Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

1. Vikas Dubey Encounter: SC Hints At Appointment Of Committee For Probe [Ghanshyam Upadhyay V. Union of India]The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that it was inclined to appoint a Committee headed by a Retired Judge, just as it had done on earlier occasion in the Hyderabad Encounter Case. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, N. Subhash Reddy & AS Bopanna also granted time to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for State of Uttar Pradesh to file a reply in the plea seeking a CBI monitored investigation into the alleged encounter of accused Vikas Dubey and his three aides on July 10. In light of this, the matter was listed for further consideration on July 20.2. J&K 4G Ban : No Contempt As Special Committee Already Constituted; Decision Taken, AG Tells SC [Foundation for Media Professionals V. Union of India & Ors.]The Supreme Court granted one week time to the Centre and UT of Jammu & Kashmir to file their reply in the plea seeking contempt alleging non-compliance of the May 11 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had directed that a "Special Committee" be constituted to "immediately" to determine the necessity of continued restriction of mobile internet speeds in Jammu & Kashmir to 2G only. A bench of Justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy & BR Gavai refused to issue notice in the petition filed by Foundation for Media Professionals alleging contempt for the inaction of Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Chief Secretary, U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir.3. 'Matter Must Be Left To Local Administration' : SC Refuses To Entertain Plea To Stop Amarnath Yatra Amid COVID-19 [Sri Amarnath Barfani Langars Organisation V. Union of India & Ors]Expressing regard for the principle of "separation of powers", the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking to stop the Amarnath Yatra this year citing the risk of COVID-19. A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra & K M Joseph said that local administration was better equipped to take a decision on the matter. Accordingly, the bench left the matter to be decided by the local administration in accordance with statutory guidelines. "Matter must be left to competence of Local Administration, keeping in mind the Statutory Provisions", the bench ordered.4. Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Case : SC Upholds 'Shebait' Rights Of Erstwhile Royal Family Of Travancore [Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. V. State Of Kerala & Ors.]The Supreme Court upheld the rights of erstwhile royal family of Travancore in the administration of Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram. Allowing the appeal filed by members of the Travancore family, a bench of Justices UU Lalit & Indu Malhotra reversed the finding of the High Court of Kerala that the rights of family ceased to exist with the death of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991. The death of the last ruler will not result in escheat of the rights in favour of the government.5. 'He Is 73; Detention Period About To Expire' : SC Seeks To Know Basis For Continued Detention Of J&K Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom [Mian Abdul Qayoom V. Union of India]The Supreme Court adjourned the plea filed by Senior Advocate and J&K Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom, which challenged the 28th May, 2020 Order of the J&K High Court which had dismissed his habeas corpus petition and upheld his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul & BR Gavai heard the matter and allowed Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta to seek instructions on the issue and to respond regarding the reasons for prolonging detention. Accordingly, they adjourned the plea to July 23rd.6. Disabled Entitled To The Same Benefits As Given To SC-ST Candidates: SC [Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration]The Supreme Court has observed that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward and are thus entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates. While considering an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, the bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said that it is 'following' the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court's judgment in Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his father/Natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University 2012 (131) DRJ 583.7. When A Person Refuses To Issue Certificate Under Section 65B(4) Of Evidence Act, Court Must Order Its Production: SC [Arjun P. Khotkar V. Kailash K. Gorantyal & Ors.]The Supreme Court has observed that application can be made to the trial court to direct a person to produce the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act on the refusal of such person to produce the same otherwise. The bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat & V. Ramasubramaniam observed that a Court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. The court observed thus in the case Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Week Commencing July 13 to July 19, 2020

Tags