Supreme Court Monthly Digest- March 2019

If Contempt Is In The Face Of Court, Judges Can Take Immediate Action Without Issuing Notice National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms V. Union of India To hold Advocate Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Supreme Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and there". "When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges' hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly", observed the judgment by the bench of Justice R F Nariman and Vineet Saran. SC Sentences Nedumpara To 3 Months Jail For Contempt; Bars From Practising In SC; Suspends Sentence On Undertaking The Supreme Court bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran sentenced Advocate Mathews Nedumpara to 3 months imprisonment, which will remain suspended so long as he abides by his undertaking that he will not attempt to browbeat any judge of High Court or Supreme Court. SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesanth; Asks BCCI To Take Fresh Decision On Punishment S. Sreesanth V. BCCI Partly allowing the appeal of cricketer S Sreesanth, the Supreme Court set aside the life ban imposed by the Board of Control of Cricket in India(BCCI) on him for indulging in spot-fixing during 2013 Indian Premier League. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph has directed the disciplinary committee of BCCI to take a decision on the quantum of punishment within 3 months from today. State Cannot Prohibit Transportation Of Legally Excavated Sand Beyond Its Borders State of Gujarat V. JayeshbhaiKanjibhaiKalathiya The Supreme Court held that it is constitutionally impermissible for a state to restrict the movement of the sand legally excavated within the territory of India. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah upheld the Gujarat High Court judgment that had struck down the Rules brought in by the State of Gujarat prohibiting the movement of sand beyond the border of the State. Teachers Are Entitled To Gratuity, Holds SC After Recalling Erroneous Judgment Birla Institute of Technology V. State of Jharkhand Correcting its earlier erroneous judgment, the Supreme Court held that the teachers are entitled to invoke Payment of Gratuity Act for claiming gratuity from his/her employer. The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra also slapped a cost of Rupees 25,000, on Birla Institute of Technology, the appellant in the case. SC Finally Corrects The Error: Acquits Six Persons Sentenced To Death By A 2009 Judgment Ankush MarutiShinde V. State of Maharashtra The Supreme Court acquitted three persons who were sentenced to death by it in 2009, and also three others whose death penalty was confirmed by it. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, also ordered the State of Maharashtra to pay Rupees 5 Lakh as damages to each of them. SC Confirms Death Penalty Awarded To Man Accused Of Killing Six Persons Khushwinder Singh V. State of Punjab The Supreme Court, after a long gap and a series of commutations, confirmed a death sentence in a judgment. Ironically, this judgment has been delivered on the same day when the same bench, in another case, acquitted six 'death convicts' who were sentenced to death by the Apex Court in 2009. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah upheld the death penalty imposed on Khushwinder Singh, convicted of murdering six persons belonging to a family, out of which two were minors – below 10 years of age. SC Acquits Two Men Sentenced To Death By Chhattisgarh HC Digamber Vaishnav V. State of Chhattisgarh In yet another judgment the Supreme Court acquitted two men whose death sentence was confirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, acquitted DigamberVaishnav and GirdhariVaishnav who were accused of robbery and murder of five women. Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment Sachin Kumar Singhraha V. State of Madhya Pradesh While commuting death sentence awarded to a man convicted for rape and murder of a five year old girl, the Supreme Court observed that death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inappropriate punishment. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee sentenced Sachin Kumar Singhraha to undergo a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment (without remission). Deduction...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- March 2019

Ashok Kini

Tags