Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [Jan 25 – Jan 31]

Akshita Saxena
31 Jan 2021 2:40 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [Jan 25 – Jan 31]
x

Top Stories: 1. 'We Are Concerned About Broadcasts Which Incite Violence' : Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From Centre On Powers Under Cable TV Act A Bench led by CJI SA Bobde asked the Central Government about its powers under Cable TV Networks(Regulation) Act 1994 to control broadcast of content (by electronic media), that has a tendency to incite violence. "We aren't concerned so...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
10% discount
999
899+GST
(150 INR per month)
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
1,499+GST
(For 1 Year)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?

Top Stories:

1. 'We Are Concerned About Broadcasts Which Incite Violence' : Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From Centre On Powers Under Cable TV Act

A Bench led by CJI SA Bobde asked the Central Government about its powers under Cable TV Networks(Regulation) Act 1994 to control broadcast of content (by electronic media), that has a tendency to incite violence. "We aren't concerned so much with what people are saying, people say anything these days.We are concerned with situations that may create violence and lead to loss of property and life", the CJI said while hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against news reports which communalised the Tablighi Jamaat event.

It may be noted that the Government has powers under Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable TV Act to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme for public order. However, the bench opined that there is an ambiguity in Section 19 (Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest) of the Cable TV Act inasmuch as it is not clear if it will include "broadcaster" or only a cable TV network. The bench observed that the amendment adding the definition of 'broadcaster' in the Cable TV Act does not reflect in the penal provisions of Section 19 and 20.

2. "We Will Not Stop High Court"; Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain UP Govt's Plea To Transfer Cases Challenging Love-Jihad Ordinance To SC

A Bench headed Chief Justice of India SA Bobde refused to transfer to itself the petitions filed in Allahabad High Court challenging the ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh government against religious conversions, which among other things, criminalizes religious conversions for marriage. "If the Allahabad High Court is going to decide the cases, why should we interfere," remarked the Court. It added, "We have issued notice does not mean High Court cannot decide. People are making light of High Courts these days. High Court is a constitutional court."

PS Narasimha, appearing for the UP Government, had urged the Supreme Court to allow the transfer application to avoid multiplicity of proceeding before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

3. "These Women Served Nation, Why Push Them To Litigation Cycle Again": Supreme Court Urges Centre To Resolve Differences in Permanent Commission Matter

A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud observed that once the proceedings have been disposed of by way of a final judgement and order, a miscellaneous application for its implementation is not maintainable. The observation was made in an application for directions, in pursuance of its March 17, 2020 verdict in Annie Nagaraj's case holding that serving women Short Service Commission Officers in Indian Navy were entitled to Permanent Commission at par with their male counterparts.

However, the judge suggested to ASG Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Union of India – "They are your own officers. They have served the Navy and the Army. Please try to sort it out with the authorities. Why push them into the litigation cycle again? There in their years of retirement now. We won't entertain this, but as the ASG, you intervene. These women have served the nation. Why should they be made to go to the AFT again? We don't want to set the wrong precedent (by intervening) but you instruct the authorities. Sit down with (their counsel) and sort it out."

4. [Extra Attempt For UPSC Civil Service Exam]"We Are Not Asking You To Increase Age-limit, We Are Only Asking You To Give One-Time Concession": SC To Centre

"It's just a one-time relaxation. If it has been done before, why not this time", said A Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar to ASG SV Raju in a plea seeking for an extra chance for Civil Service aspirants who had given their last attempt of the UPSC exam in October 2020. The Court also informed the ASG that it was not being asked that the age-limit would be increased and that the only request would be that a one-time concession would be given after exhausting of all attempts.

It posed two questions to the ASG and sought for the answers to the same by the coming Monday. First, how many candidates would come into the fray if one-time concession was given, and secondly, since the time the UPSC was constituted, how many times this relaxation had been given in the past. Thereafter, it adjourned the matter to Monday, 1st February.

Also Read: Extra Chance For UPSC Civil Service Aspirants : Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre For Filing Affidavit Without Clarity

Also Read: UPSC Exams - Extra Chance For Final Attempt Candidates Would Amount To Differential Treatment : Centre's Affidavit In Supreme Court

5. Foundation Of Supreme Court Is Much Stronger, Criticism Can Never Be Contempt: Mukul Rohatgi Submits For Rachita Taneja

"A criticism of the court is not contempt," submitted Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi before the Supreme Court today in the contempt proceedings initiated against comic artist Rachita Taneja for her tweets against the Judiciary. "I don't know why the Court has issued notice. The foundation of Court is much stronger," Rohtagi submitted on behalf of comic illustrator Taneja today, indicating that a Court's majesty cannot fall by mere criticism.

Responding to his submissions, Justice Ashok Bhushan remarked, "We agree with you. But it is growing and everybody is doing it." Rohtagi urged the Court to consider Taneja's case separately from Kunal Kamra's case. The Bench thereafter adjourned the matter for three weeks.

6. 'Suggestion That My Tweets Shake Foundation Of Most Powerful Court An Over-Estimation Of My Abilities' : Kunal Kamra Responds To SC Contempt Notice

Comedian Kunal Kamra filed a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court, stating that his tweets were not published with the intention of insulting the Court but to draw its attention to and prompt an engagement with issues that he believes are relevant to the Indian democracy. Kamra also said that public faith in the Judiciary cannot be shaken by any criticism or commentary but only by the Courts own actions and accord.

Kamra stated no institution of power, not even Courts are beyond criticism in a democracy. "I believe that constitutional offices, including judicial offices — know no protection from jokes. I do not believe that any high authority, including judges, would find themselves unable to discharge their duties only on account of being the subject of satire or comedy," he added.

Also Read: Supreme Court Adjourns Contempt Case Against Kunal Kamra

7. Delhi House Panel Cannot Deal With 'Law And Order' As It Is Union's Subject : Salve Submits For Facebook VP

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice SK Kaul on Thursday heard Facebook India Vice President, Ajit Mohan's challenge to the two summons issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly's Committee "Peace and Harmony" asking him to appear to look into the role of fake news behind the Delhi riots of February 2020.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared on behalf of Mr. Ajit Mohan. The main thrust of Mr. Salve's argument rested on three important contentions. First, the exceeding powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly; Second, the balance of rights between Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution vis-à-vis parliamentary privileges and Third, refuting the respondents claim on the concept of "Cooperative Federalism".

Also Read: House Privileges Not Applicable To Activities Other Than Legislative Functions : Salve Submits For Facebook VP

Also Read: Only Centre Can Control Internet Intermediaries; Legislative Assembly Cannot : Salve Submits For Facebook VP

8. "You Cannot Hurt Religious Sentiments": Supreme Court Refuses Interim Protection To Makers Of Tandav Against Multiple FIRs

A Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah issued notices on a plea filed by the Director, Producer, Writer and Actor of the web series Tandav seeking for clubbing and transferring of criminal proceedings which have been initiated against them in various cities for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. It however refused to grant any interim protection to the accused persons apprehending arrest from Police departments of six states.

"We cannot use the power under Section 482 CrPC. We are not inclined to grant interim protection," the Bench said. The bench also said that it was rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIRs. It however clarified that the pendency of the petition in the Supreme Court will not prejudice the right of petitioners to seek appropriate remedies from concerned courts for bail or quashing of FIRs.

9. Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment Which Held 'Skin To Skin' Contact Necessary For 'Sexual Assault' Under POCSO Act

A Bench led by CJI SA Bobde stayed the acquittal of the accused under the Bombay High Court Judgment which held that pressing of breasts of a minor girl without disrobing does not amount to "sexual assault" within the meaning of Section 8 of POCSO Act. The Court has stayed the acquittal of accused under Section 8 of POCSO and issued notice to him returnable within 2 weeks.

The order was passed by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India on a mention made by the Attorney General, KK Venugopal. Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted that the judgment which held that 'skin to skin' contact is necessary for sexual assault under POCSO Act is 'unprecedented' and is 'likely to set a dangerous precedent'. CJI Bobde has directed AG to file proper petition challenging the judgment.

Also Read: Youth Bar Association of India Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court's 'Skin To Skin' POCSO Judgment

Also Read: National Commission For Women To Move Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court's 'Skin To Skin Judgment' In The POCSO Case

Judgments this week:

1. Dismissal Of Transfer Petition May Not Operate As Res Judicata If Fresh Petition Is Filed On Change Of Circumstances: Supreme Court [Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah v. Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra Shah]

A Bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian held that a dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances. It held,

"The dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances. The first transfer petition in T.P.(C)No.615 of 2016 was dismissed in limine without even a notice being ordered to the respondent. Therefore, the present petition for transfer cannot be opposed solely on the ground that the earlier petition was dismissed. But at the same time, the petitioner will have to satisfy the court that there are change of circumstances and that there are sufficient grounds made out."

Citation: LL 2021 SC 49

2. Basic Philosophy Behind Granting Power To Review Judgments Is 'Universal Acceptance Of Human Fallibility': Supreme Court [Rajendra Khare v. Swaati Nirkhi]

The basic philosophy inherent in granting the power to the Supreme Court to review its judgment under Article 137 is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra observed in an order allowing a Review Petition. It said that the rejection of Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment does not preclude filing of a review petition subsequently.

In this case, the Supreme Court had earlier allowed a Transfer Petition transferring Trial of a Criminal Case from Metropolitan Magistrate Court at New Delhi to Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. Later, the person who had filed the FIR, approached the Court by filing a Miscellaneous Application praying for recall of the Order which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed the Review Petition.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 46

3. Pre­natal Sex ­Determination Is A Grave Offence Which Has Potential To Damage The Very Fabric Of Gender Equality & Dignity: Supreme Court [Rekha Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

A Bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran and Ajay Rastogi observed that pre­natal sex ­determination is a grave offence with serious consequences for the society as a whole. A strict approach has to be adopted if we are to eliminate the scourge of female feticide and iniquity towards girl children from our society, the Court said while upholding the Madhya Pradesh High Court order dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by an accused.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 51

4. Mutation Entries Do Not By Themselves Confer Title, Reiterates Supreme Court [Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. Faraulla Khan]

A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna reiterated that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title. It observed thus while disposing an appeal filed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike against a Karnataka High Court judgment directing it to mutate a property in the name of some parties. The contention was that, there is a title suit pending in relation to the subject property and therefore the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for mutation.

The Court noted that there is a clarification in the High Court judgment that the direction for mutation will be subject to the pursuit of any other remedy available under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1956 and it is open to the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to establish its title by following due process of law.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 41

5. Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications Ought Not To Be Entertained On Specious Ground Of 'Changed Circumstances' : Supreme Court [GR Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu]

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained. It said, "As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge."

In this case, the first and second anticipatory bail applications moved by the accused was dismissed by the High Court. The third bail application was allowed observing that six months have passed from the date of dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail application. The court had also taken note of the fact that accused was aged 69 years.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 48

6. Land Acquisition Act 1894: Title Of Land Owner Ceases Once State Takes Possession Of Land: Supreme Court [Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Gillapukri Tea Co. Ltd.]

A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna reiterated that once possession is taken by the State, the land vests absolutely with the State and the title of the landowner ceases. It thus allowed the appeal filed by Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited against a Gauhati High Court judgment nullifying the award passed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award pertained to land acquisition notification issued with respect to a land belonging to Gillapukri Tea Company Ltd.

The court noted that, in this case, award amount was made available to the Deputy Commissioner and the awarded sum was duly paid to and received by the Land owner. Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land under Section 4 of 12 the L.A. Act by the Government, the bench said.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 45

7. Statutes Must Be Interpreted In A Just, Reasonable And Sensible Manner: Supreme Court [Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur v. M/s Bhagat Singh]

A statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner, a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed while dismissing Special Leave Petition against a Rajasthan High Court judgment.

In this case, the Petitioner (Commercial Taxes Officer) contended that a single transaction of purchase of a motor vehicle does not bring a person within the definition of "Casual Trader" under Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act 1988. According to it, "Casual Trader" envisages occasional transactions of business involving buying and selling of goods and therefore plurality of transactions is a condition precedent for treating a trader as a "Casual Trader".

'The Legislature could not, possibly, have intended that a person making 2 or 3 transactions should be treated as a "Casual Trader", but a person making only one transaction should be treated at par with regular traders," the bench said.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 44

8. Appellate Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 96 CPC Involves Rehearing On Questions Of Law As Well As Fact: Supreme Court [Manjula v. Shyamsundar]

A bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed that an appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 96 of CPC involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. It noted that the provision provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction and Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. The bench said that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.

The observation was made while setting aside an order passed by Karnataka High Court which had dismissed the appeal filed against a Trial Court judgment. The Trial Court order dealt with a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act praying for issuance of a letter of administration in respect of a Will executed by one Srinivas Gambhir.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 52

9. Tenant Cannot Dictate Adequacy Of Space Required By Landlord For Proposed Business Venture: Supreme Court Upholds Summary Eviction Order [Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar]

A tenant cannot dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed while upholding an eviction order passed in favour of an NRI landlord under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

In this case, the landlords moved Rent Controller seeking immediate recovery of possession of the rented premises by invoking the provisions of Section 13B read with Section 18A of the Act. The landlord claimed that he desires to start a business. The Rent Controller allowed their petition. Thereafter, the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a revision petition filed by tenants. In appeal before the Apex Court, the tenants contended that the space available with the landlord would be adequate for the proposed business and there is no need to seek eviction of the respondents from their respective shops.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 53

10. Extra-Ordinary Power Of Trial Court Under Section 319 CrPC Should Be Exercised Sparingly, Reiterates Supreme Court [Ajay Kumar @ Bittu v. State of Uttarakhand]

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah reiterated that the power of a Trial Court under Section 319 of CrPC to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence is a discretionary and extra-ordinary power which has to be exercised sparingly.

The court also reproduced the following observations made by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the 6Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

Citation: LL 2021 SC 54

Important Updates:

1. Can Accused Be Directed To Pay Compensation To Victim As A Condition To Grant Bail? Supreme Court To Examine Scope Of Section 357 & 357A CrPC Before Trial [Dharmesh v. State Of Gujarat]

Can a Court direct an accused to pay compensation to victims as a condition to grant bail? The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy will examine this issue raised in a special leave petition filed against a Gujarat High Court order.

In this case, the Gujarat High Court, while granting bail to a murder accused observed that the heirs/representatives of the deceased of victim(s) is required to be compensated in terms of the amended provisions of law. Before the Apex Court it was submitted that Sections 357 and 357-A of CrPC would apply only at the stage of conviction and not at the stage of grant of bail so far as payment of compensation to the victims are concerned.

2. Prannoy Roy & Radhika Roy Offer NDTV Shares As Security For SEBI Penalty; Supreme Court Seeks Statement Of Share Value

"I can give an undertaking that I will not transfer any portion of my shareholding in NDTV without the permission of the tribunal. I have no other money. I have no other resources. This security, in terms of my shares and their value on the stock exchange, is much more than the amount of money in question, more than 15 crores," submitted Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the NDTV Promoters during hearing of their appeal against an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal which directed them to pay 50% of the "wrongful gains" found to have been made by them via insider trading.

The bench led by CJI SA Bobde recorded Mr Rohatgi's submission that he has undertaken to submit a statement of the shares along with their value to the court, which the petitioners have agreed to offer as security in lieu of the deposit ordered by the Tribunal.

3. NPCI Not RBI Responsible To Ensure UPI Platforms Comply With Regulations : Reserve Bank Tells Supreme Court

In an affidavit filed in a plea by Rajya Sabha MP from Communist Party of India, Binoy Viswam, the RBI submitted that the responsibility to ensure that companies like Amazon, Google and WhatsApp to operate in compliance with laws governing Unified Payments Interface (UPI) lies with National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), and not RBI.

The plea in the instant matter seeks for directions to RBI and NPCI to ensure that the data of Indian citizens collected on Unified Payments Interface (UPI) platforms was not misused by WhatsApp, Google, Amazon and Facebook. In this context, the Affidavit submits that the RBI has not given approval or authority to Third Party App Provider (TPAP) and therefore, they cannot be defined as "system providers" as per Section 2(q) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Consequently, they do not fall under the regulatory domain of RBI directly.

4. 'Disqualification Remains If You Are Simply Nominated' : Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka HC Order Holding AH Vishwanath Disqualified

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde dismissed a plea by Karnataka BJP leader AH Vishwanath against the Karnataka High Court judgement which held that he will continue to remain disqualified under the anti-defection law even during his term as a nominated member of the Karnataka legislative council.

The Court was hearing Vishwanath's challenge to the November 2020 verdict of the Karnataka High Court which prima facie declared that the MLC has incurred disqualification under Article 164 (1) (b) and Article 361 (B) of the Constitution of India, till the expiry of the term of the Legislative Council. The High Court judgment had upset his chances of becoming a Minister in the State Government.

5. 'Reservation, Under PWD Act, Is Specific Advantage Accruing To Specific Individuals': Centre Tells SC On Lowering Of Threshold For 'Benchmark Disability'

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna reserved its judgement on whether the extension of the facility of scribe in the examination to the All-India Services can be extended to persons, who though disabled, are not 'persons with benchmark disabilities'. It was considering the plea of a candidate aggrieved by the UPSC notification extending the facility of scribes in terms of DoPT guidelines, to only persons with benchmark disability.

Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines "person with benchmark disability" as a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability. Section 34 of the Act provides that Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts, meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities.

6. Supreme Court Modifies Its Direction On Constitution Of Search Cum Selection Committee For Appointment Of Tribunal Members [Madras Bar Association v. Union Of India]

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat modified a direction issued by it in the matter of constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of members of the tribunals.

It allowed Centre's request to modify a direction issued in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [dated 27 November 2020] by substituting the 'Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India' who was made a member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, by 'Secretaries to the Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department'.

Access full report to view the new composition

7. 'He Cannot Come To India Being A Fugitive' : Sibal Demands To See Lalit Modi's Power Of Attorney Used To File SLP In Supreme Court

A bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai considered a petition filed by businessman Lalit Modi challenging a Delhi High Court judgment which held as maintainable the anti-arbitration injunction suit filed by his mother and siblings against him.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the copy served on the respondents did not have the power of attorney used to file the petition in the Supreme Court. "We want to know what kind of power of attorney has been used to file the petition. This is a crucial matter. That is why I am objecting", Sibal said. The Court thereafter adjourned the matter to next week, after directing that a copy of the power of attorney be served on the respondents.

8. SC Dismisses Plea For Conduct of "Free & Fair" Elections In West Bengal As Well As Protection of Opposition Party Workers & Leaders

A Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Hemant Gupta and R. Subhash Reddy dismissed a plea seeking for directions to the Centre, West Bengal government and Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections in the elections scheduled to be held this year in West Bengal. It refused to entertain the plea and directed the Petitioner to take "other remedies available under the law".

The plea sought for issuance of directions to the Election Commission of India (EC) to submit a detailed report regarding bogus voters in the State of West Bengal and also to direct the EC to take appropriate action in removal of "bogus voters" from the voters list. It was further contended that Hindus were not allowed to vote and the votes were casted on their behalf by bogus voters.

9. "Ego Between Two Authorities Causing All This Lawlessness":Supreme Court Dismisses AP Govt.'s Plea Against Panchayat Election Schedule

A bench headed by Justice SK Kaul dismissed the Andhra Pradesh state government's challenge to the High Court decision holding that the order dated 08.01.2021 issued by the State Election Commission notifying the election schedule for the local bodies need not be interfered with.

"Ego problems between two authorities are causing all this lawlessness. This cannot be allowed! The Court will not be party to an ego battle!...Some decisions are political and some are administrative. We will not assume everyone's functions! Some decisions have to be taken by the SEC", observed the Bench.

Other Updates:


Next Story
Share it