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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
18 Nov 2019 3:16 AM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up
x

SC To Keep Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices [Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association] The Supreme Court by 3 :2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi,...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?


SC To Keep Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices [Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association]

The Supreme Court by 3 :2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger bench. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman dissented.

[Sabarimala] Remember That The "Holy Book" Is The Constitution Of India; Justices RF Nariman & DY Chandrachud Dissent

Let every person remember that the "holy book" is the Constitution of India, remarked Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, in his dissent against the majority decision to refer the issues to larger bench. The judges opined that most of the arguments raised in the review petitions were already argued during the hearing of the writ petitions and were dealt with in the judgment of 28th September 2018. The judge still dealt with the arguments that was made by various parties during the hearing of review petitions.

SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions [Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation]

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the December 14, 2018 judgment which declined to order probe into the corruption allegations regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets by Indian Government form French company Dassault Aviation. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph observed that the review petitions filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie lacked merits.

Rafale Verdict Will Not Stop CBI From Taking Lawful Action On Petitioners' Complaint : Justice K M Joseph

Justice K M Joseph observed in his separate judgment in the Rafale review that the main verdict will not stand in the way of CBI taking lawful action on the complaint raising corruption allegations on the Rafale deal, subject to getting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Proceedings U/s 218 IPC Against IO, Witnesses Cannot Be Initiated Merely Because Prosecution Failed To Establish Its Case [Ranbir Singh V. State of Uttarakhand]

The Supreme Court observed that merely because the acquittal of the accused was premised on the assessment that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, it does not necessarily mean that the investigator and the concerned witnesses ought to be proceeded against for the offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

Govt. Servant Cannot File Complaint About Service Conditions Or Retiral Benefits Before Consumer Forums [Ministry Of Water Resources vs. Shreepat Rao Kamde]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a government servant is not a 'consumer' for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act and cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act.

SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; But Holds That Speaker Cannot Disqualify For Full Term [Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker's decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection. However, in partial relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of disqualification cannot be till the end of the term of the house. This means that they can re-contest in the upcoming by polls scheduled to take place in December.

Resignation Of Legislator Will Not Efface Impact Of Defection[Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly]

A significant point in the Supreme Court's judgment in the Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the discussion on the interplay between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The apex court held that resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of disqualification if defection has taken place before the date of resignation.

SC Strikes Down Rules Framed By Centre Under Section 184 Finance Act 2017 For Tribunals [Rojer Mathew V. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.]

Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act 2017, which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals. At the same time, the five judges bench struck down the Rules already framed by the Central Government under Section 184, and directed the formulation of new rules.

Essar Insolvency : SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order; Uphlods Resolution Plan Of Arcelor Mittal [Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd V. atish Kumar Gupta & Ors.]

In a landmark decision having wide impact on the IBC regime, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Committee of Creditors in Essar Steel insolvency to set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The judgment pronounced by Justice R F Nariman held that there was no equality between financial creditors and operational creditors. The Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

RTI Applicable To Office Of CJI; SC Upholds Delhi HC Judgment [Central Public Information Officer,Supreme Court Of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]

In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act. The Constitution Bench upheld the the 2010 judgment of Delhi HC which had held that RTI Act was applicable to CJI's office.

Judges Are Not Above Law; Judicial Appointment Process Must Be Made Transparent [Central Public Information Officer,Supreme Court Of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]

Penning his separate but concurring opinion while dismissing the appeal against Delhi HC judgment that held office of CJI is under purview of RTI Act, Justice DY Chandrachud observed that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges to the higher judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm.

Hospitals Have Duty To Provide Hostel Facilities To Nurses: SC Summarizes Principles To Determine 'Commercial Purpose' [Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. M/S Unique Shanti Developers]

The Supreme Court observed that provision of hostel facilities to nurses so as to facilitate better medical care is a positive duty enjoined upon the hospital. The Court has also laid down some broad principles for determining whether an activity or transaction is 'for a commercial purpose' for the purpose of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Owner's Risk Clause Will Not Exempt Hotel From Liability For Theft Of A Vehicle Given For Valet Parking [Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.]

In an important judgment in the realm of Contract laws, the Supreme Court observed that, in a case of theft of a vehicle given for valet parking, the hotel cannot claim exemption from liability by contending that it was due to acts of third parties beyond their control, or that they are protected by an 'owner's risk' clause.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act: SC Upholds Right Of NRIs To Claim 'Summary' Eviction Procedure [Ram Krishan Grover vs. Union Of India]

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which grants Non-Resident Indians a right to claim eviction for bona fide need by summary procedure. The three judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also dismissed the challenge against ts extension and applicability to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Mere Registration Of An Agreement Of Marriage Is Not Sufficient To Prove Marriage [Rathnamma vs. Sujathamma]

The Supreme Court observed that mere registration of an agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove marriage. Referring to relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, including Section 7, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that, in the instant case, the entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon her marriage with defendant's son, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence.

No Person Or Institution Howsoever Powerful Can Be Permitted To Misuse The Process Of The Court [Vinay Prakash Singh V. Sameer Gehlaut & Ors.]

No person or institution howsoever powerful can be permitted to misuse the process of the Court, remarked the Supreme Court while considering a contempt petition against directors of Oscar Investments Limited (OIL) and RHC Holding Private Limited.

Other Significant Orders and Judgments

  • The five judges bench of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya land title dispute case held that the disputed land belongs to the Hindu deity Ram Lalla and that Nirmohi Akhara is not a shebait of the deity.
  • Took note of the Central government notification elevating Gujarat High Court Justice Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court. Disposing off a petition by the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association in the same behalf, the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however, left alive the question of whether there should be a definite time schedule to be followed by the government in effecting collegium recommendations.
  • While referring the Sabarimala case to larger bench, the majority judges observed that the matters involving the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practise and propagate its own religion,should be heard by a larger bench, for an authoritative pronouncement in these matters.
  • The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in its judgment examining the validity of provisions of Finance Act 2017 affecting tribunals, has doubted the correctness of the interpretation of the majority judgment which held that Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution.The effect of the word 'only' in the interpretation of Article 110(1) was referred for examination by a larger bench of seven judges.
  • While refusing to refer Karnataka MLAs Disqualification case to larger bench, the Supreme Court cautioned itself against making 'casual and cavilier' references to Constitutional Bench.
  • Held former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh guilty of contempt of court for violating its order asking them not to divest their shares in Fortis Healthcare Limited.
  • Issued notice to the NGO Lawyers Collective and its founders Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover in the petition filed by CBI against the interim protection granted to them by the Bombay High Court in the criminal case registered for alleged FCRA violations.
  • Closed the contempt proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi with 'a word of caution for the contemnor to be more careful in future.' The Bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that the persons holding such important positions in the political spectrum must be more careful and that a Court should not be dragged into this political discourse.
  • Issued notice to the NGO Lawyers Collective and its founders Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover in the petition filed by CBI against the interim protection granted to them by the Bombay High Court in the criminal case registered for alleged FCRA violations.
  • Five-judge bench headed by Justice N. V. Ramana deferred to December 10 the hearing in a string of petitions challenging the restructuring of Article 370.
  • Came down heavily on the governments of Haryana, Punjab, UP and Delhi noting that they have failed to take effective steps to control pollution in accordance with the earlier orders passed by it. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta has summoned the Chief Secretaries of these governments on November 25
  • A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph took note of the alarming increase in vacancies of High Court judges - nearly 40%. The bench observed that the convention of sending the names six months in advance of the vacancy will be meaningless if the Centre is not processing the names within time.
  • Issued notices on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Shahjahanpur law student, who had leveled allegations of sexual harassment and rape against former Union Minister and BJP leader Chinmayanand.
  • A fortnight ahead of the state to go on polls for 81 Assembly seats, the Supreme Court refused to allow former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda to contest the upcoming Assembly elections. The court, however, issued notice to Election commission of India (ECI) on Koda's plea challenging his disqualification by the poll panel in 2017.

Next Story
Share it