Capital Region to protest against the happenings in Nuh. Justice Bose however expressed doubts regarding whether he has the authority to entertain the mentioning for the listing of the IA and asked Singh to get a confirmation regarding this.
Following this, Singh appeared before the CJI's bench, which was about to start the hearing in the Constitution Bench matter.
"There is a provision in the latest SoP, circulate an email. However urgent something is, once the mentioning is not available or mentioning is over, the email will be put up by the Registrar (Listing) and I pass immediate orders on listing. Just read the SoP. It has everything in in it.", CJI replied
‘ED Has No Vested Right to Seek Police Custody’: Mukul Rohatgi Argues in Senthil Balaji’s Case
Case Details: Megala v. The State
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8652-8653 of 2023
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has no vested right to take an accused into police custody, even within the first 15 days when the magistrate’s permission must be sought for that, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. He said:
“After the expiry of the initial 15 days, further remand during the period of investigation can only be in judicial custody. While in the first 15 days, custody may either be police or judicial, but after this period elapses, only one compartment will be available, which is that of judicial custody. But, even in the first 15-day period, there is no vested right to seek police custody. This, too, requires the magistrate’s permission.”
Should ED Be Granted Hearing Before Predicate Offence Is Quashed? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Title: ED v. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited
Citation: Diary No 26629/2022
Whether the Enforcement Directorate should be granted a hearing before a predicate offense is quashed? The Supreme Court is set to consider this issue.
The Court said that this issue raised by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju is "pertinent".
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta was hearing a plea by ED against Bombay HC judgment which quashed the FIR against India Bulls Housing Finance Limited Company(respondent).
Manipur Violence: Supreme Court Mulls Forming Committee Comprising Former HC Judges
While hearing the batch of petitions concerning Manipur violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday contemplated the formation of a committee consisting of former judges of the High Court to make an overall assessment of situation, rehabilitation, restoration of homes and to ensure that the pre-investigation processes relating to recording of statements go in the proper way.
During the hearings, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed concerns about the "lethargic" and "tardy" investigation conducted by the state police thus far.
Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei and others
Citation: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.19206/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the investigation carried out by the Manipur police in relation to the ethnic violence as "lethargic" and went to the extent of saying that there is "absolute breakdown of law and order and machinery of the State".
The Court was aghast to note that FIRs were not registered for nearly three months after the occurrences and only a few arrests have been made so far in the 6000 FIRs registered over the violence. The Court directed the Manipur Director General of Police to be personally present before the Court on Monday (August 7) at 2 PM.
Case Title: Mayanglambam Bobby Meetei v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 23183-2023 PIL
On Monday(July 31), the Supreme Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relating to Manipur observing that the petition was filed with an assumption that one particular community has to be held liable for the ethnic violence.
The bench, consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, expressed reservations about the plea's broad nature and its assumption that a specific community was solely responsible for the violence in Manipur. The court suggested the petitioner to come back with a specific prayer. The PIL was accordingly withdrawn.
Case title: Medical Officers Association (Ayurveda) State Of Gujarat v. Union Of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 723/2023
Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall/review of its judgment which held that Ayurved doctors are not entitled to equal pay as Allopathy doctors.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta on Monday noted that the author of the judgment, Justice V Ramasubramanian, has retired and that the matter has to be listed before a bench which has Justice Pankaj Mithal, the other member of the bench which delivered judgment. Therefore, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders regarding listing.
Case Title: Uddhav Thackeray v. Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde And Anr.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 3997/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that it will list the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI) which recognized Eknath Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena after the Constitution Bench concluded the hearings in the petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. The court also orally agreed to list the plea filed by the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) party MP Sunil Prabhu seeking direction to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to expeditiously decide on the disqualification pleas pending against rebel Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde
Manipur Sexual Violence: Supreme Court Asks CBI To Refrain From Recording Statements Of Survivors
The Supreme Court on Tuesday restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from taking statements of the survivors of the Manipur sexual violence case which was recorded in a horrific video that went viral on social media.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally told the Solicitor General to ask the CBI to wait since the Court is scheduled to hear at 2 PM today the cases related to Manipur. The Court is contemplating setting up a panel to record the statements of the survivors and is going to consider the plea for a Special Investigation Team.
In the batch of petitions concerning unprecedented sexual violence against women in Manipur amidst the ethnic clashes in the State, women centric citizens' network groups have filed intervention applications seeking for the formation of independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the violence under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
WinG-India has also contended that there is a deliberate omission by the police to invoke Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, which specifically defines the offence of rape during sectarian violence. Further, it is stated that the relevant sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act were also not invoked in the FIRs
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Moitra, highlighted the trauma that women have gone through and suggested that women, who have experience in dealing with victims of sexual violence amidst riots, be asked to interact with the victims. Jaising emphasized the importance of building confidence among rape victims, as they often hesitate to share their traumatic experiences.
She proposed the formation of a High Powered Committee consisting of women from civil societies who possess relevant experience in dealing with survivors.
The application adds– "The most shocking, is that after the graphic incident that occurred on May 4, even the chief minister has admitted that there are hundreds of such cases throughout the state. The CM has admitted that the incident occurred and that zero FIRs have been lodged.
Case Details: Bina Das @ Bina Halder v. Kakdwip Court Bar Association & Ors.
Citation: Dairy No. 21236 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a plea by a woman lawyer accusing a district bar association in West Bengal’s Kakdwip of arbitrarily terminating her membership and harassing her by, among other things, not allowing her to use the toilet and other facilities in the court premises.
Case Details: Govind Singh v. Jyotiraditya M Scindia & Ors
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15745 of 2023
Madhya Pradesh leader of opposition Govind Singh has withdrawn a petition filed in the Supreme Court over the validity of the election to the Rajya Sabha of union civil aviation minister Jyotiraditya M. Scindia. Earlier this month, the top court had dismissed another plea questioning the issues framed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a petition challenging Scindia’s election to the Parliament in 2020.
'Manipur Violence Is Of Unprecedented Magnitude': Supreme Court On 'What About Bengal' Argument
Case Title: X And Anr. v. The State Of Manipur And Anr
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 327/2023
In the Manipur case hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court disapproved of an attempt made by an intervenor to draw equivalence with crimes against women happening in other parts of the country. The Court highlighted that the violence in Manipur are of an "unprecedented magnitude", happening in the middle of "communal and sectarian strife
Case Title: UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION V. PRIYA VARGHESE
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15816/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on the petition filed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) against the order of the Kerala High Court that allowed the appointment of Priya Varghese as Associate Professor at Kannur University, treating the period spent by her to pursue her PhD to be counted as teaching experience. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, before proceeding with the usual court proceedings today, addressed the concerns raised by bar members regarding the delayed generation of diary numbers for matters which are e-filed. He announced that measures have been implemented to ensure the timely generation of diary numbers, reducing the process to 15 minutes from the time of matter filing. Furthermore, the CJI stated that the system was being further expedited to generate diary numbers immediately upon filing.
Case title: Vimlok Tiwari & Ors v. UPSC
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 705/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by 3 civil service aspirants who contended that they were denied reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category due to a clerical error made in the Certificate by the competent authority.
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Action Against Calls Made For Social & Economic Boycott Of Muslims
A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking action against the calls made by several groups, following Nuh-Gurugram communal violence, for the social and economic boycott of Muslims.
The plea seeks action against police officers who participated in those rallies and meetings for failure to prevent hate speeches. The applicant further seeks directions to the concerned State police to explain the action taken by them against hate speeches.
Supreme Court Dismisses TN Minister Senthil Balaji's Plea Challenging ED Custody
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging the custody by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case. The Court allowed the Directorate of Enforcement to have Balaji's custody till August 12 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam.
Case: Pranesh Rajamanickam vs Union of India and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 687/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking judicial probe into the alleged voice clips of Tamil Nadu Minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan in which he had allegedly made remarks about the amassing of wealth by the family of TN Chief Minister MK Stalin.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud termed the petition as "bogus" and said that the Court cannot be made into a "political platform".
The Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a notification restoring the membership of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in view of the Supreme Court's August 4 order suspending his conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark. The Top Court's order had paved the way for his reinstatement as a Lok Sabha MP.
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 30965 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday adjourned the hearing of a petition filed by non-governmental organisation 'Ek Soch Ek Prayas' against the decision of the Patna High Court to uphold the Bihar government's caste-based survey. This verdict was delivered by a division bench of the high court, which rejected the contention that an attempt to collect data on the basis of caste amounted to a census and held the exercise to be "perfectly valid initiated with due competence". Other petitions have also been filed challenging the high court's decision.
Case Title: GO AIRLINES INDIA LIMITED v. SMBC AVIATION CAPITAL LIMITED
Citation: SLP(C) No. 16762-16769/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the appeal filed by the Resolution Professional of Go Airlines India Ltd against the Delhi High Court order which had permitted various lessors to carry out inspection and interim maintenance tasks of their aircrafts, which are currently on lease with crisis-hit Go First airline
Do the men convicted for brutally gang-raping Bilkis Bano and killing her entire family in front of her eyes deserve the leniency they have been accorded, Advocate Shobha Gupta asked the Supreme Court of India on Monday, while arguing that the punishment befalling the convicts ought to be proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime committed by them
Case title: Tragedy Victim Association Morbi v. State of Gujarat
Citation: SLP Criminal Diary No. 27055/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed challenging the bail granted by the Gujarat High Court to Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Topia, who was the ticket issuing person at the Morbi bridge on the day it collapsed on October 30 last year resulting in the death of around 135 persons.
Case Details: Common Cause v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 291 of 2021
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 7) disposed of as infructuous a plea by the non-governmental organisation ‘Common Cause’ against the appointment of Praveen Sinha as an interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2021 after the expiry of the previous incumbent, Rishi Kumar Shukla.
Case Title: Sathyan Naravoor v Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 1353/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the 2021 Kerala High Court Judgment that had quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against Dr. Jacob Thomas, Former Director General of Police of Kerala in the dredger scam case in which he has been accused of engaging in tender rigging.
The CJI said– "In a constitutional democracy, seeking the opinion of people has to be through established institutions. So long as democracy exists, any recourse of will of people has to be expressed by established constitution. So you cannot envisage a Brexit type referendum. That's a political decision that was taken by the then government. But within a constitution like ours, there is no question of a referendum.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
While hearing the Bilkis Bano case on Tuesday, the Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by one of the convicts in 2022, in which the Court had passed an order allowing the State of Gujarat to decide on the premature release of the life-convicts.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for the petitioners, contended that the manner in which the Centre abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be justified "unless a new jurisprudence comes to light that they can do whatever they like as long as they have majority".
In this context, Sibal further said, "now one of your esteemed colleagues has said that in fact basic structure theory is also doubtful".
Responding to Sibal, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, after taking a moment's pause, said, "Mr Sibal, when you refer to a colleague, you have to refer to a sitting colleague. Once we cease to be judges, whatever we say, they're opinions, they are not binding".
Case Title: Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court on Monday closed the plea regarding the deaths of Cheetahs translocated to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park from the African continent, taking on record the submission of the Centre that all the members on the Consulting Panel of Cheetah Project Steering Committee are being consulted to carry on the project in a proper manner and to ensure further deaths are prevented. However, the Apex Court orally stated that the number of deaths recorded so far is not low.
Case title: M/s Bhaskar Raju v. M/s Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur
Citation: Curative Petition (Civil) No 44 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently listed a curative petition against its 2020 ruling that had held that an arbitration clause in an insufficiently stamped agreement cannot be acted upon by the court, for open court hearing on 24th August 2023.
Supreme Court Bar Association Raises Concerns Over New Mentioning Procedure In Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has penned a letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India, outlining significant concerns regarding the process of mentioning, filing, and listing of matters before the country's apex court.
The SCBA states that earlier miscellaneous fresh matters for hearing were mentioned before CJI immediately after receiving the diary number of the case. But as per the new circular dated 28th June, 2023, the mentioning is only permitted once verification is done.
Case Title: M. G. Devasahayam v. Union of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1253/2021
After the Election Commission of India affirmed that the names of voters will not be deleted from the electoral rolls without giving them prior notice, the Supreme Court recently disposed of a PIL which challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Allowing third parties to challenge remission orders in a public interest litigation would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ by opening a ‘floodgate of litigation’, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, raising a preliminary objection over the maintainability of the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed against the premature release of Bilkis Bano’s rapists.
On the fourth day of the Indian Supreme Court's hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued that asymmetric federalism, autonomy, and consent were the three pillars of Article 370. He also stated that the exercise of power under Article 356 could not clothe the Government with legal authority under Article 370
70% of Government Litigation Frivolous’: Supreme Court Judge BR Gavai
70 percent of government litigation is frivolous and can be curtailed to lessen the court’s workload, Supreme Court judge BR Gavai remarked on Friday, while rejecting a plea filed by the Union of India.
Case Details: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the bail application of Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally who is facing charges of money laundering in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. This 2021-22 liquor policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party-led government in the national capital, was scrapped following allegations of irregularities in the framing and implementation. Boinpally has been in custody since October last year.
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah v. State of Bihar And Ors.
Citation: WP(Crl) No. 204/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(Aug 11) allowed the Bihar Government to file a further affidavit with regard to the remission granted to former MP who was serving a life term in the 1994 murder case of then Gopalganj District Magistrate G. Krishnaiah.
Our Colleges and Universities Are Indispensable to Our Liberal Democracy:Justice BV Nagarathna
Supreme Court Judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the presidential address at the 12th Convocation and Founder’s Day of O.P. Jindal Global University. It was titled: ‘Nurturing our constitutional culture, a high-calling for universities.’
She commenced her address by stating: “Our core democratic institutions are vital intermediaries between citizens and governments; we have the political institutions in the legislatures, we have the apolitical institutions in the form of courts, we have the independent media, voluntary organizations, and community organizations but the past several years have occasioned introspection or soul-searching within many of these institutions. One critical institution that has been absent from these conversations are namely our college and universities which are indispensable to our liberal democracy guided by the rule of law.
No More Queues For Supreme Court Entry Passes; Online Portal For E-Passes Launched
The Supreme Court has launched an online portal named "SuSwagatam" through which advocates, litigants and visitors can apply for passes to enter the Court. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud announced the launch of the portal today morning, before the commencement of the Constitution Bench hearing in the Article 370 case
The Apex Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur.
The Court observed: "Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group"
The streamlining of the process of oral mentioning of urgent matters, however, has left the SCAORA unhappy. Expressing its dissatisfaction, the lawyers’ body said that this new mechanism has proven to be a ‘great impediment’ in listing of urgent matters, and is neither transparent, nor efficient leading to a spate of complaints from its members.
During the fifth day of the ongoing hearing in the Article 370 case, the Supreme Court Constitution bench orally observed that the surrender of Jammu and Kashmir's sovereignty to India had been unconditional and absolute. It was further underlined by the bench that fetters placed on the Indian Parliament in terms of its law making powers in relation to Jammu and Kashmir does not mean any dilution of the sovereignty vested in India.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Detention Of Rohingya Refugee
Case title: Sabera Khatoon v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Criminal No. 318/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice in a writ petition filed for releasing a Rohingya refugee from indefinite detention in a detention center in Delhi.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra while issuing notice, also granted the liberty to serve the copy of the petition on the Central Government. The petitioner's lawyer submitted that the both the petitioner and the detenu have refugee cards issued by the UNHCR.
Case Title: Yash Tuteja And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to not take any coercive action in the FIR registered against Chhattisgarh government officials, including Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Anil Tuteja, over alleged making of duplicate holograms in connection with the liquor scam case. The Court has however not restrained the UP Police from investigating the matte
The brutal gang-rape of five-months-pregnant Bilkis Bano and the murders of her family members including kids amidst the 2002 Gujarat riots was a ‘crime against humanity’, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
During the constitutional hearings concerning the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370, Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud announced that a new building facility for the Supreme Court was presently under construction. He stated that the building will be positioned behind the existing building and will house various essential components.
The ground floor of the upcoming building will be designated for entities such as the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), and a dedicated area for women lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court, CJI Chandrachud stated.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of four judges of the Gujarat High Court to other High Courts.
Among the judges proposed to be transferred is Justice Hemant M Prachchhak who had refused to stay the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case over his 'Modi Thieves' remark.
The list also includes Justice Samir Dave who had recently recused from hearing Teesta Setalvad's plea to quash FIR over alleged riots case evidence fabrication and Justice Gita Gopi who had recused from hearing Rahul Gandhi's plea to suspend his conviction.
In Major Overhaul, Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer Of 23 High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium consisting of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant in its meeting held on 3 August 2023 has recommended transfer of 23 High Court judges.
On the fifth day of the Indian Supreme Court's hearing in the batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Senior Advocate Zaffar Shah, appearing for the J&K High Court Bar Association argued that the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had retained some constitutional autonomy as it had signed an Instrument of Accession (IoA) and not a merger agreement.
The Union Government today introduced three bills in the Lok Sabha aimed at replacing the core legal framework governing India's criminal justice system. The bills, introduced for consideration, seek to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).
Notably, the Home Minister Amit Shah indicated a major shift in the government's stance on the contentious issue of Sedition Law and stated that the proposed IPC replacement bill, known as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the Bill), would completely repeal the offence of sedition(Section 124A IPC).
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday permitted petitioners, who are seeking action against certain calls made for the social and economic boycott of Muslims, to approach the nodal police officers appointed in terms of the 2018 judgment dealing with mob violence crimes.
The Court also mulled over the idea of directing the Director General of Police of the States to form a committee to assess the content and veracity of hate speech complaints and issue appropriate directions to station house officers (SHO).
The Supreme Court Collegium today reiterated its recommendation dated 3.08.2023 to transfer Justice Sudhir Singh from Patna High Court to Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Collegium consisted of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant.
On 3 August 2023, the Collegium had proposed the transfer of Justice Singh to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for better administration of justice.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking to stop 26 opposition political parties from using 'the acronym “I.N.D.I.A" (Indian National Democratic Inclusive Alliance) as name of their alliance for the campaigning and advertisements, in the upcoming 2024 general Lok Sabha elections.
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1158 of 2021
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned why the Centre had not filed a response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) seeking a reintroduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha. More formally known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008, this proposed amendment seeks to introduce 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Despite this bill being passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2010, it has not yet been tabled before the Lok Sabha yet.
Case Title: Debabrata Saikia v. The State of Assam & Ors
Citation: Diary No. 17161-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by the leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia, against the Assam Government's "forced eviction drive" which took place in the Darrang District of the State of Assam from September 21-23, 2021.
However, it stated that the question of rehabilitation was still a surviving issue. In this context, the families (around 100) who had not yet been rehabilitated were directed to be heard by the deputy commissioner and reasoned orders were directed to be passed in 6 months.
Case title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India| Aisha Noori v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Crl. 177/2023| W.P. Crl. 280/2023
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday sought a "comprehensive affidavit" from the State of Uttar Pradesh on the progress of investigation/prosecution into 183 police encounter killings that have allegedly taken place in the State since 2017.
The Court sought the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the extent of compliance with the past guidelines issued in relation to police encounters. The Bench said that it needed an affidavit from a senior DGP level rank officer. It also mulled framing further guidelines to deal with the issue of custodial killings.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case after Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused.
The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra. As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Bopanna said, "This will come before some other bench. There is some difficulty on part of my brother".
The Supreme Court recently directed the Centre to submit its views on whether the bail condition requiring assurance from the Embassy/High Commission that a foreign national accused will not leave the country, has been incorporated by courts.
Be Liberal In Conferring Senior Designation' : SCBA President Requests Supreme Court
The President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Dr.Adish C Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, in a letter to the Chief Justice of India on Wednesday, has urged the Top Court to be "liberal" in its approach in conferring the title of Senior Advocate to candidates who have applied in the upcoming round of selection, since this is only the second selection process to have taken place in the last 8 years.
Pointing out that the upcoming selection for Senior Advocates is taking place after a gap of 4 years, the SCBA has requested the top court to be ‘liberal in designating meritorious and deserving candidates
The Centre has come out with a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with regard to the appearance of Government officials before courts in litigation that involves the Government.
The SOP suggests that the presence of government officials should be required in courts only in ‘exceptional cases’, and not as a regular practice. If officials are summoned by courts, advanced notice must be given, allowing ample time for their appearance, the Centre has said in its SOP. Also, first option must be given to the officer to appear virtually.
The SOP also asks courts to refrain from commenting on the dress/physical appearance/educational and social background of the government official appearing in Court.
Supreme Court To Examine Constitutional Validity Of Works of Defence Act, 1903
Case details: GOYA RESORTS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: CA 6079/2017
The Supreme Court will examine the constitutional validity of the Works of Defence Act, 1903.
This law is invoked for restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of works of defence so that such land is kept free from buildings and other obstructions. The Act also deals with determination determining the amount of compensation to affected law owners.
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday, while hearing a challenge against the Bihar government's caste-based survey, questioned whether the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution would be affected since only cumulative data, and not personal data relating to each participant would be released by the government. Justice Sanjiv Khanna also asked whether it was a violation of the participants' privacy when a caste survey is carried out in a state like Bihar where everyone knows their neighbor's caste.
Case Title : Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011
The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment in the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Manipur Violence | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea By Two Kuki Women
Case Title: Jamnagaihkim Gangte and another V. State of Manipur and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 823/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea filed by two women of the Kuki tribal community seeking a direction to government hospitals to provide free medical treatment to persons fleeing violence in the state of Manipur. The plea had also sought for appropriate guidelines directing the police to lodge zero FIRs as the local police has shown resistance in registering FIRs so far.
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, while issuing notice also tagged the matter along with other pleas before it related to the Manipur violence
Case title: The State Of Meghalaya v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number: Original. Suit No. 1/2021
The Supreme Court is set to hear the State of Meghalaya claiming ‘legal right’ to sell its lottery tickets in other states. The Court on Friday(18 Aug) ordered that all the states who have not filed their counter yet must do so within 1 month.
Earlier, a 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar had held that Meghalaya's suit was maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution.
It had observed that the “State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution.”
Case title: Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
The Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
"While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No.- 33790 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Saturday held a special sitting to urgently hear the plea of a rape victim for termination of pregnancy which is nearing 28 weeks. The woman approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court refused her relief.
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the High Court posting the matter after 12 days. "How can the court stand it over to 23rd August? How many valuable days would have been lost by then!", a dismayed Justice Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 702/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkatramani in a plea seeking for a "fixed time limit" for the Centre to notify appointment of judges as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. The PIL was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal stated that the lack of time limit for notifying the appointments of judges as per the Supreme Court collegium recommendations is a ‘zone of twilight’.
Doctors Should Only Prescribe Generic Drugs Instead Of Brand-Name Medicines: Plea In Supreme Court
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Ethics and Medical Registration Board and Ors
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 794 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday has issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking action and guidelines against medical practitioners who prescribe branded medicines to patients instead of more affordable generic drugs with the same active ingredients. The petition argues that healthcare professionals prescribing generic drugs could help ease the financial burden on patients and improve access to essential medications.
“Access to medicines plays a critical role in providing a lifeline to treatment for individuals in need. The affordability of medicines is vital factor that contributes to effective healthcare delivery and the realization of the ‘right to health’. Without access to necessary medications, individuals may face significant barriers in receiving proper medical treatment and achieving optimal health outcomes.”
Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response On Plea To Decriminalise Consensual Sex By 16-18 Year Olds
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 000700 OF 2023
On Friday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the vires of the statutory rape laws that criminalize consensual sex by 16-18-year-olds.
The Apex Court, taking note of the PIL, sought a response from the Centre on seeking a direction to decriminalize the law on statutory rape often invoked against 16- to 18-year-old adolescents for indulging in consensual sex.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. St. Stephen's College & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17344 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the plea filed by Delhi University against St Stephen’s College deciding to adopt an 85-15 formula for minority applicants, with the university’s common entrance examination contributing only 85 percent to the overall score considered at the time of admission and the remaining 15% from the interview.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand V. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
Citation: SLP (Crl) 1550/2020
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to list the appeals of the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Fodder Scam Cases on August 25th.
Supreme Court To Hear Umar Khalid's Bail Plea In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case After Two Weeks
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. He has been behind bars since September 2020, awaiting his trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the national capital.
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar And Anr. v. CBI And Ors.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 6539/2023
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, resumed its hearing on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to continue monitoring the case relating to the murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar. The Bench was hearing the petition filed by Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of Narendra Dabholkar.
The Bench has granted two weeks to the Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, for filling of some additional documents. The Bench observed that these documents could also facilitate Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBI, in examining the issue of a larger conspiracy.
Hate Speeches From All Sides Will Be Treated Alike': Supreme Court
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
Hate speech, whether be it from one side or the other, will be treated alike and dealt with under the law, the Supreme Court orally said on Friday.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speeches, including a recently filed plea seeking action against calls made by several groups for the social and economic boycott of Muslims following the Nuh-Gurugram communal violence in Haryana.
Case Details: Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: Diary No. 33188 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed status quo to be maintained with respect to a demolition drive being carried out by railway authorities in a settlement in the backyard of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.
Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Electoral Reforms In Supreme Court Bar Association
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik
Citation: Diary No. 13992 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) directed the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), including its president and senior counsel Adhish C Aggarwala, to submit their suggestions with respect to further reforms in the election process of the lawyers’ body. The order reads:
“We have impressed upon Dr. Adish Aggarwala and the other members of the Supreme Court Bar Association to submit their respective suggestions and/or the modalities to be followed for further reforms in the election process of the bar association. The suggestions may be submitted within eight weeks.”
The Supreme Court has released the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ on Wednesday. The plan to release this legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms used in legal discourse – a mission Chief Justice DY Chandrachud admitted to personally undertaking – has been in the works for several years now, although it was announced for the first time earlier this year at a Women’s Day celebration.
Words or phrases that the court has frowned upon are usually ones that make imputations about one or more aspects of the character of an individual. Instead of phrases like ‘career woman’; ‘chaste woman’; ‘woman of easy virtue’; ‘fallen woman’; ‘Indian woman’ as juxtaposed against ‘Western woman’; ‘seductress’; ‘woman of loose morals’; ‘promiscuous woman’; and ‘wanton woman’, the court has said that only the word ‘woman’ should be used. This means that the practice of describing the characteristics of a woman – particularly her perceived promiscuity, chastity, or modernity, should be avoided altogether.
Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Whether Cap On Iron Ore Mining Needs To Be Imposed In Odisha
Case Title: Common Cause V. Union of India
Citation: I.A. NO. 42571/2023 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).114/2014
The Supreme Court on Monday(August 14) directed the Centre to consider whether a cap on iron ore mining needs to be imposed in the state of Odisha as was done for Karnataka and Goa while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on illegal mining in the state.
Those Facing Arbitrary Arrests, Illegal Demolitions Must Find Voice In SC : CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at the Independence Day celebration organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association on August 15, stressed that the Supreme Court must provide solace to persons facing arbitrary arrests and illegal demolitions.
"Irrespective of an outcome of the case, I believe the real strength of our system is granting access to justice to our citizens, that sense of confidence of the individual that an arbitrary arrest, a threatened demolition, must find solace and a voice in judges of the Supreme Court," he said.
"The past 76 years suggests that the history of the Indian judiciary is the history of struggle of daily common people. No matter is big or small for the court. In seemingly small matters, matters of great constitutional importance emerge." he said.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
The Supreme Court cited public interest to allow certain judicial officers in Kerala to continue in their posts, despite finding that the process followed by the Kerala High Court in selecting them was illegal and arbitrary. Noting that six years have elapsed since their selection, the Court opined that unseating those officers "would be contrary to public interest".
Case title: Shaheen Abdulla V. Union of India & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 940 OF 2022
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leaders Brinda Karat & KM Tiwari have sought impleadment in an ongoing case against hate speeches (Shaheen Abdulla V. Union of India & Ors) in the Supreme Court of India.
In the main matter, the petitioner (journalist Shaheen Abdulla) had filed a writ petition praying for certain directions to call off the country’s growing climate of hate/hate speeches. The said matter is pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Case title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court questioned why the policy for premature release was being applied selectively, during Thursday’s hearing in the challenge against the remission granted to Bilkis Bano’s rapists. This question was in response to the Gujarat government advocating for prisoners convicted of heinous crimes being given a chance of reformation by being prematurely released from jail, on showing contrition, and after serving their time.
“Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively and How far is this law being applied to inmates in jail? Why are our jails overcrowded? Particularly with undertrials? Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively?”, Justice BV Nagarthna asked
Is There Any CAG Report On Implementation Of Manual Scavengers Act? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Case Title: DR. BALRAM SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, resumed its hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (Act).
Justice Bhat inquired, “Where is the CAG report? This Act has been in force for ten years. Many schemes have come. Do you have any CAG report after 2013 on any aspect?”
To this, ASG answered that a note had been finalized and would be placed on record.
Case Title: APOORVA PATHAK v. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 379/2023
The Supreme Court recently asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to have a relook the case of a judicial aspirant, whose name was deleted from the merit list of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination, 2019 (Examination) due to a "false" criminal complaint. The petitioner stated that High Court did not take into account her acquittal from the criminal case.
The Collegium of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has recommended names of an advocate and a judicial officer for elevation to the Orissa High Court.
The name of Advocate Sibo Sankar Mishra, who is currently an Advocate-on-Record for the State of Odisha in the Supreme Court, has been recommended. He is also a counsel for Union of India and Orissa High Court in the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court Collegium on Thursday recommended the appointment of Arunachal Pradesh judicial officer Budi Habung as a judge of the Gauhati High Court.
In its resolution uploaded on the Supreme Court website, the Collegium comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna noted that Habung is the senior most judicial officer in Arunachal Pradesh.
Dave argued that since the J&K Constituent Assembly no longer existed, Article 370(3) had also ceased to exist. However, Dave insisted that Article 370(1) continued to survive because if the Constitution of India was amended now and a new article was inserted, Article 370(1) would be used to apply it to J&K. To this submission, CJI said–
"You say that Article 370 has worked itself out and achieved its purpose once the Constituent Assembly of J&K has completed its task. But that would be belied by constitutional practice. Because even after 1957, there were orders issued progressively modifying the constitution in relation to J&K. This means that Article 370 had continued to operate even thereafter."
Case Title: Kham Khan Suan Hausing v. The State Of Manipur And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 311/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Monday granted two week long protection to Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing from coercive actions in two criminal cases against him in Manipur. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order.
Case title: Union of India v. Aligarh Muslim University And Ors
Citation: T.P.(C) No. 1870/2014
The Supreme Court has transferred to itself the petition titled Anoop Prabhakar v. Union of India (2014) pending in the Allahabad HC seeking to implement Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 in the Aligarh Muslim University.
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra passed an order on Monday allowing the transfer plea filed by the Union of India
Since the question about the "status of Aligarh Muslim University" is already pending before SC in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal(2006), the court directed the present matter to be tagged along with it.
Case title: Vishal Chelani v Debashis Nanda
Citation: C.A. No. 3806/2023
The Supreme has agreed to decide the question of law whether homebuyers, who secure a decree from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a refund of their investment, should be treated as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
Case Title: National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights vs Jerald Alameda and others
Citation: Diary No. 30895-2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that a complaint under the MP Freedom of Religion Act can be made only by a person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives.
Case title: Admiral D K Joshi, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Appellants Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Another v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Respondents Sangh and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 656
The Supreme Court has closed the matter concerning the order passed by the Calcutta high Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench which suspended Keshav Chandra, the Chief Secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, and fined Admiral D.K. Joshi, the Lt. Governor, a sum of Rs 5 lakh to be paid “from his own funds” for not implementing its directions in relation to payments to be made to Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs).
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, speaking at the function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association on the occasion of Independence day, announced major plans for expansion of the Supreme Court. He announced that the project is envisaged to be completed in two stages. The plan includes 27 new courtrooms and 4 registrar courtrooms and additional facilities for lawyers and litigants. “We need to overhaul our infrastructure on priority”, the CJI said.
Case Title: D.M.Kathir Anand V. N.S.Phanidharan and Another
Citation: SLP (Crl) No. 9567 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the criminal proceedings initiated against DMK MP Kathir Anand by the Income Tax Department for delayed filing of Income Tax returns and alleged tax evasion, after the Madras High Court refused to quash the said proceedings against him in July
Case Title: Y Balaji V. The State Represented By Commissioner Respondent(S)/ Of Police & Ors
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1675-1676 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently extended the time granted to the state of Tamil Nadu for investigation into the cash for jobs scam till 30th of September. The Apex Court however, made it clear that no further extensions would be granted and that a Special Investigation Team would be constituted to investigate the issue, if the State fails to adhere to the timeline.
Case Title : Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011 and connected cases
In the matter pertaining to the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law, the Supreme Court discussed whether in case of a notional partition before the death of a father, a child born to the said father from a void or voidable marriage would be entitled to the property inherited by the father in the said notional partition.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Supreme Court Issues Alert About Fake News Falsely Quoting CJI; Says Legal Action Being Taken
The Supreme Court has issued a statement alerting the public about a social media post which is being circulated falsely quoting the Chief Justice of India. The fake post uses the image of CJI DY Chandrachud with a false quote which urges public to come out in protests against the government
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy V. Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. And Anr
Citation: SLP (C) No. 16477-16478/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in an appeal by former MP Dr. Subramaniam Swamy against a Madras High Court order that allowed Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited to proceed with a defamation suit against in the High Court of Singapore.
A division bench Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, while issuing notice in the matter, orally stated that the Singapore entity would not proceed against Swamy in the meanwhile, on the submission of the counsel for the foreign entity who appeared on caveat
Case Title: Charles v. State of Gujarat & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10010 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 25) issued a temporary stay on the criminal proceedings against a Catholic parish priest in Gujarat for baptizing a child at the request of the child's Christian mother, who is estranged from her Hindu husband. The priest has been accused of forceful religious conversion under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003. This stay will operate till the next date of the hearing.
Case Title: Subi K.V.. v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 15683-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Central Government, all States and Union Territories on a PIL seeking reservation for transgender persons in public employment.
The petition referred to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NALSA V. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, wherein the Court directed the state to make reservation provisions for TGP as follows :
“We direct the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public.”
Supreme Court Grants Bail To PFI Leader Abdul Razak Peediyakkal In Money Laundering Case
Case Title: ABDUL RAZAK PEEDIYAKKAL v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 4627/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razak Peediyakkal in a PMLA Case where he has been accused of collecting and laundering funds of over Rs. 20 crores for the PFI. The Apex Court directed the trial court to impose bail conditions including to appear before the investigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) once a week, to surrender his passport and to not leave the state of Uttar Pradesh until completion of trial.
MBBS Admissions: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging NRI Quota In Assam Medical Colleges
Case Title: HADIUJJAMAN LASKAR v. STATE OF ASSAM
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 000862 - 000862/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 25) issued notice in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging the State of Assam’s rules allowing 7% seats quota in medical Colleges to be reserved for NRIs. Pertinently, the Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Bhatt and Aravind Kumar, also stayed further allocation of seats under NRI quota in the ongoing counselling of seats.
Case Title: Society for Protection of Unborn Child v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: Diary No. 11029 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by an anti-abortion NGO seeking deletion of a provision under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act which allows women to undergo an abortion if any form of contraception device used either by her or her partner fails.
Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Plea To Cancel Lalu Prasad Yadav's Bail In October
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
Citation: SLP (Crl) 1550/2020
The Supreme Court on Friday posted the appeal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the bail granted to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in a fodder scam case to October 17.
The Court turned down the request made on behalf of the CBI for an earlier date in September.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contended that the sentences imposed on Yadav should run consecutively and not concurrently while opposing the bail granted to Yadav by the Jharkhand High Court.
Case Title: Naveen Prakash Nautiyal V. H. Venkateshwarlu
Citation: Diary No. 31723-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Kerala High Court that had upheld the appointment of Prof Venkateshwarlu as Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala. The petition was filed contending that the appointment of the VC is in violation of UGC Regulations, Central Universities Act, 2009, and it’s statutes and is marred by procedural defects.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta while dismissing the SLP, pointed out that 3 years had passed since the appointment of the VC. It was also pointed out that the persons aggrieved by the selection process had not approached the Apex Court.
Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Deepak Gupta delivered a lecture on the topic "Development of Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence in Last 10 years" as part of LiveLaw's 10th anniversary lecture series
On Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's judgment, Justice Gupta said that the “PMLA judgment is, in my opinion, even a bigger blow than the Watali judgment. It turns the criminal law on its head.” He then questioned that even if we presume that the material placed by the police is right and accepted as a gospel truth “why cannot the court see all the material which has been collected and decide whether the same shows the prima facie case or not”
“The officials of the ED have been given every police power…but they are held to be not police officers”. Justice Gupta also questioned the low rate of convictions in ED cases and said, "Yes, we need to be strict with these laws but, we need to convict them too, not just send them to jail".
The Supreme Court again criticized late uploading of reasoned orders by the High Courts.
It is not completely alien to the system where reasoned orders are sometimes to be delivered later on, but that does not mean that such period of later-on can be unending, the bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.
The court therefore directed the Registrar General of the High Court to file a status report in this regard.
In a full court reference of the Supreme Court held on Thursday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud paid tribute to late Shanti Bhushan, Veteran Advocate, Politician and Former Union Law Minister, who passed away on 31st January 2023. The CJI praised the indomitable spirit of Shanti Bhushan and his commitment to the constitutional essence of democracy. 'Our constitutional legacy is dotted with events Mr. Shanti Bhushan helped create or shape' the CJI said.
“In the landmark election case of the prime minister, Indira Gandhi V Raj Narain, Raj Narain was represented by the indomitable Shanti Bhushan. The case as he recounts in his book aroused both pride and envy in equal measure. Pride for the independence of the Indian Judiciary and envy among American lawyers who expressed amazement at the impossibility of a similar outcome in its own judicial system, which otherwise prides.. or atleast prided itself in its liberal tradition." The CJI also added that during the emergency, Shanti Bhushan championed the cause of liberty and justice.
Case title: Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 33188 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to extend the status quo order it had granted on 16th August with respect to a demolition drive being carried out by railway authorities in a settlement in the backyard of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.
A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was informed by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the Railways had completed the eviction process.
The Court questioned the locus standi of the petitioner and observed that squatters on public land cannot claim any vested right. The bench has granted the petitioner time to file rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the Railways and posted the case to next Monday.
The Supreme Court on Friday extended the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Satyendar Jain - Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister in the Delhi government - in a money laundering case till September 1st. Jain was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in May 2022, but was granted interim bail on medical grounds.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was considering Jain’s plea challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail last year.
"Though Learned ASG opposes grant of extension of interim bail by contending that medical advice cited is not sufficient, medical bail granted earlier stands extended till September 1." the Court said in its order.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secretary v. State Of Tamil Nadu State
Citation: MA 3127/2018 in C.A. No. 2453/2007
The Supreme Court on Friday, while hearing a plea by the State of Tamil Nadu seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water, directed the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to submit its report on this issue, by next Friday.
“We do not possess any expertise on the matter. Apart from that, Learned ASG Aishwarya Bhatti informs us the that the meeting of the CWRC is to be held on Monday to consider the discharge of water for next fortnight. It is submitted that thereafter, the matter will go to CWMA. We find that it will be appropriate that the CWMA submits it's report as to whether the directions issued by it for discharge of water has been complied with or not. In the meantime, the orders with regard to discharge of water for the next fortnight will also be available. ASG is requested to communicate this order to the CWMA to obtain its report prior to next Friday.” the Court said in its order.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday called for inclusivity in the legal profession while recalling an incident where a young student who began his internship at a law office was asked by his supervisor which caste he belonged to. When he revealed his caste he was asked not to return. “I was filled with despair when I heard of this” the CJI said while addressing students at the 31st Convocation Ceremony of National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore.
“As lawyers we are keenly aware of society and its injustices. Our duty to uphold constitutional values is higher than that of other citizens. Yet, this incident shows some lawyers are violating the law, leave aside upholding constitutional values.” He said.
Legal Education Must Strive For More Inclusivity: Justice Ravindra Bhat In Convocation Address
Supreme Court Judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat delivered the Convocation Address at the 10th Convocation Ceremony of the National Law University, Delhi on Saturday.
Justice Bhat recalled that when he joined college, there were fewer female students, which was not unique to this profession but a mere reflection of society and women’s participation in it. “Standing after 40 years, it is heartening to see how far we have come.” However, he said there are miles to achieve equal participation of women in the workforce in our deeply unequal society and that everyone should endeavor to make room for being more diverse and representative. “Our legal education must strive for inclusivity.”
He added that this is the only way to encourage more women to pursue a law career long after graduation.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Challenging Arrest & Summoning Powers Of GST Officials
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. (Crl) No. 339/ 2023
The Supreme Court on August 25 issued notice in two similar writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) including Section 69 (i.e., power to arrest), 70(1) (i.e., power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents).
The Court has further stayed any coercive steps against the petitioners. The Bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Law is supposed to be a noble profession, Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed on Thursday. This remark came on the heels of the counsel for one of Bilkis Bano’s rapists informing the court that he is now practising as a motor vehicle accident claims lawyer in Gujarat.
Not only this, the judge also posed a critical query about the effect of conviction on an advocate’s enrolment at a state bar council, namely, whether a convict could be given the license to practise law even after his conviction.
Case Title: Lijesh M.J @ Lijeesh Mullezhath V. State of Kerala Represented by Director, Directorate of Culture & others
Citation: SLP (C) No. 18559/2023
Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J has approached the Supreme Court against the order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022. The Division Bench had upheld the order of dismissal by a single bench of the High Court that had found the plea to be 'frivolous'.
The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe', Lijeesh, has filed the plea alleging that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
Article 370 Case | Ends Can’t Justify Means, Supreme Court Tells Union
On the tenth day of the Supreme Court hearings in the Article 370 matter, the Central Government commenced its arguments supporting the Presidential Orders of 2019 which diluted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
At the very outset, the CJI posed an interesting query to the Union and asked if the ends could justify the means. He orally remarked that, "means should also be consistent with the ends.
Bilkis Bano Case |Earlier SC Judgment Won’t Bar Review Of Remission Order: Supreme Court
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
We are not sitting in judgment over a coordinate bench’s ruling, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, refusing to accept a ‘judicial propriety’ argument in the Bilkis Bano case.
The Court said that the 2021 ruling, which allowed the Gujarat Government to consider the remission applications, will not bar the judicial review of the remission orders subsequently passed.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.678/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to amend its writ petition - which was filed challenging the GNCTD (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 - to incorporate a challenge to the recently passed Act which replaces the Ordinance.
Manipur Violence: Supreme Court Transfers CBI Cases To Assam For Pre-Trial Steps
Case title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19206 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to transfer the sexual violence cases related to Manipur ethnic violence, which have been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to Assam, "bearing in mind the overall environment in Manipur, and the need for ensuring a fair process of criminal justice administration".
The Court asked the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to designate Courts in Guwahati to handle the pre-trial steps of CBI cases. Applications for remand, extension of custody, issuance of warrants etc., can be virtually made by the investigating agency before the designated Courts in Guwahati.
The Court further stated that the victims and witnesses will be at the liberty to give evidence virtually from their places in Manipur, instead of travelling physically to the Assam Courts.
Case title: Arvind Kejriwal v. The State of Gujarat
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 10191/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the trial in the criminal defamation case filed by the Gujarat University against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal over the remarks made by him in connection with the academic degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Court noted that Kejriwal's petition seeking stay of the trial was pending before the Gujarat High Court and is posted on August 29. "We are not inclined to issue notice in the SLP, as the matter is still sub-judice before the High Court", the Court observed. "We hope and trust that the High Court will decide the petition on the said date", the Court added.
Case Title: Veljibhai Masani and ors v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 840/2023
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a public interest litigation pertaining to the petition seeking revival of a joint judicial committee between India and Pakistan to resolve disputes between the two countries concerning fishermen who are arrested while violating territorial waters.
Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2023
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has informed the Supreme Court that out of the 24 investigations in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, 22 have attained finality, while the remaining two are currently underway. In an affidavit, the market regulator has stated –
“Out of the 24 investigations, 22 are final in nature and two are interim in nature. As on date, the said 22 final investigation reports and one interim investigation report are approved by the competent authority in accordance with the extant practice and procedures of SEBI. In the remaining one matter, interim findings are approved by the competent authority.
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference
Citation: SLP(C) No. 18727/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure at the Ladakh administration for not notifying the allotment of 'plough' symbol for the J&K National Conference for the upcoming Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council elections, despite the direction passed by the J&K&L High Court.
“It's unfair, your arbitrariness. We’ll set aside the election schedule if need be"s, Justice Vikram Nath, the presiding judge of the division bench, told the counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Ladakh
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday advocated for 'practical and effective' steps to deal with the problem of hate speech so that its earlier decisions are followed both in letter and in spirit. Accordingly, it sought responses from the state government on the status of their compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla guideline requiring the establishment of district-level nodal officers.
Case Title: Mohd Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10108 of 2023
In an interim relief to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday put a temporary stay on a trial court's order directing him to submit a voice sample in the 2007 hate speech case.
A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Azam Khan against a direction to provide his voice sample in a hate speech case, for comparison with a CD-recorded speech he delivered during a public gathering in Rampur in August 2007. Last month, the Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with this direction by a special judge in Uttar Pradesh
'J&K Governor Had No Idea' : Petitioners Cite Satya Pal Malik's Interview Before Supreme Court In Article 370 Case
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, referred to Malik's interview given to Karan Thapar of 'The Wire' in April this year.
As per Constitutional Order 272, the "Government of J&K" is construed to mean the "Governor of J&K".
To highlight that the Governor had no prior knowledge about the Centre's decisions on August 4, 2019, Ramakrishnan read out the following portion from Malik's interview:
"I did not know anything. I was merely called by the home minister one day prior saying, Satyapal I’m sending a letter tomorrow morning please get it passed by a committee before 11 tomorrow and send it to me". "He had no idea on the night of August 4 of what was coming. And he has given concurrence like this?", Ramakrishnan asked.
In the Article 370 case hearing, the Union Government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has absolutely no intention to interfere with the special provisions applicable to North Eastern states or other parts of India.
Recording this statement made on behalf of the Centre, the Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant disposed of an intervention application filed by an Arunachal Pradesh politician.
Case Details: Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4999 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an interim bail application filed by English professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen on grounds of her deteriorating health.
Case Details: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018
A union of taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers has approached the Supreme Court expressing concerns about overturning a verdict which allows drivers having Light Motor Vehicle(LMV) license to drive transport vehicles which have unladen weight less than 7500 kilograms.
The Tamil Nadu Urimai Kural Driver Trader Union, representing over 2000 taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers in the southern state, has filed an application seeking to be heard in the case pending before a constitution bench of the Supreme Court hearing a batch of pleas over the question of whether additional endorsement on a light motor vehicle (LMV) license is required to drive transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kilos.
“It is with immense pride, as a citizen of our great nation, that I witnessed the remarkable landing of Chandrayaan-3 on the moon today. The success of the lunar mission, places India in a select group of nations to have successfully achieved a landing on the lunar surface. It is all the more significant because India is the only nation to have achieved a lunar landing on the south pole of the moon. This will help new avenues in scientific research and discovery. Truly, this lunar landing represents, a milestone in the onward march of our nation. My heartiest congratulations to team ISRO and the entire scientific community on this historic achievement. They have truly made the nation proud of their work.” CJI Chandrachud told PTI news.
As the petitioners presented their concluding arguments, the bench engaged the counsel with insightful questions. Particularly noteworthy were Chief Justice Chandrachud's oral observations concerning the 'self-limiting' nature of Article 370 and Article 370 seemingly being a 'pro-tem provision' until further actions could be taken.
In the hearings, the CJI asked Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for the petitioners, if the Constitution of J&K would be seen an overriding document that would be applied in preference to the Indian Constitution and whether decisions made by the Constituent Assembly of J&K could bind the Indian Parliament.
Case Title: State of Kerala V Joy John
Citation: Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s). 31298/2023
The Supreme Court recently stayed the order of the Kerala High Court that directed the state of Kerala to refund the fee imposed on a land owner, for conversion of less than 25 cents of paddy land, under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court in its order dated 13th October 2022 had held that merely because landowners had remitted fees for conversion of less than 25 cents, the state must not be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves.
"If they're allowed to do this, heaven knows what else they would do!," exclaimed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan today on the ninth day of Constitution Bench hearing in the pleas challenging dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370.
Sankaranarayanan, while concluding the arguments for petitioners, used certain "extreme examples" to argue that upholding the Centre's actions can set a precedent for great mischief, whereby Constitutional processes can be circumvented by simply changing the definition clauses under Article 367 instead of following the amendment process under Article 368.
Written Submissions Can Never Substitute Oral Arguments: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Recently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan speaking at his felicitation ceremony held by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) stressed on the importance of oral hearings. "Though written submissions are no doubt very useful, they cannot be a substitute for oral arguments." he said. Justice SV Bhatti who was also recently appointed was also felicitated at the function.
In his address, Justice Bhuyyan recounted lessons from his early days as a judge." As a new judge, I read all the briefs meticulously and prepared notes. In one matter I wrote 'deserves dismissal'. My good friend the next day argued so effectively that I issued notice and granted ad interim stay".
At the outset, Singh argued that the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India amended Article 3 of the Constitution (which deals with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States) to also include within its ambit UTs. Here, he asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was not applicable to J&K on 5th August 2019. Thus, the nature of J&K could not have been altered. He said–
"Article 3 was not amended till the Eighteenth Amendment when those two explanations were inserted. Now the explanations have become the tail which is dragging the dog. Now any permutation and combination is available to the parliament under Article 3. This fiction that you can convert a State into UTs was never applied to the State of J&K.
Closing in on the eight day of arguments in the Article 370 pleas, the Supreme Court Constitution bench expressed its reservations towards accepting the argument that Article 370 had ceased to exist once the J&K Constitution was framed
The CJI said– "The net consequence would be that the Constitution of India in its application to J&K would stand frozen as of 1957. Therefore, no further development in Indian constitution can at all apply to J&K according to you. How can that be accepted?"
Underlining further consequences, the CJI continued–
"If Article 370 ceases to operate and Article 1 continues to operate, then J&K is an integral part of India. Surely, the jurisdiction of every democratically elected institution is not excluded...There has to be then a provision in Indian constitution which excludes its application to J&K. Article 5 says that the legislative and executive powers of the State would extend to all matters except those with respect to which parliament has power to make laws. That means provisions of constitution of india. That postulates that Indian constitution does apply to J&K. Unless we accept that Art 370 existed till 2019, there would be no trammel on the jurisdiction of parliament. If we accept your argument, there would be no restraint on the power of parliament."
Case Title: M/S OM SAI TRANSPORT SERVICES & ORS ETC v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
The Supreme Court has issued a notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the constitutional validity of ‘Mukhya Mantri Annadoot Yojna’, a scheme introduced by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for allotment of transportation work to unemployed persons.
Case: State of West Bengal v. Soumen Nandy
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15534/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the probe in West Bengal Municipality Recruitment Scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked prima facie that that the municipality recruitment scam appeared to be linked to the teachers recruitment scam(which is under the investigation of the CBI & ED).
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The caste-based survey conducted by the Bihar government may have some ‘ramifications’, Solicitor-General for India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Monday, on behalf of the central government.
While the court granted the Centre permission to file an affidavit, it reiterated its earlier stance on issuing a temporary halt to the caste survey. “You file an affidavit,” Justice Khanna told SG Mehta, before adding –“We are not staying anything. We are very clear about this. Unless a prima facie case is made out, we will not stay it.”
Case Title: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND ORS
Citation: Diary No. 23224-2023
An appeal filed by the Delhi Government challenging the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) decision to appoint Lt. Governor (LG) as head of a Solid Waste Monitoring Committee was listed today before the Supreme Court. A Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, heard the appeal.
Will Lay Down Guidelines For Courts To Summon Government Officers: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday orally remarked that it would lay down guidelines pertaining to appearance of Government officials before courts in litigation that involves the Government.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which took into custody Special Secretary (Finance) and Secretary (Finance) of the Uttar Pradesh government over the non-compliance of directions to provide domestic help and other facilities for retired judges.
The Apex Court had earlier directed the immediate release of the officers who were taken into custody and stayed the order.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta shared his views on marital rape in the backdrop of Right to Privacy. Justice Gupta was delivering an online lecture on the topic “Developments in Fundamental Rights in Last Decade” as part of LiveLaw's 10th anniversary lecture series.
On being asked about his views on the issue of marital rape, which is pending in the Supreme Court for adjudication, he replied: “Women has a right to say no. She has a right to say no to her husband also. …Just because you are husband and wife, wife does not have a right to say no to have sex? When she says no then it means no. There is nothing more to it. It is a very simple argument. It is just that we have to outgrow our patriarchal and archaic system of thought. Otherwise, there is nothing. This is the most simple thing on earth.”
Case title: M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. LATHA RAJANIKANTH |LATHA RAJANIKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation- SLP(Crl) No. 009818 - / 2022| SLP(Crl) 8327/2022
A Chennai-based company has approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of an alleged cheating case against actor Rajinikanth's wife Latha Rajinikanth.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala agreed to post the special leave petition filed by M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed the cheating case Latha, on September 8, 2023.
Case Details: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5997 of 2023
Deciding the bail application of activist and Bhima Koregaon-accused Jyoti Jagtap would involve a determination of whether her case 'fits the formula' in which the bail pleas of co-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were decided, the Supreme Court orally observed on Tuesday, while adjourning Jagtap's bail hearing until September 21.
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5442 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to pin-point the specific role attributed to Islamic cleric Maulana Kaleem Siddique in the case over the alleged running of a mass conversion racket.
The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea filed by the State against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Siddiqui, almost eighteen months after his arrest for allegedly running a conversion syndicate in the state.
The Supreme Court registry today(Aug 22) issued a circular detailing comprehensive guidelines to streamline the process of filing written submissions and compilations before constitution benches and important final hearing cases.
The guidelines, laid out in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), are set to provide a structured framework for filing soft copies of written submissions and creating common compilations of essential documents, rules, precedents, and timelines for oral arguments.
Case Title: Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004
The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has filed an application for the withdrawal of its oral undertaking given in November 2022 promising to maintain status quo on the commercial cultivation of genetically modified mustard. The undertaking was made before a bench headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who has since retired.
Supreme Court Is Not A Poly-Vocal Court, It Is A People-Centric Court: CJI DY Chandrachud
The Chief Justice Of India D Y Chandrachud on Tuesday speaking at the felicitation ceremony of newly appointed Supreme Court judges Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice SV Bhatti, held by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) said that the 'Supreme Court is not a polyvocal court, rather it is a people-centric court'.
Speaking of the diverse background from which Justice Bhuyyan and Justice Bhatti come from the CJI said, "their elevation reaffirms that this is not the Supreme Court of just Delhi or Maharashtra. This is the Supreme Court of India. Our aim here is make sure that it reflects the diversity of India."
Case Details: Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19225 of 2021
The decision on whether chicken and other meat would be provided as a part of the midday meal menu to schoolchildren was a policy decision that should be left to the wisdom of the executive, the Lakshadweep administration told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea over the Lakshadweep administration’s decision to exclude chicken and other meat from the menu of midday meals for schoolchildren, as well as its order directing the closure of all dairy farms in the archipelago run by the animal husbandry department
