Supreme Court Monthly Digest: October 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 525 To LL 2021 SC 616]

1. Forcing Party To Undergo DNA Test Against Will Impinge On Personal Liberty & Right To Privacy[Case: Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 525]The Supreme Court observed that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy. A bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy. "observed, "In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions." Holding so, the bench set aside the judgment of the High Court which had directed the plaintiff in a suit to undergo DNA test. 2. Supreme Court Holds 9 Tamil Nadu Govt Officers Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Not Implementing Orders[Case: V. Senthur and another v. M. Vijayakumar IAS and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 526]The Supreme Court held 9 officers of the Tamil Nadu Government guilty of contempt of court for not implementing a direction to revise the seniority list of officers in the Public Works Department. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that the officers have committed civil contempt of court for not following the order passed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2016. In the order dated January 16, 2016, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Government's special leave petition against a judgment of the Madras High Court, held that seniority list should be drawn on the basis of merit list of selection and not on the basis of roster point. The contempt petitions were filed stating that the respondents published a revised seniority list breaching the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The respondents argued that the judgment of the High Court had no general application and was confined to individual cases. It was also argued that the doctrine of merger is not applicable to an order dismissing Special Leave Petition, and hence contempt, if any, should be agitated before the High Court and not the Supreme Court. The Top Court that a principle of law declared in an order dismissing a special leave petition is binding on the parties, even though the doctrine of merger is not applicable to it.3. Supreme Court Directs Centre To Issue Instructions To Implement Reservation In Promotions For Persons With Disabilities Within 4 Months[Case: Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 527]The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to issue instructions "at the earliest and not later than four months", in accordance with the proviso to Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for giving reservation in promotions to persons with disabilities. The order was passed by Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B.R.Gavai and Sanjiv Khanna in an application filed by the Central Government seeking clarification with respect to its judgment in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka which declared that persons with disabilities have right to reservation in promotions. 4. Section 92 Evidence Act - Oral Evidence Admissible Only To Show That The Document Is Sham[Case: Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr v Jose Francisco Pinto & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 528]The Supreme Court observed that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bars giving of oral evidence on a written document, except to prove that the document reflects a sham transaction. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed that oral evidence is admissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to show that the document is a sham deed. "...it was open to the plaintiff to assert that the document was never intended to acted upon and the document is a sham. Such question arises when one party asserts that there has been a different transaction altogether than what is recorded in the document. It is for that purpose oral evidence is admissible", the Court further stated. 5. Motor Accident Claim - Evidence Recorded Before Tribunal To Be Given Weightage Over Contents Of FIR In Case Of Contradiction[Case: National Insurance Company v. Chamundeswari & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 529]While deciding the issue of negligence in a claim for motor accident, Supreme Court observed that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. A Bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy made this observation while delivering its verdict in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company against Madras High Court's order partly allowing plea filed by wife and son of the deceased who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, and enhancing compensation to Rs.1,85,08,832. 6. Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: October 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 525 To LL 2021 SC 616]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags