Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Gang Rape And Murder Of Minor Girl: SC Confirms Death Sentence [Manoharan V. State] The Supreme Court (2:1) upheld the death sentence awarded to a man involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her and her brother. However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the confirmation of death sentence and opined that the case does not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' case, but would fall within the special category of cases, where the appellant should be directed to suffer sentence for life. Magistrate Has Power To Direct An Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Without His Consent [Ritesh Sinha v State of U.P.] In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent. The three-judges bench led by the CJI thus settled the confusion which arose out of the split verdict in the 2012 verdict by a two judges bench. Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must Bow Down To Compelling Public Interest [Ritesh Sinha vs. State of UP] The fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest, remarked the Supreme Court in its judgment holding that a Judicial Magistrate can order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. The three judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while answering the issue whether a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convicts: SC Restores 7 Yrs Imprisonment For Woman Convicted For Propagating ISIS Ideology [Union of India V. Yasmeen Mohammed Zahid] Disagreeing with Kerala High Court Judgment, the Supreme Court restored the sentence of seven years imprisonment awarded to a woman, Yasmeen, convicted for propagating ISIS Ideology. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, however, upheld her acquittal from the offences under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code. Acquittal From Criminal Case Does Not Ipso Facto Absolve Delinquent From Disciplinary Action [Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force] Acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court observed. Application For Putting Back Into Possession Cannot Be Allowed Merely Because Applicant Was In Possession Prior To Dispossession [Shamsher Singh vs. Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (D)] In the proceeding under Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, right, title or interest has to be determined and without establishing right, title or interest, and on mere fact that the applicant was in possession of the premises prior to being dispossessed, he could not be put back into possession, the Supreme Court held. Bail Cannot Be Granted Without Assigning Reasons [Mauji Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh] The Supreme Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted without assigning any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it is considered just and proper to grant bail. Mere Existence Of Alternate Forums Not A Legal Bar To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction [Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India]The Supreme Court observed mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction.It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors, said the bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee Section 143A NI Act On Interim Compensation Has No Retrospective Application [GJ Raja vs. Tejraj Surana] Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the Supreme Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the case has no retrospective application. Compromise Decree In Representative Suit Void If Obtained Without Leave Of Court And Notice To Interested Parties [Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya] The Supreme Court observed that a compromise decree in a representative suit obtained without the leave of the court and without issuing notice to the parties interested would be void., the Court found that the parties to the decree in a suit in the nature of a representative suit did not obtain leave of the court and did not give notice to other persons who...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags