Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

The Supreme Court observed that an employee who has resigned from service is not entitled to pensionary benefits available to those who 'voluntary retired'. The bench noticed that Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules provides that the past service of employee stands forfeited upon resignation. Therefore he is not entitled to pensionary benefits, the bench held.

There Can Be No Reservation Of A Solitary Post [R R Inamdar V. State of Karnataka]

There can be no reservation of a solitary post, reiterated the Supreme Court while upholding a Karnataka High court judgment. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the Constitution Bench in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v Faculty Association had approved the view that there could be no reservation in respect of a single post.

Whether Coastal States Have Power To Levy Sales Tax On Goods In Territorial Waters [The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. V. State Of Karnataka & Ors.]

The issue whether coastal states have power to levy sales tax on goods in territorial waters has been left open by the Supreme Court. Notably, the Court set aside the findings of the High Court of Karnataka, which held that State Government has competence to levy tax in territorial waters.

Strict Standard Needs To Be Applied For Judging Conduct Of Judicial Officer [Ram Murti Yadav V. State Of Uttar Pradesh]

While upholding the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on a judicial officer, the Supreme Court observed that the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function

No Protection For Intermediary Under Sec 79 IT Act From Criminal Defamation Before 2009 Amendment [Google India Private Ltd v Visakha Industries]

The Supreme Court asked Google India to face trial in a criminal defamation case by rejecting its plea of immunity from liability as an internet intermediary. The top court said that before the amendment made to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act in 2009, a network service provider was protected only from liability under the IT Act. The protection did not extend to liabilities arising under other enactments, prior to 2009 amendment.

State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court [Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala]

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing direct appeal to Supreme Court of India.

MBBS Course: Admission Can Be Directed To Be Given To Meritorious Candidate Even After Cut Off Date In Exeptional Cases [S. Krishna Sradha V. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.]

The Supreme Court observed that, in exceptional cases, a direction can be issued to grant admission to meritorious candidates to MBBS Course even after cut-off date. The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai was answering a reference made to it by a two judge bench which noticed conflicting views in two judgments in this regard.

SC Directs Awarding Of Grace Marks To Candidates Of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination 2017 [Pranav Verma & Others V. The Registrar General Of The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh]

directed the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I paper and 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II paper to all the candidates of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination – 2017.

Second Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed On Merits When Appellant Is Unrepresented On The Day Fixed For Hearing [Prabodh Ch. Das vs. Mahamaya Das]

The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal on merits where the appellant is unrepresented on the date fixed for hearing. If the appellant does not appear, the Court may if it deems fit dismiss the appeal for default of appearance but it does not have the power to dismiss the appeal on merits, the bench observed.

Intoxication Not A Mitigating Factor When Accused Was Not In A Highly Inebriated Condition [Suraj Jagannath Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra]

The Supreme Court observed that mere intoxication is not a mitigating factor when the accused was not in a highly inebriated condition. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah was dealing with a contention that the accused was under the influence of liquor while he poured kerosene and threw match­stick on his deceased wife and set her ablaze and therefore his condition was such that he could not understand what he was doing.

No One Can Be Inflicted With An Adverse Order Without Being Afforded A Minimum Opportunity Of Hearing [M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. State Of U. P. ]

No one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, remarked the Supreme Court while quashing an order passed by Uttar Pradesh Government directing its Medical and Health Department to stop local purchase from Daffodills, a pharmaceutical supplier.

Section 362 CrPC Does Not Bar Inherent Power Of High Court To Recall An Order [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Krishna Kumar Pandey]

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall an order and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not bar it from exercise of such powers.

Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

• Issued notice to all states and sought their response on the issue whether they have grievance redressal mechanism in place to ensure food to everyone under the National Food Security Act.
• Disapproved the practice of summoning officers by the High Court while considering the writ petitions which impugns the order passed by said officers. Merely because the Principal Secretary has passed the said order, the High Court, in our view, was not right in directing the presence of Principal Secretary in the Court and explain as to the reasons in passing the said order, the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna said.
• Issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a plea by TMC MP Mahua Moitra seeking directions to the poll body to publish details of voter turnout and final vote counts on their website.
• Allowed construction activity in the Delhi-NCR region between 6 am and 6 pm, partially lifting its complete ban on it.
• Referred to the larger bench the issue of constitutional validity of domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to "PG Medical Courses" within the State Quota.
• Dismissed 18 review petitions which were filed against the November 9 judgment in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case. The petitions were considered in the chamber by a five judges bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna (who came in place of former CJI Gogoi).
• Ordered judicial enquiry into the killings of four men accused of gang-rape and murder of a veterinarian in an alleged encounter with Hyderabad police on December 6. The probe will be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice V S Sirpurkar. Ex Bombay HC judge Justice Rekha Baldota and former CBI Director Karthikeyan will be other members of the enquiry panel.
• Proposed to appoint a former SC judge to conduct an inquiry into the killings of four men accused of gang-rape and murder of a veterinarian in an alleged encounter with Hyderabad police on December 6.
• Even while agreeing that there was no stay of the judgment allowing entry of women of all age groups to Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court chose not to pass protection orders for women seeking to visit the hilltop shrine of Lord Ayyappa. Chief Justice of India S A Bobde said that it was an "emotive issue", and that the Court would prefer to exercise its discretion to decline relief to prevent violent reactions.
• Expressed satisfaction with the fresh report submitted by Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice Committee which stated that no minors were under illegal detention in the region. Based on this, a bench headed by Justice Ramana disposed off the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by child rights activists Enakshi Ganguly and Shanta Sinha.