Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citation No 434 To 536]

1. Parliament Must Provide Clarity On Reservation Benefits In Successor States After State Reorganization : Supreme Court Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434 While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for the Parliament to provide clarity on the rights of individuals after state reorganization. The observations in this regard were made in a separate but concurring judgment written by Justice S Ravindra Bhat while sharing bench with Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha. 2. Court/Tribunal Cannot Impound A Insufficiently Stamped Document Unless & Untill It Is Produced On Record Before It : Supreme Court Case Title: Widescreen Holdings Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited | SLP(C) 6826-6829/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435 The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that a Court or a Tribunal cannot impound a document for insufficient stamp unless and until the same is produced on record before it. 3. 'Political Neutrality Must For Civil Servants', Says Supreme Court While Refusing To Impose 'Cooling Off' Period To Join Politics After Retirement Case Title: Vivek Krishna vs Union of India | WP(C) 1034/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and A S Bopanna recently dismissed a writ petition to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period". 4. Court Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Enlarge Scope Of Relief Claimed In Main Proceedings: Supreme Court Case Title: Kangaro Industries (Regd) vs Jaininder Jain | CA 5007 OF 2008 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437 The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings. 5. Excess Payment Made To Employee Due To Erroneous Interpretation Of Rule Not Recoverable : Supreme Court Case Name: Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala | CA 7115 OF 2010 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438 The Supreme Court observed that the excess payment of emoluments or allowances to an employee are not recoverable if it was on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said. 6. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not Proportionate : Supreme Court Case Details : Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India| WP(C) 607 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate. The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons. Also Read: No Haste In Granting Emergency Use Authorization To Covaxin & Covishield: Supreme Court Supreme Court Approves Union's Decision To Vaccinate Children Against COVID; Directs To Ensure Publication Of Clinical Trial Data Allow Doctors & Individuals To Report Adverse Effects Of Vaccination In Virtual Platform; Make Reports Publicly Accessible : Supreme Court To Centre 7. Supreme Court Refuses To Apply Automatic Stay Vacation Direction In 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment To Interim Stay In Writ Proceedings Case Name: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation| MA 706 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440 The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy refused to apply the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 to an order passed by High Court in writ proceedings. In this case, a division bench of a High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition. By filing a...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citation No 434 To 536]

Shruti Kakkar

Tags