Supreme Court Monthly Digest- November 2019

SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association The Supreme Court by 3 :2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger bench. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman dissented. [Sabarimala] Remember That The "Holy Book" Is The Constitution Of India; Justices RF Nariman & DY Chandrachud Dissent Let every person remember that the "holy book" is the Constitution of India, remarked Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, in his dissent against the majority decision to refer the issues to larger bench. The judges opined that most of the arguments raised in the review petitions were already argued during the hearing of the writ petitions and were dealt with in the judgment of 28th September 2018. The judge still dealt with the arguments that was made by various parties during the hearing of review petitions. SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the December 14, 2018 judgment which declined to order probe into the corruption allegations regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets by Indian Government form French company Dassault Aviation. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph observed that the review petitions filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie lacked merits. Rafale Verdict Will Not Stop CBI From Taking Lawful Action On Petitioners' Complaint : Justice K M Joseph Justice K M Joseph observed in his separate judgment in the Rafale review that the main verdict will not stand in the way of CBI taking lawful action on the complaint raising corruption allegations on the Rafale deal, subject to getting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Proceedings U/s 218 IPC Against IO, Witnesses Cannot Be Initiated Merely Because Prosecution Failed To Establish Its Case Ranbir Singh V. State of Uttarakhand The Supreme Court observed that merely because the acquittal of the accused was premised on the assessment that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, it does not necessarily mean that the investigator and the concerned witnesses ought to be proceeded against for the offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Govt. Servant Cannot File Complaint About Service Conditions Or Retiral Benefits Before Consumer Forums Ministry Of Water Resources vs. Shreepat Rao Kamde The Supreme Court reiterated that a government servant is not a 'consumer' for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act and cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act. SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; But Holds That Speaker Cannot Disqualify For Full Term Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker's decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection. However, in partial relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of disqualification cannot be till the end of the term of the house. This means that they can re-contest in the upcoming by polls scheduled to take place in December. Resignation Of Legislator Will Not Efface Impact Of Defection Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly A significant point in the Supreme Court's judgment in the Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the discussion on the interplay between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The apex court held that resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of disqualification if defection has taken place before the date of resignation. SC Strikes Down Rules Framed By Centre Under Section 184 Finance Act 2017 For Tribunals Rojer Mathew V. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act 2017, which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals. At the same time, the five judges bench struck down the Rules already framed by the Central Government under Section 184, and directed the formulation of new rules. Essar Insolvency : SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order; Uphlods Resolution...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- November 2019

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags