Supreme Court Monthly Digest: April 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 193 to LL 2021 SC 239]

1. Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt In Serious Crime Cannot Make Candidate Eligible For Public Employment: Supreme Court [Case: State Of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena; Citation: LL 2021 SC 193] A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy reiterated that acquittal based on a benefit of doubt in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime cannot make the candidate eligible for public employment. In this case, Love Kush Meena cleared the recruitment of constable in Rajasthan Police Service. However, he was not appointed in view of being tried in a criminal case. It was found that, though he was acquitted, the charges against him were not of a trivial nature but were serious offences and the candidate was not acquitted by the Court honourably. Against this denial of appointment, he approached the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court allowed his writ petition observing that since no cogent evidence connecting the accused person to commission of offence was found, he was not disentitled for appointment to the post of a constable, notwithstanding his involvement in a criminal case. The Top Court however allowed State's appeal against such appointment. 2. HC Under Article 226 Should Not Entertain A Dispute Which Is Arbitrable Unless There Is An Issue Of Public Interest: Supreme Court [Case: Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon Limited v. Haryana Mass Rapid Transport Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 194] A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed that ordinarily a High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has to decline to entertain a dispute which is arbitrable, unless there is a fundamental issue of public interest. In this case the High Court had entertained the writ petition even though there was an arbitration clause between the parties. In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the High Court was concerned over a fundamental issue of public interest, which was the hardship that would be caused to commuters who use the rapid metro as a vehicle for mass transport in Gurgaon. 3. Petition Styled As One Under Article 226 Would Not Bar High Court To Exercise Its Jurisdiction Which Otherwise It Possesses: Supreme Court [Case: Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 195] A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta observed that a petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses under a Statute and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this case, the appellant's contention was that the order of the Wakf Tribunal could not be challenged by way of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as only a revision in terms of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act could be preferred. The bench noted that sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act confers power on the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination. 4. Hindu Undivided Family - No Presumption That Business Run By Karta In Tenented Premise Is Joint Family Asset: Supreme Court [Case: Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 195] Just because a business was run by a karta of a Hindu Undivided Family in a tenented premise, there is no presumption that it is a joint Hindu family business, held a bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta. It observed that even if a male member had taken premises on rent, he is tenant in his individual capacity and not as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family in the absence of any evidence. Referring to a precedent, the Supreme Court held that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint business even if that member is the manager of the joint family, unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint familyfunds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate. 5. Quantity Of Narcotic Substance Recovered Is A Relevant Factor To Impose Punishment Higher Than The Minimum: Supreme Court [Case: Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 196] A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that quantity of narcotic substance recovered is a relevant factor that can be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court also observed that the Court has a wide discretion to impose the sentence/imprisonment ranging...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: April 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 193 to LL 2021 SC 239]

Akshita Saxena

Tags