Supreme Court Monthly Digest: April 2020

1. [TADA] Confession Of Co-accused Inadmissible Against Another Accused If They Were Tried Separately: SC While interpreting the scope of Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta held that if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co-accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case. The court noted that the Section 15 of the TADA Act specifically provides that the confession recorded shall be admissible in trial of a coaccused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession. (Case: Raja @ Ayyappan v. State Of Tamil Nadu) 2. Consider Releasing Children From Observation Homes On Interim Bail Amid COVID-19 : SC Directs JJBs, Children's Courts In order to de-congest child care institutions in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, the bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta directed the Juvenile Justice Boards and Children Courts to consider releasing all children alleged to be in conflict with law on temporary bail, unless there are clear and valid reasons for the application of the proviso to Section 12, JJ Act, 2015. The court had taken suo moto cognizance of the conditions of children protection homes across the country in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. It passed detailed directions to be implemented by each of Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Children Courts and Child Care Institutions. (Case: In Re Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes) 3. 'Ex Post Facto' Environmental Clearance Unsustainable In Law : SC A division bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi reiterated that the concept of 'ex post facto' Environmental Clearance (EC) is against the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence. "...environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development", the court reiterated in light of the observations made in Common Cause v. Union of India. (Case: Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors.) 4. SC Allows NDTV's Appeal To Quash Income Tax Re-Assessment Notice In a major relief to media company New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV), the Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta allowed its appeal to quash the notice issued by the Income Tax Department seeking to re-open its income assessment for the financial year 2007-08. The assessing officer had issued notices to NDTV under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the ground of escapement of income from assessment and proposing a substantial addition of Rs.642 crores to its account. The SC held that these notices, which were issued in 2015, though disclosed reasons, were time-barred and hence unsustainable. (Case: New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax) 5. Person Who Takes Benefit Of A Portion Of The Will Cannot Challenge The Remaining Portion: SC The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta observed that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will. "It is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the principle of doctrine of election. In respect of Wills, this doctrine has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will," the bench observed in a plea filed by the beneficiary, who later claimed that the subject property was not self acquired, but HUF. (Case: Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam) 6. HC Can Only Exercise Jurisdiction Over State Of Which It Is The High Court: SC The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of a High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose made the observation while considering an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Madras High Court judgment in which it issued (in a service matter) a direction which has pan India effect. (Case: Union Of India v. R. Thiyagarajan) Also Read: Territorial Jurisdiction Of High Court Under Article 226(2) Of Constitution [Explainer] 7. Burden To Prove That The Property Is A Joint Property Of An HUF Is On The Person Who Asserts So: SC The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta observed that merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family; and the burden to prove the same lies on the person who alleges that the property is a joint...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: April 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags