- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up:...
Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: January 2024
Gyanvi Khanna
10 Feb 2024 4:00 AM GMT
Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during the first month of 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of January and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status matter, providing...
Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during the first month of 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of January and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status matter, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Title: ABHISHEK SAXENA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 1996 – 2020., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal seeking quashing of an FIR, opined that while exercising power under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court was legally bound to see if accusations constitute any offence or not.
Case Title: Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. v. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2341/2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court observed that a bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available.
Case Title: DBS Bank Ltd Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd and another., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether a dissenting financial creditor is to be paid the minimum value of its security interest as per the Insolvency and the Bankruptcy Code 2016.
The bench differed from the view expressed by a coordinate bench in the 2021 judgment in the case India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited & Another which held that a dissenting secured creditor cannot challenge an approved resolution plan contending that higher amount should have been paid to it based on the security interest held by it over the corporate debtor.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court to take into custody two Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh Government for alleged non-compliance of directions regarding the facilities to retired judges, expressly stated that the High Court Chief Justices acting on the administrative side do not have any powers to usurp the rulemaking responsibility of the executive.
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court, in the context of Section 364 A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observed that apart from proving the act of abduction, the prosecution must also prove the demand of ransom along with the threat to the life of the abducted person.
The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there., the Court said.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 162/2023 and connected cases., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations levelled in the Hindenburg Research report regarding stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies.
The Court refused to accept the reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper reports and the report of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to doubt the SEBI probe.
The Court also ordered SEBI and the investigative agencies of the Union government, to probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other entities in taking short position involved any infraction of law.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on summoning of government officials and directed that all High Courts should follow it. All High Courts should consider framing rules to regulate the appearance of officials after taking into account the SOP.
Case Title: Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v Gejo. (D) Th.Lrs & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4
Coram:Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court has held that changes made in a sale deed by one party unilaterally, after the registration of the deed and without the knowledge of the other party, have to be ignored.
In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate., the Court said.
Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 21
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court has observed that an appellate court should give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons if the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken.
Case Title: Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Anr v. Union of India & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1074
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court declined to pass directions to provide proportionate representation for the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of States of West Bengal (WB) and Sikkim, observing that it was a matter requiring amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act.
At the same time, the Court directed the Union Government to decide on invoking the powers under the Delimitation Act to ensure proportionate representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Case Title: UPASANA MISHRA v. TREK TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1075
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar
Finding the demand raised in a notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be omnibus in nature, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the dishonour of a cheque.
Case Title: Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1/2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court allowed plea of a man, aspiring to become a Police Constable, whose candidature was cancelled by the respondent-authorities on account of an inadvertent error made by him while mentioning his date of birth in the application form.
In the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench further directed that in the event of there being no vacancy, an appointment letter ought to be issued to the appellant in special facts of the case.
Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court held that the expression 'custody' used in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not mean formal custody.
It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police., the Court said.
Case Title: BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. V. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords since their possession is permissive in nature.
Case Title: RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs. JAYA WADHWANI., Diary No.- 12162 – 2019., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
In the context of insurance protection, the Supreme Court held that the policy issuance date would be relevant date for all purposes.
The issue before the Court was what would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy, or it would be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or cover note.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
In an appeal against the stoppage of salaries of 3 teachers employed with a U.P. school, the Supreme Court held in favor of the appellants/teachers, observing that even as per the State, they were not at fault, and, as such, their salaries could not have been abruptly stopped.
Four Conditions To Invoke Section 27 Of Indian Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court (on January 03), in a crucial judgment concerning section 27 of the Evidence Act, reiterated the three conditions to invoke this provision. While doing so, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti relied upon Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra., (1976) 1 SCC 828.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has directed the State Governments to pay the arrears to judges in terms of the payscales enhanced as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) by February 29, 2024. The judgment also contains directions to the High Courts to set up a Committee to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC recommendations.
UAPA| Terrorism Cases Not To Be Taken Lightly: Supreme Court Sets Aside Default Bail
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, SLP(CRL.) No.2503/2021., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 10
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
In a case pertaining to grant of default bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”), the Supreme Court yesterday allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi police, observing that the High Court fell in error in granting default bail and should not have taken the matter so lightly.
The Bench observed that the conditions/reasons given under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA (which grants discretionary power to a court to extend time for investigation upto 180 days on application by Public Prosecutor) stood satisfied in the case.
Case Title: Bharti Airtel Limited and Another V Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
The Supreme Court has held statutory set off or insolvency set off is not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
The Bench has also carved out two exceptions to the application of statutory or insolvency set off to CIRP proceedings. First being, when a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date of commencement of CIRP. Secondly, in cases of 'equitable set-off' when the claim and counter claim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one.
Case Title: MARY PUSHPAM vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12
Coram: Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of ensuring judicial discipline. The Court went on to observe that when a decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice, it is to be respected and is binding on the bench. However, the same is subject to the right of a co-equal quorum bench to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench.
Case Title: Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 13193/2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)15
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar
While dismissing a challenge to detention on the ground that the detenu/appellant was not informed by authorities of his rights, the Supreme Court observed that if a detenu receives the grounds of detention in a language known to him and the same contain a clear statement over his right to make representation, there is no need for informing him verbally again.
On the aspect of informing the detenu of his right to make representation, the Bench reiterated that such a communication can either be oral or in writing.
Case Title: SATISH P. BHATT vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No.- 29002 – 2019., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 16
Coram: Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court took a strong stand while affirming the suspension of the accused/ present appellant's sentence, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court highlighted that the complainant has been litigating since 2007, i.e., for almost 16 years, but has not been able to receive its due amount. This was irrespective of an undertaking given by the appellant and the intervenor aggreging to pay the major portion of the liability. The Court marked that this is a persistent disregard for judicial directives.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 22
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court had set aside the remission of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes, including that of Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
The court held that the State of Gujarat was not the "appropriate government" to decide the issue of remission as the trial was held in the State of Maharashtra. Since the Gujarat Government was found to be incompetent, the remission orders were held to be invalid. Accordingly, the court directed the convicts, who were given premature release in August 2022, to surrender in prison within two weeks.
Supreme Court Stays HC Direction To ECI To Hold Bye-Election For Pune Lok Sabha Seat
Case Title: Election Commission of India v. Sugosh Joshi and another., SLP(C) No. 200/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 8) stayed the direction issued by the Bombay High Court to the Election Commission of India to hold bye-election for the Pune Lok Sabha seat, which has been vacant since the death of MP Girish Bapat on March 29, 2023.
The Bench observed that Section 151A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 would come into play in the instant case. According to this provision, the ECI need not hold bye-election to fill up a vacant seat if the remainder of the term in relation to the vacancy is less than one year.
Case Title: RAJEEV GUPTA vs. AJAY MISHRA ALIAS TANI., Diary No.- 33673 - 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court, today (on January 08), refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's order upholding the acquittal of Union Minister of State for Home, Ajay Mishra Teni, in the murder case of Prabhat Gupta. Gupta, a rising student leader, was killed in broad daylight in Lakhimpur Khiri district in the year 2000.
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 6539/2023
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the discontinuation of the court-monitored probe into the 2013 murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar.
Notably, the murder probe had been transferred by the High Court of Bombay in 2014 from Pune police to CBI, following a petition by activist Ketan Tirodkar and later by Dabholkar's daughter Mukta Dabholkar. Since then, the progress of the case was being monitored by the High Court.
Case Title: X v. President of SCBA Dr. Adish Aggarwal and Ors., WP(C) Diary No. 52330-2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court directed that a counselling be arranged for the female advocate, who alleged sexual harassment by a male advocate. The counselling was directed to be arranged at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Case Title: M/S E-GAMING FEDERATION vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001374 - / 2023, PLAY GAMES 24 7 PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice and sought the centre's response on a batch of petitions filed by online gaming companies, including Dream 11, Games 24x7, and Head Digital Works, challenging the constitutional validity of imposition of 28% GST.
Case Title: Mohammed Faizal v U. T. Administration Of Lakshadweep And Ors SLP(Crl) No. 12819/2023
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 08), while hearing an appeal against the order of the Kerala High Court, refusing to suspend the conviction of disqualified Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in a case of attempt to murder, was apprised that the case can be disposed off in terms with the recent judgment passed in the case of BSP MP Afzal Ansari.
Supreme Court Lifts Stay On Labour Court Proceedings Involving HT Media Private Limited
Case Title: RABEENDRA KUMAR DHAKAD v. HT MEDIA LTD & ANR., Diary No.- 51717 - 2023
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a Special Leave Petition assailing the Delhi High Court's order wherein it stayed the proceedings referred in the Labour Court for adjudication of an industrial dispute between HT Media Private Limited and one Rabeendra Kumar Dhakad (the present petitioner) who worked in the former's office.
While staying the impugned order, the Bench also marked that it would be open for the Labour Court to proceed with the reference and decide the same in accordance with the law.
Case Title: GHANSHYAM GAUTAM vs. USHA RANI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.S RAVI SHANKAR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 23
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma.
In a Criminal Appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting an amount in full and final settlement, the proceedings under this provision must be quashed.
Case Title: JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. V. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 24
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court held that the State Electricity Regulatory Commission has a power to reject the adoption of tariff if it is not aligned with market prices. While adopting the tariff, the Commission is bound to take into consideration the protection of consumer interest.
Case Title: PRAYAS JUVENILE AID CENTRE (JAC) SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001444 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court bench on Monday (January 8) dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of S.15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) which provided for a preliminary assessment of Juveniles above the age of 16, charged with heinous crimes.
Refusing to entertain the petition, the bench, however, granted the petitioners the liberty to pursue their remedy under Article 226 before the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. V. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 24
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court in a recent decision observed that “the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, could not have issued a mandamus to the instrumentalities of the State to enter into a contract, which was totally harmful to the public interest.”
The Court held that the High Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Limits On Undertrial Prisoner Visits In Delhi Prisons
Case Title: JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR., Diary No.- 35777 – 2023
Coram: Justices Bela. M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court dismissed a SLP assailing the Delhi High Court's order which refused to interfere with its government's decision of restricting visits to jail inmates by family, friends, and legal advisers, allowing only twice a week.
Case Title: NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION vs. HIMALAYAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES., Diary No.- 32618 – 2022
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In another legal update, the Supreme Court is set to examine the validity of an Office Memorandum issued by the National Medical Commission stipulating that 50% of the seats in Private Medical Colleges “should be at par with the fee in the Government Medical Colleges of a particular State.”
The AHSI Association of Health Sciences Institutes has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the NMC's decision. However, several High Courts were also seized with a similar matter. Considering the same, the Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions filed by the NMC seeking the transfer of all similar matters to the SC.
Case Title: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI., Diary No.- 1106 – 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the officers of Gujarat Police who took a man into custody ignoring the interim anticipatory bail granted to him by the Apex Court.
Expressing great dissatisfaction with the conduct of the police and the Magistrate, the Bench issued contempt notices to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department of Gujarat Government, Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Surat, Police Inspector of Vesu Police Station. The Court also issued notice to the Additional Chief Magistrate, Surat, who remanded the petitioner to police custody despite the interim order of the Supreme Court.
Case Title: ALAGAMMAL AND ORS. V. GANESAN AND ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 27
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court held that when a contract stipulates a specific time frame within which the consideration needs to be paid by the 'buyer' to execute the 'agreement to sale' by the 'seller', then the buyer must strictly adhere to such condition, otherwise, the 'buyer' can not avail a remedy of specific performance of the sale deed.
Case Title: SONESHWAR DEKA & ORS. V. BIRSING DEKA & ANR
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, in a case where the Gauhati High Court imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on an advocate for his attempt to mislead the court, requested the High Court to reconsider the same after the advocate tenders an unconditional apology. Additionally, the Top Court considered that the advocate was a junior at the Bar.
Case Title: NABENDU KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY vs. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 29
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court (on January 04) expressed dissatisfaction with the NGT's approach while dismissing an application. The application alleged that a waterbody/pond was being filled up. However, the NGT summarily dismissed the same without holding any inquiry. The Tribunal's findings were based only on certain photographs.
Discontent with the same, the Apex Court observed that when a citizen approaches the NGT with a grievance that a water body is being filled in, a different approach by the NGT is contemplated. It is not supposed to strictly apply the rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd vs Ajay Khera and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court directed that the Union of India should formulate a policy of phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS VI vehicles. The policy should be framed within a period of six months., the Court said.
The case originated from concerns about pollution caused by heavy-duty diesel trailer trucks in and around Delhi, brought forward by a former executive at the Central Warehousing Corporation.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS V. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 32
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court approved the Shimla Development Plan, 2041 by holding that the development plan has been finalized after taking into consideration the reports of various expert committees and the studies undertaken with regard to various aspects including environmental and ecological aspects.
The Court found that the development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
Case Details: DINESH GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 33
The Supreme Court came down heavily on a litigant for misusing the legal system by lodging false and frivolous complaint with non-disclosure of necessary facts. The Court slammed the respondent for forum shopping and for registering FIR against appellants despite the commercial nature of dispute.
Condemning such intended acts of abuse of power, the Division Bench imposed the cost of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent.
Case Title: Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Congress leader Jaya Thakur's plea challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. However, the top court refused to issue an immediate stay on the legislation.
Case Details: Nisith Pramanik v. State of West Bengal., Diary No. 950 of 2024
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court granted protection from arrest to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator and Minister of State (MoS) for Home Affairs Nisith Pramanik in an attempt-to-murder case registered in West Bengal. The protection order will operate till the Calcutta High Court hears his petition.
The BJP Member of Parliament (MP), representing the Dinhata Lok Sabha constituency, approached the top court after a division bench of the Calcutta High Court adjourned the hearing of his anticipatory bail plea last week without granting him relief.
Case Title: Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 550-551/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court transferring Sanjay Kundu IPS from the post of DGP of the State on the allegation that he was interfering with the fair investigation of a case.
The Bench expressed reservations about the manner in which the High Court passed the initial order ex-parte and then refused to recall the first order when the petitioner approached it.
Case Title: IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE, SMW(C) No. 2/2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol
In a suo motu writ petition registered in connection with simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh government, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the MP High Court.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KERALA V. UNION OF INDIA, ORGNL.SUIT No. 1/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a suit by State of Kerala challenging imposition of limits by the Union on the State's borrowing capacity the Supreme Court today issued notice to the Union Government.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for State of Kerala and submitted that the suit raises serious questions, including the one concerning Article 293(3). He requested that the prayer for interim relief may be considered, as the State has to pay pensions, etc.
Accordingly, the Bench issued notice in the State's application for interim relief as well, and listed the matter for January 25, 2024.
Case Title: S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
Taking note of the dismal rate of grant of compensation under the scheme formulated by the Central Government for the victims of 'hit and run' accidents, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions.
The bench also suggested a revision of the compensation amount of Rs 2 lakh and Rs 50,000 for death and greivous injuries respectively arising out of hit and run cases.
Supreme Court Asks Lawyer Imprisoned For Contempt Of Court To Tender Apology Before Judges
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court asked a lawyer, who was sentenced to six months imprisonment by the Delhi High Court for contempt of court, to tender an unconditional apology before the judges against whom he made objectionable remarks.
'Untrustworthy Witness Statement' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction In 1999 Murder Case
Case Title: STATE OF HARYANA v. MOHD. YUNUS & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 36
Coram: Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court, doubting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, set aside the conviction for the offences committed under Sections 302(murder) and 323(simple hurt) read with Section 34(common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Reversing the order and judgment passed by the High Court, the top court concurred with the finding made by the Trial Court that both the important prosecution witnesses made improvements in their statements. Therefore, when the statements are contrary, facts are twisted and improvements are made, no reliance can be made upon such statement.
Case Title: Naresh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.1189/2012., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a man's appeal challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for killing his wife, the Supreme Court recently observed that setting a person on fire is an act of 'extreme cruelty' and would fall under Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for Murder).
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench ordered that the appellant, whose sentence was suspended by the court in 2012 considering that he had undergone about 12 years of incarceration, surrender before jail authorities within 4 weeks.
Case Title: Birla Corporation Limited through its Managing Director v. Bhanwar Singh and Others, S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012 (and connected matters)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 38
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
Taking note of the history and legacy of the Chittorgarh Fort, Rajasthan, the Supreme Court issued directions for its protection against blasting activities being conducted within a 5 kms radius for mining of limestone (or other minerals).
As per the order, manual/mechanical mining operations are still permissible within the 5 kms radius, subject to a lessee possessing valid lease under law.
The Bench further directed constitution of an Expert Committee within 2 weeks, to undertake study of environmental pollution and impact on the Fort of blasting operations beyond the 5 kms radius. This Committee, to be constituted by Chairman, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, shall constitute a team of multi-disciplinary experts.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea To Cancel Bail Of Accused In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case
Case Title: Kavitha Lankesh v. The State of Karnataka & Anr, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 52512/2023
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court has issued a notice in a plea challenging the grant of bail to an accused in journalist Gauri Lankesh's murder case.
The petition, moved by Lankesh's younger sister, Kavita Lankesh, seeks cancellation of the bail granted to Mohan Nayak, who is alleged to have been a part of the conspiracy to murder.
Case Title: Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 481 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Allahabad High Court order appointing a Commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura in the Krishna Janmabhoomi case.
A bench passed the interim order while issuing notice on a special leave petition filed by the mosque committee against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court by which it had allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque.
The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu for quashing of a first information report (FIR) in the skill development scam case.
The judges delivered two separate judgments. Justice Bose held that previous sanction within the meaning of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added by 2018 amendment) would have to be obtained after the provision became operational, failing which, an inquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant under the PC Act shall be illegal.
Case Title: S. CYRIL ALEXANDER vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY DR. V.K. PALANI., Diary No.- 49498 - 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking criminal action against Tamil actor Dhanush and the producers and distributors of the 2014 movie 'Vela Illa Pattadhari" under Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003(COTPA) for allegedly publishing posters of the film showing the lead actor smoking a cigarette.
The Apex Court had agreed with the view taken by the High Court that The producers and the distributors in the present case are engaged in movie business and are not engaged in the business of cigarettes or other tobacco products.
Supreme Court Stays Unveiling Of Shri Jagatguru Shivarathri Rajendra Mahaswamiji Statue In Mysuru
Case Title: Subramanya v. The State of Karnataka, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 928/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta
In a plea filed against the erection of the statue of former Suttur Seer Late Shri Jagatguru Shivarathri Rajendra Mahaswamiji at Gun House Circle, Mysuru, the Supreme Court on January 12 granted interim relief in favor of petitioner-Subramanya, staying the unveiling of the statue.
The Court prima facie found that the erection of the statue in a public place was contrary to the court's earlier order dated January 18, 2013 in Union of India v. State of Gujarat.
Be Gentle In Dealing With Advocates, Don't Take Up Cudgels With Bar: Supreme Court To DRT Judge
Case Title: M.M. DHONCHAK vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION SLP(C) No. 027317 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh bench, against the adverse remarks and directions passed against him by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association.
While refusing to interfere in the matter, CJI verbally observed that it was important for the petitioner to be kind and sensitive towards the circumstances of the lawyers and not take up 'cudgels' against the bar association.
Case Title: KISHAN CHAND JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000015 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a Writ Petition seeking directions to the Union Government to prepare a DNA Index to help identify dead bodies. The bench was apprised of the fact that each year, 40,000 dead bodies are found, which go unidentified and unclaimed.
Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Augusta Westland Scam Accused-Turned-Approver Rajeev Saxena
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs. RAJIV SAXENA SLP(Crl) No. 000723 / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to the accused-turned-approver Rajeev Saxena in the VVIP Augusta Westland Chopper Scam. The CBI was granted the liberty to move an application before the Trial Court for the same.
The bench refused to interfere and dismissed the application for cancellation bail, although liberty was granted to CBI to move an application before the Trial Court.
Case Title: SHARAD KUMAR AWASTHI vs. FAREED MAHFOOZ KIDWAI SLP(C) No. 000941 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party's(BJP) member Sharad Kumar Awasthi challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed Awasthi's election petition in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 moved by Samajwadi Party's (SP) Fareed Mahfooz Kidwai.
Case Title: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court directed the district magistrates at Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take 'appropriate steps' after concerns were raised over potential hate speeches at rallies planned by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party legislator T Raja Singh later this week.
While declining to stop the rallies, the Court directed the District Magistrates to ensure that no incitement to violence or hate speech takes place in the rallies to be held by BJP MLA T Raja Singh. Police were asked to install CCTV cameras with recording facilities at the locations if felt necessary, so that perpetrators can be identified if anything untoward happens.
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Setting a 25-year-old woman detained by her parents at liberty, the Supreme Court today (January 17) expressed anguish at the callous approach shown by the Karnataka High Court in the matter. Despite the woman stating that she wished to return to Dubai from where her parents had taken her, the High Court did not set her at liberty with immediate effect and rather postponed the matter indefinitely.
The Bench observed that the matter had been adjourned by the High Court on 14 occasions and thereafter postponed for 2025, exhibiting "a total lack of sensitivity" on the part of the court, that too in a habeas corpus matter.
Case Title: SHADAKSHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 42
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court, while deciding a criminal appeal, held that the prior sanction for prosecution as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to prosecute a public servant for the act of creating fake documents as the alleged acts do not form a part of his official duty.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of Section 3G Of National Highways Act
Case Title: B.D. Vivek v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil No. 1364 of 2023
Coram: Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Constitutional Validity of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. The writ petition questions the legality of Section 3G(5) of the Act. This section mandates arbitration to resolve disputes over the compensation amount payable to landowners when their land is acquired. The arbitration is to be conducted by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.
Supreme Court Asks CEC To Examine Issues Related To Mining In Aravali Hills
Case Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No.- 2997 – 1995
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, prima facie, opined that if the State of Rajasthan believes that the mining activities in the Aravali Range pose a threat to the environment, the State can also prevent mining activities in the Aravalli Range.
Apart from this, for the issue of whether the classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges regarding the mining permit needs to be continued, the Court requested the CEC to examine the same.
Case Title: Sadaf Imran v. UPPSC. W.P.(C) No. 581/2023
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Supreme Court set aside a decision of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) to reject the application of a candidate for the Judicial Service (Junior Division) Examination and directed the UPPSC to declare the results of the petitioner.
Case Title: O Panneerselvam v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24812-24814 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
In a major setback to former chief minister O Panneerselvam and other members who were expelled from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the Supreme Court refused to stay the general council resolutions that led to their removal.
The expelled leaders, Panneerselvam, R Vaithilingam, and others, approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's dismissal of their appeals seeking relief against the council's resolution.
Case Title: UP Congress Committee (I) V. State of UP., SLP(C) No. 828/2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court directed that the recovery of Rs 2.66 crore from the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee (UPCC) towards the dues to the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation(UPSRTC) will remain stayed subject to the condition of the UPCC depositing Rs 1 crore within four weeks. Pertinently, the dues were for using the buses and taxis of the UPSRTC for its political purposes between 1981 and 89, the period during which the Congress party was in power in the State.
LIFE Mission Case : Supreme Court Makes M Sivasankar's Interim Bail Absolute On Medical Grounds
Case Title: M Sivasankar v. Union of India and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 5590/2023
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
Without going into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court today granted bail on medical grounds to M Sivasankar, former Principal Secretary to Chief Minister of Kerala, who was arrested in connection with the LIFE Mission money laundering case.
Case Title: Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 698 of 2022
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a significant development, the Supreme Court issued directives to state bar councils, compelling them to submit status reports regarding compliance with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
Rule 26 mandates state bar councils to prepare a district-wise roster of such senior counsel and obligates the Bar Council of India to publish and circulate this list for the benefit of law students seeking internships.
Case Title: The State of Assam and others v. Binod Kumar and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 46
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gauhati High Court's ruling that Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual was invalid being in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 (Act).
Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. KC Palanisamy, SLP(Crl) No.466/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a relief to All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS), the Supreme Court today stayed a Madras High Court order which restored the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by expelled AIADMK leader KC Palanisamy (KCP).
E-Rickshaws To Be Provided In Matheran Only For Present Hand Cart Pullers: Supreme Court
Case Title: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No.- 2997 – 1995
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court has clarified that E-Rickshaws, if permitted, in the city of Matheran would be only for present hand cart pullers. This was to compensate them on account of their loss of employment. The Court further clarified that there should also be a restriction on the number of E-rickshaws permitted in Matheran.
Children From Void Marriage Can't Be Denied Share In Their Parent's Property : Supreme Court
Case Title: RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS VERSUS M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court held that the children born out of a void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate children and be treated as an extended family of the common ancestor for the purpose of deciding a valid share in the property of the common ancestor.
Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench noted that once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage.
Case Title: Vinoj v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 3390 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Tamil Nadu Government told the Supreme Court that there is no ban on organizing the live screenings of the Pran Pratishta ceremony of Lord Ram at Ayodhya and on performing special poojas, bhajans, or annadhanams to mark the occasion. The Division bench recorded the statement made on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government and observed "We believe and trust that the authorities will act in accordance with the law and not on the basis of any oral instructions.”
Case Title: Amit Chakraborty v. State | Diary No. 43226 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court allowed NewsClick human resources head and recently-turned approver Amit Chakraborty to withdraw his plea challenging his arrest by the Delhi police. He was arrested along with Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor-in-chief of the news portal in October last year.
Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging the refusal of the Maharashtra Speaker to disqualify the MLAs of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a matter relating to electoral reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association, the top Court today asked the Association to consider the desirability of taking up all issues in its General Body Meeting. The arguments addressed emanated in response to an application filed by a member of the SCBA through Advocate-on-Record Pravir Choudhary seeking a relaxation of the norms for determining voter eligibility.
Coram: Justices J K Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case Title: VYJYANTI MEHRA vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 51
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 4 lakhs on the Himachal Pradesh University for re-evaluating subjects, which the student/ appellant neither applied for nor paid the revaluation fee. “Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appellant has applied only for two subjects, but under the terms of Clause 10 of the Revaluation Form, without deposit of the revaluation fee, the revaluation of other subjects has been made….,” the Court said.
Supreme Court Directs Trial To Commence In Cattle Smuggling Case Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal @ Kesto v. Central Bureau of Investigation., Diary No. 33558 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal seeking bail in connection with alleged cross-border cattle smuggling scam, ordered the commencement of the trial. The central agency arrested Mondal, currently lodged in Delhi's Tihar jail, in August last year.
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because the accused is willing to pay an interim compensation.
In the instant case, a case was registered against the accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Information Technology Act.
Before the High Court, inter-alia, the respondent submitted that he was ready to cooperate with the case investigation and also undertook to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant. In its two-page order, the Court asked the accused to deposit the said amount while granting bail. Imperatively, there were no reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Direct Centre To Notify Part 3 Of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code
Case Details: Seemab Qayyum v Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 1427/2023 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Writ Petition seeking the issuance of mandamus to the Union Government to notify Part 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The bench dismissed the matter observing that the issue is settled in the Supreme Court decision of AK Roy v. Union of India that such a direction cannot be issued by the Court.
Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION vs. U.O.I., Diary No.- 2844 – 1998
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The Supreme Court, in a writ petition pertaining to the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, has directed the States/UTs who have not filed compliance affidavits to file the same within eight weeks.
Case Title: AV Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Diary No. 1671 of 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings against four police officers who were sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court in October last year for their involvement in the public flogging of Muslim men in Gujarat's Kheda. A bench admitted the statutory appeal preferred by police officers A V Parmar, D B Kumavat, Laxmansinh Kanaksinh Dabhi, and Rajubhai Dabhi under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against October 19 order of the Gujarat High Court.
Case Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court held that while prosecuting a person for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be seen whether the deceitful act of cheating was coupled with an inducement leading to the parting of any property by the complainant.
MBBS : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Foreign Medical Graduates' Plea Seeking Payment Of Stipend
Case Title: SAJITH S L vs. ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, VIDISHA., Diary No.- 53064 – 2023
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
In a writ petition filed by the foreign medical graduates (FMGs) challenging non-payment of stipend to them, the Supreme Court issued notice.
The petition is tagged with Abhishek Yadav & Ors. vs. Army Medical College & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 730/2022). This case pertains to a plea in which 70 percent of medical colleges do not pay any stipend or are not paying the minimum set stipend to doctors doing MBBS internships.
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Title: The State of Nagaland and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(C) Diary No. 21222/2022 (and connected matter)
The Supreme Court granted leave in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Nagaland challenging Kerala High Court's order which upheld the power of the State Government to regulate lotteries from other states.
Case Title: P.I. BABU vs. C.B.I., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 56
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and KV Vishwanathan
The Supreme Court opined that acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) cannot be based solely on invalid Sanction. “The Sessions Court could not have acquitted the accused only on the ground of alleged invalid sanction, without recording its findings on all the issues involved.,” the Court said.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The State of Karnataka and Anr., Original Suit No. 1 of 2018
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In a dispute between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources, the Supreme Court today directed that a new Negotiation Committee be constituted to re-explore the possibility of settlement by negotiations between the States. The Bench ordered that the Committee submit its report over the outcome to the Union government within 3 months of its constitution and the matter be listed thereafter.
Case Details: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VERSUS KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court set aside the default bail granted to DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan in the case related to the alleged multi-crore loan scam. Setting aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench noted that Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan cannot claim the statutory right of default bail on the ground that the investigation is pending against other accused.
CASE TITLE: M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8580-8582 OF 2011 (AND CONNECTED MATTERS)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 55
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
While deciding the question as to whether reopening of a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (Act) was legally sustainable or not, the Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of tax assessment, an assessee's obligation is limited to making a "full and true" disclosure of all "material" or primary facts, and thereafter, the burden shifts on the assessing officer. If a return is defective, it is upto the officer that he intimate the assessee in order that defects may be cured. But if the officer fails to do so, the return cannot be called defective.
Case Details: PRAMILA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 57
Coram: Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court acquitted a woman who was sentenced to suffer life-imprisonment for committing an offence of murder, after finding that she was a juvenile in 2000 when the offence took place. Setting-aside the concurring finding of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench noted that at the time of occurrence of the offence, the accused was juvenile, and therefore, no punishment could be imposed on the accused in view of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
Case Title: Vishal Noble Singh V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. (SLP(Crl) No. 2389/2023) And Vinod Bihari Lal Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case over alleged forgery and cheating against Dr.Vishal Noble Singh, the Principal of Bishop Johnson School and College, Prayagraj. A division bench observed that no offence was made out against the appellant on a reading of the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet.
Case Title: Halal India Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 690 of 2023 and connected matters.
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued notice in Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust's plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of halal-certified products. It also protected Jamiat chief Mahmood Madani and other office-bearers of the trust from any coercive action.
Case Title: Swami Prasad Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. | Diary No. 50823 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued notice in Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya's plea for quashing of criminal proceedings over his alleged remark about Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed Maurya's plea to quash legal proceedings in a Pratapgarh district court related to the controversial remarks about the epic poem based on Ramayanan.
The bench not only issued notice in his petition but also stayed the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
Case Title: Vishwa Hindu Parishad Kerala v. State of Kerala Diary No. 1752-2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad seeking permission to operate vehicles offering free transport for Sabarimala pilgrims in Nilakkal to Pampa route. The Court sought the responses of the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
Case Title: Icon Films Limited v. Ravindra N Redkar & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1460 of 2024
The Supreme Court asked the Karnataka High Court to defer the contempt proceedings against streaming platform Netflix over the airing of “Wild Karnataka” documentary. At the same time, the bench orally asked Netflix to contribute to the 'Tiger Protection Fund' and put an end to the dispute. CJI said that the bench will ask other parties also, BBC, Discovery India and the Producers also to contribute to the Fund and will fix an amount.
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. B. N. MAGON., Diary No(s). 53916/2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment, holding that an advocate's office run from a residential building is not subject to property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a "business building." While doing so, the Bench affirmed that the "professional activity" of lawyers does not fall within the category of "commercial establishment" or "business activity," and the firm of lawyers is not a "commercial establishment."
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORS v. MANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10846 OF 2018., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The Supreme Court held that as per Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, disqualified members would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members.
Conviction Cannot Be Based On Suspicion : Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 15 Yr Old Murder Case
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Case Title: RAJA NAYKAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60
While deciding the issue whether suspicious sole recovery of blood-stained weapon could form the basis of conviction, the Supreme Court held in negative by holding that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.
Setting-aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench held that an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion unless some corroborated piece of evidence is found proving the guilt of the accused.
Supreme Court Stays Meghalaya HC Order Fixing Compensation Amount For Unnatural Custodial Deaths
Case Title: The State of Meghalaya v. Killing Jana & Ors., SLP(C) Diary No.47683/2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court has issued notice on Meghalaya government's petition challenging an order of the State's High Court, whereby quantum of punitive compensation payable by the government for custodial deaths since 2012 was affixed on the basis of age of the victims. The three-Judge Bench stayed the impugned judgment, subject to a condition that the State shall pay compensation amount determined by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Case Details: Surgical Manufacturers And Traders Association v Union Of India Diary No. 53762-2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on declined to interfere with Delhi High Court's ruling which upheld the Central Government notifications to include medical devices such as nebulizers, blood pressure monitoring devices, digital thermometers, and glucometers as "drugs”. The bench dismissed the SLP filed by Surgical Manufacturers and Traders Association considering that the order to be reasoned adequately in light of welfare interests.
Case: In Re: Orders Of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and ancillary issues., SWM(C) No 1/2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose
In a special Saturday sitting, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, after taking suo motu cognizance of unusual developments in the Calcutta High Court, stayed all the proceedings before the High Court in the case where a single bench defied a stay order passed by a division bench.
The Court took suo moto cognizance of an order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court which called ignored an order by a division bench, which stayed the single bench's order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities pertaining to admissions to medical colleges in West Bengal.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Constructions Near Nagpur's Futala Lake
Case Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v The State Of Maharashtra And Ors SLP(C) No. 1420/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices PB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Taking note of the concrete construction of 'temporary structures' in and around the 300 years old Futala Lake in Nagpur, the Supreme Court ordered status quo at the lake site and sought a response from the state of Maharashtra on the status of 'temporariness' of the structures concerned.
Case Title: PG Manu v. State of Kerala and others., SLP(Crl) No. 666/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by a former Government Pleader at the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case.
The allegation was that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim, who had approached him as a client in relation to another sexual assault case in which she was the victim.
"You were in a position of dominance...we have to consider that", Justice Roy said. Observing that there was no infirmity in the Kerela High Court's order (denying bail), the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 978 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the high court granting anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister and Telegu Desam Party (TDP) President N Chandrababu Naidu in the Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam case.
Case Title: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned until April a batch of pleas pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute but extended the interim stay granted on a high court order appointing a commission to inspect the premises of the mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.
CASE TITLE: GOA FOUNDATION V. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12234-35 of 2018
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In appeals filed for modification of the criteria for identification of private 'forests' in State of Goa, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the existing criteria are adequate and valid, and require no alteration.
Caste Or Religion Of Parties Should Not Be Mentioned In Any Filings Before Courts : Supreme Court
Case Title: SHAMA SHARMA v. KISHAN KUMAR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 62
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has passed a general order directing that the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Courts. To ensure the immediate compliance of these directions, the Court also directed a copy of this order to be placed before the concerned Registrar. The same shall be circulated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts.
Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Non-Appearance Of Accused Before Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: KRISHNA SHARMA ALIAS KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 65
Coram: B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the non-appearance of the accused party is no ground for cancellation of bail.
The High Court had noted that, on several occasions, it directed the accused person to appear personally before the Court. However, the Court, while cancelling the bail, had observed that neither the accused nor his lawyer was present. It recorded that this non-appearance 'exposes an insolent stance of opposite party No.2 to evade the process of law.' Against this backdrop, the matter came up before the Top Court.
The Court observed that if bail has been granted, the same can be canceled if any conditions are violated or liberty is misused.
Case Title: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) V M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 63
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has held that the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has no effect on the execution of a decree against the Directors or Officers of the Company (Corporate Debtor), which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under IBC.
The Bench held that the protection of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is only available to the Company and not to its Directors or Officers, thus the execution of decree can be done against them even during moratorium.
Case Title: M/S ALANKAR WINES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION SOCIETIES SLP(C) No. 015399 - / 2023 & Connected matters
Coram: Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
The Supreme Court noticed that it had wrongly applied a precedent while ordering the relocation of a liquor shop in Puducherry to an area beyond 500 meters from a temple, mosque or an educational institution.
Taking note of the developments, the Court recalled the earlier order and restored the writ petition back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, the Supreme Court called for responses of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force as to why he had not been paid the court-ordered sum of Rs.1.6 crores in compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV. The Bench, while issuing notice, declined the respondents' request to defer the proceedings on the ground that a review petition has been filed against the court's judgment awarding compensation.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Alleging Allotment Of Contracts To Arunachal CM's Family
Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 54/2024 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court agreed to issue notice in a PIL seeking directions for SIT probe into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to the companies owned by relatives of the incumbent chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Pema Khandu.
As per the petition, there was alleged partiality in giving away key tenders to the close associates of Mr Pema Khandu including the construction company 'M/s brand Eagles' belonging to Khandu's spouse. Additionally, Pema's nephew Mr. Tsering Tashi, an MLA from Tawang District owning M/s Alliance Trading Co. has been awarded work contracts without following due procedure.
Case Title : Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 64
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused is disputing the signature on the cheque, then the certified copies of the signatures from the bank could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque. The Court explained that the indorsements on a cheque carry a presumption of genuineness as per Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is incumbent upon the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of signatures.
Case Title: DASHRATH SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be sustained if the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not committed on the ground of caste.
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the principles of Hindu law could be applied while adjudicating inheritance rights under the Mohammedan law. The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, while issuing notice in a partition matter, ordered:
“The question of seminal importance, which is required to be decided in this case is whether the principles of Hindu law could be applied while deciding the right of inheritance falling under the Mohammedan law.”
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone), WP(C) No. 13381/1984
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court today asked the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine whether the road construction proposed for the State of Uttar Pradesh could take place without felling 3874 trees. Calling the State's application (for felling of 3874 trees on the basis that they would be affected by proposed construction of Agra-Jalesar-Etah road in the State) "vague", the Bench deprecated the manner in which the same had been filed and said, "we will not allow trees to be cut so easily".
Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Ors v The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16557/2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay
The Supreme Court extended the interim stay granted to the Vice Chancellor and other officials (present appellants) of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) in a case pertaining to the alleged forceful religious conversion of a woman to Christianity. The Bench Kumar also directed the State of UP to file a counter-affidavit within one week. The matter is listed after three weeks.
Case Title: Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2020
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
In a significant development on Tuesday, January 30, the Supreme Court called for the publication of review committee orders concerning internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir.
This observation was made by a bench in response to an application filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals, pressing for compliance with the court's May 2020 judgment. In this ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a special committee - consisting of the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary of the Department of Communication and the Chief Secretary of the UT- to assess the necessity of internet restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking review of its judgment in Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement which held that the ED need not supply to the accused the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest and that written information can be given within 24 hours. "In our opinion, no case for review is made out.
Consequently, the Review petition is dismissed," observed the Bench.
Case Title: SANJAY UPADHYA VERSUS ANAND DUBEY., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal defamation case against the owner of a newspaper over an article published against an advocate.
The Court opined that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and A Amanullah
In a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated to address the issue of overcrowding of prisons in India, the Supreme Court today directed States/Union Territories to constitute District-level Committees, which shall assess and report on available infrastructure in jails and give a decision on the number of additional jails required in terms of the Model Prison Manual, 2016. The Bench ordered that the governments of the States/UTs shall notify constitution of the Committees within 1 week from the date of receipt of the court's order and the Committees shall hold their first meeting within 2 weeks of their constitution.
Case Title: GULSHAN BAJWA vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OR DELHI., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court, while convicting an advocate in a seventeen-year-old criminal contempt case, reiterated that an apology must be evidence of remorse for the contemptuous acts. It must not be used as a weapon 'to purge the guilty of their offence'. Further, an apology lacking sincerity and not evidencing contriteness cannot be accepted.
Case Title: SHEIKH ARIF VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 68
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
To sustain the offence of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage, it must be established that right from the inception, the consent of the woman was obtained based on the false promise, reiterated the Supreme Court.
CASE TITLE: VANDEEP SINGH BASRA & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., W.P.(C) No.32/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
While hearing a plea against the embargo placed on medical candidates resigning from NEET seats after joining, the Supreme Court directed the Directorate General of Health Services - Medical Counselling Committee (DGHS-MCC) to permit 3 doctors, who had secured selection in Super Specialty courses in INIs (Institutions of National Importance), to resign from the Institutes where they were admitted.
Case Title: P.C. JAIN VERSUS DR. R.P. SINGH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 70
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court granted relief to the 84-year-old man by directing the Doctor to award him compensation amounting to Rs. 2 Lacs in a medical negligence case. The complainant patient has lodged a consumer complaint against the Doctor after he lost vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by the Doctor in a surgical procedure.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. IN RE CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATION TRIBUNALS (SUO MOTO), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order stipulating that the Uttar Pradesh Educational Service Tribunals should be established only after the permission of the High Court.
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR DAS JOINT SECRETARY vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST (SOLE RESPONDENT)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 73
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court recently, in a case where the status quo order qua possession of the suit premises was wilfully violated, held that the same amounts to civil contempt. Thus, instead of vacating the stay of execution proceedings, the Court held that contempt proceedings should have been initiated.
Constitution Bench Hearing- on the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Case Title: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court began the hearing of a batch of connected matters on the issue of minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). Senior Advocate Dr Rajeev Dhavan opened the arguments on the AMU.
Drawing on the historical events that led to the culmination of the AMU Act, of 1920, Dhavan elaborated on the historical antecedents.
The Supreme Court in continuance of its hearing of the Constitution Bench matter on the issue of the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), noted that the requirement to 'administer' under Article 30 of the Constitution may not be absolute for an education institution to qualify the minority character.
While hearing the reference related to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University, the Supreme Court on Thursday (January 11) orally remarked that the protection of a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) is not lost merely because the minority community involves others in the administration.
"The object of Article 30 is not to ghettoise the minorities. So if you let other people associate with your institution, it doesn't detract from your character as a minority institution", observed Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
On the 4th day of arguments, the CJI verbally observed that it is now a well-settled proposition that merely seeking financial aid from the state will not deprive a denominational institution of its minority status.
During the submissions from the Union's side, Attorney General for India (AG) R Venkataramani mentioned in his written submissions that Article 30 was an enabling provision.
The bench however asked how Article 30 which grants rights to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, is considered 'enabling'. The CJI explained, “ You see enabling provision is like Article 15 where you have a choice to make a provision. 30 is not enabling so far as the state is concerned. It is an obligation on the state. It cannot be that I as a state can decide to grant or deny you the status.”
During the second half of the fourth day of the hearing of the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Solicitor General of India (SG) Mr Tushar Mehta made submissions on the historical aspects of the AMU Act of 1920 and emphasized the context in which the University came into existence. In one such submission, he argued that while AMU was a pre-constitution institution recognised under the Imperial legislation, there did exist other institutions at the same time which were not recognised under the British Crown. These included Osmania University, Bihar University, Kashi Vidhyalaya, Scottish College, St Stephen's etc.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta (SG), 5th day of hearing, argued that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was established by an imperial legislation passed by the British Crown (AMU Act 1920).
The Chief Justice of India, presiding over the 7 Judges Bench verbally observed that the regulatory frameworks during the British Era had one sole objective, that “nothing should be done to destroy the imperial hegemony of the colonial power”. He further stressed that it is in this context that the establishment of a Pre-Constitution Institution like AMU has to be seen.
The fifth day of the hearing in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case witnessed certain dramatic moments when the Solicitor General of India submitted that he was not supporting the amendment passed by the Parliament in 1981 which had the effect of conferring minority status to the AMU. The bench expressed surprise at this submission of the SG and asked how can the law officer of the Union Government oppose an amendment passed by the Parliament.
In the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Union Government submitted before the Supreme Court that an institution of national importance must reflect that national structure.
Stressing that AMU is an institution of national importance, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested the Court to analyse the issue from the angle of social justice, so that students belonging to SC/ST/SEBC sections can also gain access to it. The SG underscored that about 70-80% of the students in AMU are Muslims at present.
The issue whether a group constitutes a 'minority' must be decided on the basis of present-day standards and not based on the situation which existed before the commencement of the Constitution of India, observed the Supreme Court during the hearing.
The observation of the seven-judge Constitution Bench came in response to an argument made by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that Muslims were not a minority at the time of the establishment of AMU in 1920 during the British rule. Dwivedi is appearing for one of the petitioners who had approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the minority status of AMU.
News Update
PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Inclusion Of CJI In Election Commissioners' Selection Committee
A public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed in the Supreme Court asking for the setting aside of a December 28 gazette notification for the appointment of chief election commissioner and other election commissioners. This was in terms of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. President Droupadi Murmu signed the Act into law following the Winter Session of Parliament.
The petitioners argued for implementing an independent and transparent selection system, constituting a neutral committee for appointing the chief election commissioners and other election commissioners, and including the Chief Justice of India in the selection panel.
The writ petition has been drawn by Advocate Anjale Patel and filed through Advocate-on-Record Sanjeev Malhotra.
Supreme Court Rejects Delhi Police Plea To Construct Temporary Quarters Over Yamuna River Bank
Case Title: Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs UOI, Diary No. 44256 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the order of the National Green Tribunal that denied them permission to construct temporary quarters for personnel over the banks of the Yamuna river. The bench said that construction cannot be allowed over the banks of Yamuna and that Steps should be taken to protect the environment.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Anr. Diary No. 23592/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of train accidents in India, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General for India to apprise the court of protective systems in place to avoid train collisions, or those that are sought to be implemented, including the Union government's 'Kavach' scheme.
This scheme facilitates prevention of accidents by controlling the speed of a train by automatic application of brakes in case the loco pilot fails to do so.
Among others, the PIL also seeks setting up of an enquiry commission to probe into the Odisha Train Accident that took place on June 2, 2023.
Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001405 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Writ Petition filed by a transgender teacher whose appointment was allegedly terminated in two different schools in both Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh upon revelation of her gender identity.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed assailing the signature campaign statedly being organized by Tamil Nadu State ruling party Dravida Munnetra Khazagam (DMK) against National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) exams.
The Bench opined that this is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. During the hearing, it also said that NEET, a competitive examination, has to be held on a pan-India basis and will not be affected by the campaign.
Advocate ML Ravi filed the PIL.
Congress leader Jaya Thakur approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Through this legislative move, the Chief Justice of India was dropped from a committee to appoint the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners.
Petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's March ruling in Anoop Baranwal. This case mandated the inclusion of the chief justice in the appointment process till the Parliament enacted a law regulating it in view of the need for an independent and unbiased selection panel.
Case Title: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
The Supreme Court, while hearing a clutch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the State of Bihar, questioned the extent to which the government could withhold the break-up of the survey data.
The Bench was currently hearing special leave petitions filed by non-governmental organisations Youth for Equality and Ek Soch Ek Prayas and others against a decision of the Patna High Court delivered on August 2 to uphold the Bihar government's decision to undertake caste-based survey.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To IT Department On NewsClick's Plea To Stay Tax Demand
Case Title: PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Delhi-1, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition news portal “NewsClick” challenging High Court of Delhi's rejection of its challenge to demand raised by tax authorities. The petition sought ad-interim ex-parte stay of the High Court order and the tax demand.
The Court while issuing notice also sought response of the IT Department in two weeks.
Case Title: KSR MENON vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001403 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution which sought guidelines for children with special needs on the attainment of the legal age of majority (18 years) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015).
Case Title: ISHAN GILL vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001249 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court rejected a plea for the appointment of experienced advocates to fill the vacant judicial member positions in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). CJI verbally observed, “But your relief is wrong. You can't say that just appoint advocates to fill up all the empty positions, that can't be done there is a selection process which has to be followed”.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Lok Sabha Secratariat & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1410 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court asked the Secretary General of Lok Sabha to file a reply to the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra challenging her recent expulsion from the Lok Sabha over allegations of unethical conduct.
The bench also turned down a prayer made by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the petitioner to allow Moitra to attend Lok Sabha proceedings in the meantime as an interim measure.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Removing Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu
Case Title: SANJAY KUNDU v. REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 54019/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court which removed him from the post of Himachal Pradesh's Director General of Police. The Court also stayed the consequent order issued by the State government transferring Kundu as the DGP and posting him as the Principal Secretary of the Ayush Department.
The bench also granted liberty to Kundu to approach the High Court seeking recall of the order. The stay order will be in effect till the recall application is disposed.
Case Title: SUKANYA SHANTHA vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001404 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and thirteen State Governments on a Public Interest Litigation highlighting caste-based segregation in prisons in various states.
The Bench was apprised of the state of affairs in several prisons across the nation where prison manuals reinforce caste-based discrimination through caste hierarchy in the division of labour and segregation of barracks.
Bhima Koregaon Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice To NIA On Professor Hany Babu's Bail Plea
Case Title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency., Diary No. 35415 of 2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court issued notice in the bail plea of Delhi University professor Hany Babu, who was arrested by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case.
Hany Babu had preferred special leave petition against a September 2022 decision of the Bombay High Court to reject his bail application in this case. Babu has been lodged in jail since July 2020 after being arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune.
Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. SAIFURREHMAN ANSARI., Diary No.- 26084 – 2023
Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has recused from hearing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of accused persons in the 2008 Jaipur bomb blasts case.
Rajasthan High Court is the parent High Court of Justice Mehta, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in November last year.
Case Title: Mr X v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Indian citizen Nikhil Gupta, who is detained in the Czech Republic in connection with the plot to assassinate Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Sigh Pannun in the United States of America.
However, accepting the request of the petitioner to treat the petition as a representation to the Government of India, the bench said that it is for the Union Government to decide whether to intervene in the matter or not.
Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13143 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera for quashing criminal proceedings against him over his alleged 'Narendra Gautam Das Modi' comment made at a press conference in Mumbai.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent., SMW (Civil) No. 3 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court criticised a Calcutta High Court judgment which made news in December last year for cautioning girls in their adolescence to 'control their sexual urges' to prevent being deemed a 'loser' in the eyes of society “when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes”. Not only did the top court find the observations 'problematic', but also questioned the legal principles invoked in the ruling.
Supreme Court Asks High Court To Not Unnecessarily Summon Officials Of J&K Administration
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. v. Honble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, SLP(C) No. 25417/2023
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court asked the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh not to “unnecessarily” insist on the personal presence of the officials of the J&K Union Territory in connection with the creation of posts in the High Court.
The Bench allowed the continuation of the proceedings before the High Court but asked the HC to not insist on personal presence unnecessarily.
Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Diary No.- 30701 – 2009., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Coram: Justices B. R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, reiterated the well-established law that the statement recorded under Section 313 (Power to examine the accused) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court underscored that such a statement of an accused is not evidence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is not on oath, and secondly, the other party, i.e., the prosecution, does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused.
Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26271 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea against an Allahabad High Court order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) for the recognition of Mathura's Shahi Eidgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque. However, it was clarified that the petitioner could move a separate petition challenging the vires of any legislation.
The petition not only assailed the high court's verdict but also questioned the constitutionality of sections of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Halal India Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 690 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued a notice in two pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products.
The writ petitions were filed by Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra challenging the ban imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on the "manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products."
Case Title: M L RAVI V. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 026738 - 026739 / 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court concurred with a judgment of the Madras High Court which refused to direct the removal of Senthil Balaji as a Minister of the Tamil Nadu Government due to his implication in a money laundering case.
The Special Leave Petition was filed by ML Ravi, assailing a judgment of the Madras High Court which left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to take a call on Balaji's continuation in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet as a Minister without portfolio.
Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
While deciding on a plea whether there is a scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5333 of 2021
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy's plea challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to try a cash-for-vote scam case. This matter is now expected to come up after four weeks.
Case Details : AJAI LALL vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 016122 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court ordered a stay of criminal proceedings pending in a trial court in Madhya Pradesh against Christian missionary Ajai Lall in a case for alleged forced conversion of two foster children and their parents to Christianity.
The Bench passed the stay order, which will remain in force till the matter is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Extends Bombay HC's Stay On Bail Granted To Gautam Navlakha In Bhima Koregaon Case
Case Title: The National Investigation Agency v. Gautam P. Navlakha and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 167/2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
In the National Investigation Agency's petition challenging the grant of bail to journalist Gautam P Navlakha in the Bhima Koregaon case over alleged Maoist links, the Supreme Court today extended the stay granted by the Bombay High Court on the order granting bail.
A Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti ordered for the matter to be listed before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, to take a call on listing of the same with other connected petitions filed by co-accused, or for clubbing of all the matters to enable hearing by a single Bench.
Narendra Dabholkar Murder : Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Accused Vikram Bhave's Bail
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Invesigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No.6209-6210/2021
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment granting bail to accused-Vikram Bhave in the 2013 Dabholkar Murder case.
The Bench found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision on the matter, saying adequate reasons had been given in the judgment. Accordingly, the petition filed by Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of Narendra Dabholkar, was dismissed.
Case Title: M/s PPK NewsClick Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 679 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court sought the response of investigating agencies like Delhi police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to NewsClick's plea seeking guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices.
The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by digital media platform NewsClick and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha.
Claiming arbitrariness, an absence of due process, and excessive abuse of power by the investigating agencies, NewsClick and Purkayastha have insisted that the raids aimed to stifle free speech and undermine their fundamental rights.
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v. Office Of The Lieutenant Governor Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1352 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
While hearing the Delhi government's plea for the immediate disbursement of funds for its flagship 'Farishtey Dilli Ke' scheme, the Supreme Court was told by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena that he is not involved in the scheme extending cashless medical treatment for road accident victims. The government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has however alleged that the funds were stopped after the Centre's new law on the control of services in the national capital.
Responding to these conflicting narratives, the top court sought a response from the lieutenant governor, cautioning the government that it would impose exemplary costs if it is found out that the Health Minister had taken the court for a ride.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Delhi & Anr. v. Centre for Policy Research, SLP(C) Diary No(s). 44698/2023
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against stay granted in favour of public policy think tank Centre for Policy Research in respect of cancellation of its registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The Organization had moved the High Court of Delhi against the Revenue's order, which sought to cancel its registration under Section 12A with retrospective effect, thereby taking away its tax exemption status.
Case Title: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE V. BIPLAB KUMAR CHOWDHURY & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 50124/2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
In an appeal by Ministry of Environment, the Supreme Court has called for a report from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the issue of pollution by Stone Crushing Units and as to whether these Units should be brought under the Schedule of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, thereby necessitating obtaining of environmental clearance.
The underlying issue in the matter was whether Environmental Clearance was required for stone crushing activity.
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 8) agreed to constitute a bench to hear a plea raising concerns regarding the collegium system in place for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and Higher Judiciary.
Advocate Mathews Nedumpara mentioned the petition, which seeks to abolish the collegium system, before CJI for urgent listing. The lawyer said that the recently retired judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had highlighted 'faults' in the present collegium system in his interview to the PTI in December 2023.
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6561/2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
In Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain's challenge to denial of bail by the Delhi High Court, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that no predicate offence could be made out against Jain, and as a consequence, there was no case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act as well.
It was submitted that no share was purchased by Jain in the relevant check period (2015-17). As there was no such purchase, there could neither be any DA (disproportionate assets), nor a predicate offence. In any case, Jain was not a public servant during the said period and hence the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable.
An application has been filed on behalf of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) questioning the impartiality of Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar in deciding the disqualification petitions filed against the members of the Eknath Shinde faction.
It is alleged in the application that the Speaker met Chief Minister Eknath Shinde at the latter's official residence on January 7, when just three days remain for the pronouncement of the verdict in the disqualification petitions.
[Also Note: The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar held that Eknath Shinde led faction was the real Shiv Sena when the rival faction emerged within the party on June 22, 2022. He has refused to disqualify any member from both the factions, led by Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray.]
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 6561/2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
On Day 2 of arguments on merits in Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain's bail matter, it was claimed before the Supreme Court today that there was not even any indirect evidence against the leader.
Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and N Hariharan, contended that the ED has changed the case against Jain from 'shareholding' in the companies (Paryas Infosolution, Akinchan Developers, and Mangalayatan Projects) to 'control' thereof. However, on the basis of evidence today, no case of 'control' by Jain is made out. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the documents on record, including financial statements of the companies.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi. Criminal Appeal No(s). 2826/2023
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by former JNU scholar Umar Khalid seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Khalid's lawyer, requested for adjournment as he is engaged in a Constitution Bench hearing.
The bench, though initially reluctant to adjourn the matter, ultimately agreed to post it on January 24 after repeated persuasions by Sibal.
Supreme Court Begins Hearing Pleas To Ban Cultivation Of GM Mustard
Case Title: Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court began hearing the clutch of petitions seeking a ban on the commercial cultivation of indigenously developed genetically modified mustard, christened 'HT Mustard DMH-11', which in October 2022, received the imprimatur of the environment ministry. This is the first time a transgenic food crop is planned to be commercially cultivated in India.
Case Title: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.12012-12013/2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose, PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
In a judicial officer's plea seeking expunging of remarks made against him by a Delhi High Court judge, the Supreme Court has sought the High Court's response through the Registrar General.
Stray Dog Issue | Supreme Court Lists Matter For Final Hearing On February 28
Case Title: Animal Welfare Board of India V. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles C.A. No. 5988/2019
Coram: Justices J K Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia
The Supreme Court listed the matter concerning curbing stray dog attacks in the country for a final hearing on February 28, 2024. The Court also recorded that pleadings may be exchanged, if any, a week before the above-mentioned date. In the meantime, the parties were allowed to file their written submissions.
Case Details: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 2415 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted last year to former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik by another six months. Malik was arrested on February 23, 2022 by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case, but was released on interim bail in August last year.
The Division Bench was hearing a special leave petition filed by Malik against a July 2023 order of the Bombay High Court declining the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) legislator's request for interim bail on medical grounds.
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6561/2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
On the third day of Aam Aadmi Party leader and PMLA-accused Satyendar Jain's bail hearing, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) objected to the release of the former minister on bail by arguing that he exercised de facto control over the companies allegedly at the centre of a purported money-laundering racket.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 836 of 2020
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
While hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to the district-wise identification of minorities, the Supreme Court on Friday (January 12) expressed its disapproval over certain state governments' failure to submit affidavits and responses despite previous reminders.
The public interest litigants in this case has prayed for guidelines for the identification of minorities at the district level, with the stated objective of ensuring that only those religious and linguistic group that are socially, economically, politically non-dominant and numerically inferior get the benefits and protections guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In the latest development in the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case, the Supreme Court orally remarked that the state government had not acted in the manner expected after the incident.
The case relates to a primary school teacher in Uttar Pradesh's Muzaffarnagar instructing schoolchildren to slap their Muslim classmate, a video of which became viral on social media in August.
Case Title: Kerala Pravasi Association through its President Versus Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022., Diary No.- 31222 – 2022
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court, while hearing a plea to constitute an independent expert committee for studying the efficacy of the Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines (IDRV) administered to Humans, asked the Additional Solicitor General and Standing Counsel of Kerala to file their response within four weeks expeditiously. The Court termed this as a 'serious issue'.
Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Speaker to recognize Eknath Shinde group as the real Shiv Sena and refusing to disqualify the members of Shinde faction for defection as per the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
It was on January 10 that Speaker Rahul Narwekar pronounced the verdict rejecting the petitions filed by Uddhav faction seeking to disqualify Eknath Shinde and his supporting MLAs. The Speaker also dismissed the disqualification petitions filed by Shinde faction against Uddhav group.
Case Title: Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and others v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 10456/2019 and connected cases.
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has listed for final hearing a batch of appeals filed by Catholic congregations challenging the judgments of Madras and Kerala High Court which held that Tax Deduction at Source
Case Title: Dr.Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Diary No(s).508/2024
Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Stressing that there should be proper methods which will ensure that good people are there in the judiciary, the CJI expressed prima facie approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's mandate that judicial officers should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interview for promotion as District Judges.
The Bench was hearing a set of special leave petitions filed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month directing the Haryana Government to accept the recommendations of the High Court on appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges.
Supreme Court To Hear Next Month Plea To Implement Women's Reservation Before Lok Sabha Polls
Case Title: Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1181 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned until February a plea to implement the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, which proposes introducing women's reservation in the Lok Sabha, the upper houses of the state legislatures, and the Delhi legislative assembly. Although the constitutional amendment was signed into law by President Droupadi Murmu in September, the act will not be implemented until a delimitation exercise is conducted following the next census.
Case Title: Anun Dhawan and others versus Union of India and others, WP(c) No.1103/2019
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, which sought to formulate a community kitchen policy to avoid starvation deaths. At first, the Bench was not convinced to keep the petition alive. However, after much persuasion from the petitioner's counsel, the Court granted a week's time to file an updated convenience compilation and reserved judgment.
Case Title: M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS., Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court adjourned till April the Constitution Bench hearing of the reference on the issue whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg, gave time to the Union to crystalise the matter in terms of policy framework.
Earlier, the Court had asked the Union Government to evaluate the issue and consider amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 so that the there is no adverse impact on the livelihood of millions of transport vehicle drivers. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani informed the Court today that deliberations were going on with the State Governments regarding the possible policy changes.
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol
Taking serious note of the gross delay of over four years on the part of the Income Tax Department in filing statutory appeals before the High Court, the Supreme Court has called for an affidavit from the concerned officer to explain the inquiry made and action taken regarding the delay.
281 lawyers have written to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud objecting to the Supreme Court's decision to discontinue until further orders the practice of circulating adjournment letters or slips one day before a matter is listed.
The lawyers who have written to the chief justice argue that the elimination of the existing procedure during the interregnum would have 'serious consequences' for both the bar and the bench.
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On AAP Leader Satyendar Jain's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
After four days of hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Aam Aadmi Party leader and PMLA-accused Satyendar Jain's bail plea. Jain was arrested by the central agency in May 2022 on charges of money laundering. He, along with others, were accused of laundering money through three companies during 2010-12 and 2015-16.
The Supreme Court directed the bail plea of activist and Bhima Koregaon-accused Jyoti Jagtap to be tagged with co-accused Shoma Kanti Sen's appeal and heard together.
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to hold the elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Multi-State Cooperative Group-Housing Society Ltd, scheduled to take place on January 18, 2024.
The Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has written to the Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, to grant a holiday for all courts across the country on the occasion of the inauguration of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on January 22, acknowledging its “cultural and national significance.”
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction over the nature of the apology tendered by the lawyer who had been held in custody for his objectionable remarks against the Trial Court and High Court Judges during one of his pleadings.
The issue arose when the petitioner, a 60-year-old lawyer, made caustic remarks against the trial judge in the pleadings in an appeal filed against the conviction in a criminal case. Although the High Court warned him, he said that he was standing by the remarks.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court dismissed the applications filed by all the eleven Bilkis Bano case convicts seeking further time to surrender before jail authorities. The Court said that the reasons cited by the convicts seeking extension of time to surrender lacked merits. The convicts will have to surrender before the jail authorities by January 21, the original deadline set by the Court as per its January 8 judgment, which set aside their premature release.
Case Title: ASHOK PANDEY vs. THE SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA., Diary No.- 36627 - 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership, which was suspended following his conviction in a criminal defamation case over the 'Modi-thieves' remark.
Supreme Court Designates 56 Advocates As Senior Advocates, 11 Among Them Women
The Supreme Court designated 56 advocates as senior advocates. Eleven out of them are women. It is after 5 years that the Supreme Court is conferring senior designations. Last time, in March 2019, 37 advocates, including 6 women, were conferred with senior designations.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Karnataka HC CJ Justice PB Varale As SC Judge
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Prasanna B Varale, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, as a Judge of the Supreme Court. While recommending Justice Varale's name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that among the High Court Judges he is the senior-most Judge belonging to a Scheduled Caste and the only Chief Justice belonging to a Scheduled Caste among the Chief Justices of High Courts across the country.
Morbi Bridge Collapse : Supreme Court Rejects Victims' Plea To Set Aside Bail Of Oreva Manager
Case Title: Tragedy Victim Association Morbi v. Dineshkumar Mansukhrai Dave and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 866/2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
Dismissing a challenge to the grant of bail to Morbi Bridge Collapse accused Dineshkumar Dave, the Supreme Court today observed that investigation against the Oreva manager was complete and incarceration could not be indefinitely continued. The Bench remarked that though Dave was claimed to be a Manager in Oreva, he was earning a “small price”.
Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court., W.P.(Crl.) No. 351/2023
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked that High Courts must allow lawyers to access virtual hearings throughout the court proceedings, without restricting such access only to the particular item of the lawyer. CJI made this remark while hearing a batch of petitions which seek directions to ensure that all High Courts and Tribunals allow virtual access.
The President of India has approved the appointment of Advocate Pranav Shailesh Trivedi as a Judge of the Gujarat High Court.
CASE TITLE: MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 838/2019
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court sought the views of the Union Government on striking a balance between the need to protect the Great Indian Bustard, an endangered bird, and India's international commitments toward lowering the carbon footprint through solar energy. The bench sought updated status reports from the Union and States of Rajasthan and Gujarat on the measures taken to prevent the deaths of the Bustards due to the collision with overhead transmission wires installed at solar panel projects.
Supreme Court Seeks Union's Stand Regarding Cryptocurrency
Case Title: GANESH SHIV KUMAR SAGAR vs. UNION OF INDIA., Diary No.- 1116 – 2023
Coram: Surya Kant and K.V. Vishwanathan
The Supreme Court (on January 19) has asked the Union to present its stance with reference to the matters of cryptocurrency arising in different States
Supreme Court Reprimands Registry For Not Listing Case Violating Judicial Order
Case Title: Commander N Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 49
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at members of the Registry staff for violating a judicial order regarding the listing of the matters on the Regular list. The Bench noted that on November 22, 2023, the subject matters were directed to be listed on December 07, 2023 (Thursday). However, they came to be listed on December 08, when Senior Advocate DN Goburdhun pointed out that the cases ought to have been listed a day prior.
Case Title: TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA., Diary No.- 42856 - 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that he has withdrawn the remarks made by him about Gujaratis. Yadav filed the affidavit in a transfer petition filed by him seeking to transfer from Ahmedabad to a neutral venue the criminal defamation case filed against him over his "Gujarati hi thag hai ho sakta hai (only Gujaratis can be cheats)" remark.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday (22.1.24) announced steps to solve the issue of non-tallying of pagination of copies that often occurs during the pleadings.
As per the measures, the scanned copy of paper books with proper pagination will be shared with the Advocates on Record through the mode of email. The paperbooks of each matter will be required to be segregated into 3 PDFs, namely (1) The main PDF which shall contain petitions and relevant documents submitted at the time of filing; (2) Additional Documents' PDF which shall contain interim applications and subsequently filed documents and (3) Records PDF which maintains the record of proceedings and office reports which are submitted time to time.
Inform Steps Taken On Revision Of Electoral Rolls To Remove Duplicate Entries : Supreme Court To ECI
Case Title: Samvidhan Bachao Trust v Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1228/2023 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) concerning the steps it has taken to revise the electoral rolls and tackle the issue of duplication of entries in those instances where either the electors have been deceased or have shifted their place of residence.
Case Title: State Of Punjab v Union Of India Orgnl Suit No. 6/2021
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court framed 7 key issues which are to be decided in the original suit filed by the State of Punjab challenging the Union's notification extending the jurisdiction of Border Security Force (BSF) from 15 to 50 Km in the state.
Supreme Court's Centre for Research and Planning Calls For Internship Applications
The Centre for Research and Planning of the Supreme Court has called for internship applications. The CRP assists the Supreme Court judges in research. It also assists the Collegium in providing inputs about the judgments of candidates under consideration for judgeship.
Case Title: In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In course of hearing of a public interest litigation challenging inaction of governments in appointing President, Members and Staff of District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions across the country, Attorney General R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that a meeting of all State Secretaries (and others) was sought to be planned by the Union to address all aspects of the matter.
Supreme Court Pulls Up Registry For Not Listing Adani Power Case Despite Judicial Order
Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited | Diary No. 21994-2022
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court pulled up its Registry for not listing a matter related to Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd despite a judicial order to post it on January 23.
Taking serious note of this issue, the bench assured Dave that it would investigate the issue, before proceeding to summon a senior Registry official to the court. The official from the Registry reached the Court. The judges then retired to the chambers for a closed-door discussion with the official. After reassembling, the bench directed that the matter should be listed as the first item tomorrow, Wednesday, January 24.
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
Case Details: IN RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST UPENDRA NATH DALAI., SMC (C) No(s).3/2023
The Supreme Court issued a non-bailable warrant against one Upendra Nath Dalai for his repetitive failure to appear before the court in the suo-moto contempt proceedings initiated against him. The contempt proceeding was initiated by the Supreme Court last year when Dalai failed to deposit the cost of Rs 1 lakh Rupees that was imposed on him for filing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition to declare Satsang founder 'Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra' a 'parmatma'.
Justice PB Varale Sworn-In As Supreme Court Judge, Dalit Representation In SC Rises To 3
Justice Prasanna B Varale was sworn-in as a judge of the Supreme Court took oath on January 25. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud administered the oath to Justice Varale, who was previously the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and a judge of the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court heard the National Federation of Indian Women's (NFIW) plea challenging the 'delimitation clause' of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, which proposes to introduce women's reservation in the Lok Sabha, the upper houses of the state legislatures, and the Delhi legislative assembly.
During hearing, the bench summarily directed NFIW's latest plea to also be tagged along with this batch of petitions.
Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Case: Directore of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024
The Supreme Court expressed the intention to frame guidelines to ensure that investigation of cases involving the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the officials of a State Government take place fairly and transparently. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by the ED seeking to transfer the investigation of the bribery case against ED officer Ankit Tiwari from the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bench issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking its response to the petition and posted the matter after two weeks. The Court directed the TNDVAC to not proceed with the investigation against Tiwari in the meantime.
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file its response to an interim relief application filed by the Kerala government, as part of its plea against alleged interference by the central government in the state's finances. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on February 13.
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu, SLP(Crl) No.978/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Andhra Pradesh government has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the State's High Court order granting anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister and Telegu Desam Party (TDP) President N Chandrababu Naidu in alleged Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam. The matter is listed for consideration before the bench on January 29.
Supreme Court Invites Applications For Law Clerk Cum-Research Associates, Apply By February 15
The Supreme Court invited applications for Law Clerk cum-Research Associates on Short-Term Contractual Assignments. The advertisement says that it is for the preparation of a panel of approximately 90 candidates for engagement as Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates in the Supreme Court of India. The remuneration as per the advertisement is Rs. 80,000/- per month. The age limit prescribed is not below 20 years and above 32 years as of 15.02.2024.
Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited., Diary No. 21994-2022
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Adani Power's application for a payment of Rs. 1376.35 crores as outstanding late payment surcharge (LPS) from Rajasthan DISCOM.
The Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to exercise the functions of its Standing Committee till the committee can be properly and legally constituted.
Underscoring the prevailing situation, Mayor, in her petition, has also argued that several amenities have been affected. Some of them include the procurement of textbooks and medical supplies for MCD's schools and health centers and the maintenance of public parks and public toilets.
Case Title: TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA., Diary No.- 42856 - 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court granted a week time to RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav to file a clear statement withdrawing the “Gujarati hi thag hai ho sakta hai (only Gujaratis can be cheats)" comment made by him last year. The Bench sought a simple and clear statement from Yadav after an objection was raised by the respondent(complainant) that the previous statement filed by Yadav in Court regarding the withdrawal of the statements was not clear.
CASE TITLE: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023, TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI Diary No.- 1106 – 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the practice followed by Courts in Gujarat of giving the police liberty to seek remand of the accused even while granting anticipatory bail. The Bench remarked that such a practice would defeat the objective of granting anticipatory bail, nullifying the guarantee of personal liberty. It further observed that proper training must be given to the Judicial Magistrates in the State.
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court today called for a report from the Registrar General (RG) of Madras High Court over a Single Judge of the court taking suo motu cognizance of the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in corruption case.
The Bench has asked the RG to clarify whether prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court was obtained by the Single Judge before taking suo motu cognizance wrt Ramachandran's discharge.
Case Title: Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust v. Union of India., Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 669-670 of 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 4751-4752 of 2021
The Kerala government has denied wilful non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order to conduct a socio-economic study to revise the reservation list for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) in the state.
The Kerala government has refuted allegations of intentional disobedience to the court's directions, claiming that it was not in possession of the socio-economic survey report, as it was not published by the central government.
Refusing to entertain a PIL seeking directions to State Governments to set up 'Courts Special Cells' to ensure compliance with Court Orders, the Supreme Court today admonished the lawyer to be aware of the existing nuances of law before filing such petitions.
CJI rebuked the petitioner, “ You are back again? Last time I told you not to file such PILs….somebody will impose costs of on you. Now this direction in PIL that all state govt. Must comply with court orders… we were gentle on you last time, but you have persisted on filing these PILs . Please do something else. If you have a little free time you can attach yourself to a Senior Lawyer, learn some law and not file these kinds of petitions”
