Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Electoral Bonds: SC Gives Two Weeks Time To Election Commission To Reply [Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India Cabinet Secretary & Ors.] The Supreme Court declined to grant an immediate stay on the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme ahead of the Delhi Assembly polls, granting the Election Commission two weeks' time to reply. "A stay was not given by this court before. So we may not do it now", observed the bench headed by Chief Justice S. A. Bobde. However, noting Advocate Prashant Bhushan's submission that the polls in Delhi, which are scheduled for February 8, would be over by then and the ruling party will have received a tremendous influx of funds by opening the scheme, the bench cut short the time accorded to the ECI from the earlier 4 weeks to 2 weeks. Nirbhaya Case : SC Dismisses Plea Of Juvenility Raised By Death Row Convict Pawan Gupta [Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi] The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of juvenility raised by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the 2012 Delhi gangrape-murder case. A bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bushan and AS Bopanna held that the same claim was earlier rejected by the Court after due consideration. The bench held that Delhi High Court had rightly rejected the plea. Advocate A P Singh, lawyer of Pawan Gupta, claimed that his school records show that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime. He argued that the school leaving certificate showed his date of birth as October 8, 1996. Parent Who Is Denied Custody Shall Have Right To Talk To Child Everyday [Yashitha Sahu v. State of Rajasthan] The Supreme Court has observed that a parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes everyday. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. Mandatory Time Line For Filing Written Statement Is Not Applicable To Non-Commercial Suits [Desh Raj v. Balkishan] The Supreme Court has clarified that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. As regards non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the Court held. The courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits, held a bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justices Surya Kant and BR Gavai. The Court was considering an appeal against a judgment of Delhi High Court, which affirmed the decision of the trial court to strike of the appellant's defence on the ground of delay in filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Reservation In Promotion For Persons With Disability (PWDs) Not Prohibited [Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka] The Supreme Court has observed that the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has no application to Persons With Disability (PWD). A three judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman upheld a two judge bench view that the basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). The bench, also comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, was considering a reference which doubted a view taken in Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 6 SCALE 417. The bench in Rajiv Gupta, in the context of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 had noted that there is no prohibition against reservation in promotion for Persons With Disabilities. [Section 216 CrPC] Court Can Add Or Alter Charges At Any Time, Even After Reserving Judgment. [Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.] The Supreme Court has observed that a trial court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. In this accused who was under Section 498 A of IPC along with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Later the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 216 IPC for alteration of charge sheet. The trial court after hearing both sides rejected the application for framing additional charges. Though on revision petition filed by the prosecution, the High Court directed the framing of additional under Sections 406 & 420 of the IPC. The Supreme Court upheld this direction of the High Court. Section 394 CrPC: Appeal Against Composite Sentence Of Imprisonment & Fine Does Not Abate On The Death Of The Accused [Ramesan (dead) through Lr. Girija v. State of Kerala] The Supreme Court has observed...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags