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

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar
1 Nov 2020 1:29 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up
x
Week Commencing October 25, 2020 to November 1, 2020

Top Stories This Week: 1. Hathras Case : Supreme Court Asks Allahabad High Court To Monitor CBI Probe [Satyama Dubey V. UOI]The Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to monitor the ongoing the CBI probe into the Hathras gang-rape and murder case. As regards the plea for transfer of trial outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna &...

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?

Top Stories This Week: 

1. Hathras Case : Supreme Court Asks Allahabad High Court To Monitor CBI Probe [Satyama Dubey V. UOI]

The Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to monitor the ongoing the CBI probe into the Hathras gang-rape and murder case. As regards the plea for transfer of trial outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramniun stated that the question of transfer is left open until the investigation is completed. The bench also took note of the submission of the Solicitor General of India that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court had disclosed details about the victim and her family members. Based on that, the Court requested the Allahabad High Court to remove the facts disclosing the details of the victim and her family from the order. 

Also Read: Hathras Case: Supreme Court Orders CRPF Protection To Victim's Family And Witnesses

2. Supreme Court Stays Uttarakhand High Court Order Directing CBI Investigation Against CM Trivendra Singh Rawat [Trivendra Singh Rawar V. Umesh K. Sharma & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has stayed the Uttarakhand HC order directing CBI probe into corruption allegations against Uttarakhand CM Trivendra Singh Rawat. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy & MR Shah observed that the issue required consideration, while issuing notice and sought response from the Respondents. Uttarakhand High Court order had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file an FIR and investigate the allegations of corruption levelled against Uttarakhand's Sitting Chief Minister Trivendra Singh Rawat by an investigative journalist, Umesh Sharma.

3. Supreme Court Orders Transfer To Itself All Pleas Challenging Provisions of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code On Personal Guarantors [IBBI V. Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has ordered the transfer of petitions pending across High Courts, challenging the provisions of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code pertaining to the issues of personal guarantors. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta & Ajay Rastogi heard the matter. The plea had been filed by IBBI seeking transfer on the ground of multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid conflicting judgments on account of pendency of similar issues across High Court.

4. 'She Is Not Going To Run Away' : Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police Challenge Against Bail Granted To Devangana Kalita [State V. Devangana Kalita]

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Delhi police challenging the Delhi High Court order granting bail to student activist Devangana Kalita in a case related to Delhi riots. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah said that the court was not inclined to interfere with the bail order. Additional Solicitor General of India, S V Raju, appearing for the Delhi police, submitted that the High Court omitted to consider relevant aspects and placed reliance on irrelevant factors to grant bail. The ASG added that Kalita was an influential person and that she could influence witnesses and tamper evidence. "It is only a grant of bail. She is not going to run away", Justice Ashok Bhushan responded to ASG's submissions, expressing disinclination to interfere. When the ASG repeated that Kalita was an influential person, Justice M R Shah asked "can that be a reason to deny bail?". Justice Bhushan told ASG that in case she attempted to tamper evidence or influence the witnesses, the police have the option of seeking the cancellation of bail.

5. "Experts Say Your Beautiful Cars Also Contribute To Air Pollution" CJI SA Bobde Says, While Hearing Stubble Burning Issue [MC Mehta V. UOI/ Aditya Dubey V. UOI]

The Supreme Court today made oral observations regarding the issue of worsening air pollution in the capital, after the Centre informed the court that a legislation has been promulgated today to tackle the issue of stubble burning in neighbouring states. Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said that they have been in talks with experts who have stated Stubble Burning is not the sole cause for Air Pollution in the capital and vehicular pollution is a major contributor as well. "Its time to take out your bicycles," said the CJI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that the Ordinance on "Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas" is ready and that the Court may record his statement in this regard. The bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun however stated that it would like to go through the ordinance once before passing any orders in that regard, stating that it will take up the matter for further consideration on next Friday.

6. Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Asks Bombay High Court To Consider Varavara Rao's Bail Application At The Earliest [Pendaya Hemlatha V. UOI]

The Supreme Court directed the Bombay High Court to list the bail application of 81-year-old poet P. Varavara Rao, who is an undetrail in the Bhima Koregaon case, before the appropriate Bench and hear it at the earliest. A Bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat expressed concern about the bail application filed on medical grounds not having been listed before the Bombay High Court since 17 September and directed the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to list the same at the earliest.

7. 'Is He Some Kind Of A Monster?': Supreme Court Remarks While Staying Execution Of Death Penalty [Mohan Singh @ Mahaveer V. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary]

The Supreme Court has stayed the execution of the death sentence awarded to a man who was found guilty for the gruesome act of murdering a woman by strangulating her, cutting her abdomen and taking out some organs from her body Though the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, stayed the execution, it could not hide its shock and horror at the crime. "We have never come across a case like this", the CJI told Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who was appearing for the convict Mohan Singh as part of legal aid scheme.

8. [254 Days Delay In Filing SLP]Supreme Court Imposes 25K Cost On Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), To Be Recovered From Officers Responsible [Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs Narcotic Control Bureau V. Md. Wasim Akram]

The Supreme Court has imposed costs on the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for delay in filing a Special Leave Petition, stating that the same shall be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay. Taking note of the inordinate delays that point towards complete inefficiency in administration of legal departments, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Hrishikesh Roy has passed the order in a petition filed by the NCB, challenging a bail order on account of Provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, contending that there is bar to grant of bail in such cases especially where large quantities of ganja have been seized.

9. Supreme Court Upholds Cost of Rs. 50,000 On DU College For Dismissing a Professor While On Maternity Leave [Sri Aurobindo College (Evening) & Anr. V. Manish Priyadarshini & Anr.]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against a Delhi High Court Order which reintstated an ad-hoc Assistant Professor who had been removed from service by a Delhi University college during her maternity leave and upheld the cost of Rs. 50,000. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee expressed grave reservations against the conduct of the college and stated that maternity leave could not be a ground for termination of services.

10. Depression Not Unsoundness Of Mind For S. 84, IPC: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Dismissal By Ex-Army man [Praveen Kumar Pal V. UOI]

The Supreme Court observed that 'depression' does not qualify as 'unsound mind' for the purpose of entitling one to the defence under Section 84, IPC. The bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari was hearing an appeal against a 2018 order of dismissal passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow. "The question is whether depression can be regarded as unsoundness of mind", advanced the counsel for the appellant.

11. Supreme Court Stays FIR Registered Against Journalist Who Was Covering 2018 Bharat Bandh [Yogesh Kumar Holkar V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.]

The Supreme Court stayed an FIR registered against Yogesh Kumar Holkar, a journalist who had covered the 2018 Bharat Bandh protests in Morena, Madhya Pradesh. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice in the plea and stayed further proceedings in pursuance to the FIR in question.

12. Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court Order Denying Extension Of Interim Bail To Undertrials [National Forum on Prison Reforms V. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.]

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Delhi High Court denying further extension of interim bails granted to undertrials. In a special leave petition moved by the National Forum On Prison Reforms, a Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi has stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court's order until November 26, 2020. The Bench has also directed the Petitioner-organization to serve copies of the petition on the Delhi Government and the Central Agency.

13. Tarun Tejpal Rape Case : Supreme Court Extends Deadline For Completion Of Trial To March 31, 2021 [State of Goa V. Tarun Tejpal]

The Supreme Court has granted additional time to a Goa Court for completion of the trial in the alleged rape case against Tarun Tejpal, former editor-in-chief of Tehelka Magazine. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy & MR Shah granted time until March 31, 2021 to complete the trial in an application seeking extension of time to do so. The application had been filed by State of Goa. On August 19, 2019, the top court, while dismissing a petition filed by Tejpal for quashing the charges of rape framed against him, had directed that the trial be completed by December 31, 2020.

14. Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Allowing Lalit Modi's Request For Cross-Examination Of BCCI Officials Over FEMA Violation [Lalit Modi V. UOI]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the June 20, 2019 Bombay High Court order in favour of fugitive Lalit Modi, who wanted to cross-examine BCCI officials in connection with a case of alleged FEMA violation. The High Court had also asked ED to consider afresh the request for giving Modi the reply of BCCI to their show cause notice in 2011. SG Tushar Mehta prayed for a stay on behalf of the ED, which was granted by the bench of Justices R. F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari.

15. Extra Attempt For UPSC Civil Services Exam Under Consideration By Appropriate Authority: Supreme Court [Abhishek Anand Sinha & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.]

The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of the plea on behalf of 24 UPSC aspirants seeking an extra attempt in the civil service service examination in the year 2021 in light of the Centre submitting that the issue is under consideration by the appropriate authority. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjiv Khanna heard ASG Mr. Aman Lekhi, who appeared on behalf of the Union of India (DoPT), stating that the matter is under consideration and the issue will be duly considered by the appropriate authority at the time when the Rules for CSE-2021 will be framed next year.

16. Supreme Court Judges Shocked To See Advocate Shirtless During VC Hearing

During the hearing of the Sudarshan TV case on Monday, the Supreme Court was shocked to see an advocate shirtless in the video conference meeting. When the session started, the image of a lawyer without shirt flashed on the screen for a few seconds. Visibly shocked, Justice D Y Chandrachud, the presiding judge of the bench, asked who the advocate was. Though the judge repeated the query two-three times, there was no response, as the lawyer suddenly logged out, probably after realizing the gaffe.

Judgments of the Week:

1. Preferences & Inclinations Of Child Are Important In Determining Issue Of Parental Custody : Supreme Court [Smriti Madan Kansagra V. Perry Kansagra]

The Supreme Court, in a judgement pertaining to transnational custody of child, relied upon Section 17(3) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 which states that the Court can consider the preferences of the minor if he/she is old enough to form an intelligent preference. "As per Section 17(3), the preferences and inclinations of the child are of vital importance for determining the issue of custody of the minor child. Section 17(5) further provides that the court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will", the Court observed.

2. Officers Authorised To Investigate NDPS Cases Are 'Police Officers' And Confessional Statements Made To Them Are Not Admissible: Supreme Court [2:1] [Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu]

The Supreme Court held by 2:1 majority that officers of the Central & State agencies appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers and therefore the 'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not admissible. Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha held thus, while Justice Indira Banerjee gave a dissenting opinion in the case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu.

3. Power U/s 41A CrPC Cannot Be Used To Intimidate, Threaten Or Harass: SC Stays Police Summons To Delhi Resident For FB Post Against West Bengal Govt. [Roshni Biswas V. State of West Bengal]

The Supreme Court has stayed a direction to a Delhi resident accused of making an 'objectionable' Facebook post against West Bengal Government, to appear before the Investigating Officer in West Bengal in response to a notice issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Cognizant as the Court is of the underlying principles which restrain the exercise of judicial review in the matter of police investigation, equally, the court must safeguard the fundamental right to the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. There is a need to ensure that the power under section 41A is not used to intimidate, threaten and harass.", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee said.

4. 'Acquittal Does Not Conclude Disciplinary Enquiry': SC Upholds Dismissal Of Police Constable Acquitted In A Murder Case [State of Rajasthan V. Heem Singh]

The Supreme Court, while upholding dismissal of police constable, reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge. In appeal filed by the state against the High court order, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee noted thus: "Whether on the basis of the evidence, the respondent could have been implicated in the conspiracy to commit murder of Bhanwar Singh is one aspect of the matter. Evidently direct evidence to sustain a charge of conspiracy is difficult to come by even in the course of a criminal trial. Quite independent of this is the issue whether the connection of the respondent with the circumstances leading to the death of Bhanwar Singh affected his ability to continue in the State police force without affecting its integrity and reputation. The latter aspect is the one on which the judgment of the Division Bench is found to be deficient in its reasoning."

Also Read: 'Acquittal Does Not Conclude Disciplinary Enquiry': SC Upholds Dismissal Of Police Constable Acquitted In A Murder Case [The State of Rajasthan & Ors. V. Heem Singh]

5. Police Presence During Test Identification Makes Statements By Identifiers Fall Within The Ban Of Section 162 CrPC: Supreme Court [Chunthuram vs. State of Chhattisgarh]

When the Test identification parades are held in police presence, the resultant communications tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in course of investigation and they fall within the ban of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court has held. In this case, the accused Chunthuram and co-accused Jagan Ram were convicted in a murder case by the Trial Court. The High Court, referring to the testimony of a eyewitness, acquitted Jagan Ram. Identification of the lungi by Filim Sai was yet another evidence used against Chunthuram.

6. Trivial Procedural Lapses Not A Ground To Nullify SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Secured Creditor If No Substantial Prejudice Was Caused To Borrower: SC [L&T Housing Finance Ltd. vs. Trishul Developers]

The Supreme Court has observed that proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the Secured Creditors cannot be nullified merely on the ground of technical defects and procedural lapses unless substantial prejudice was caused to the defaulter. In appeal filed by Secured Creditor, the Apex Court noted that the borrower (in its correspondence with the secured creditor) did not deny advancement of loan, execution of Facility Agreement, their liability and compliance of the procedure being followed by the secured creditor prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. The court also observed that the objection raised by the borrower was trivial and technical in nature and the secured creditor has complied with the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, was observed by the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi. 

7. [Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC] Court Should Take A Lenient View While Considering Defendant's Application To Produce Additional Documents: SC [Suganshi (Dead) V. P. Rajkumar]

The Supreme Court has observed that the courts should take a lenient view when an application is made by defendant for production of the document which he was not able to produce along with the written statement. The court was considering an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment which dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendants in a suit challenging the refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents. It was stated by defendants that they had recently traced these documents related to the suit property and that was why they could not produce them along with the written statement. Referring to Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna noted that it mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement.

8. Lack Of Independent Witness Not Fatal ; Police Officer's Testimony Shall Be Scrutinized With Greater Care: Supreme Court [Raveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in NDPS cases, lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution cases. The bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy observed that, in such cases, the Courts have to adopt a greater degree of care while scrutinising the testimonies of the police officers. If they are found reliable, they can form the basis of a successful conviction, the bench observed.

9. Courts Should Inform Accused About Their Right To 'Default Bail' Once It Accrues: SC [M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer]

The Supreme Court has observed that Courts should inform the accused of the availability of their indefeasible right to avail 'default bail' once it accrues to them. The objects of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are subsets of the overarching fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran said in a judgment delivered on Monday. The bench also observed that if the Court deliberately does not decide the bail application but adjourns the case by granting time to the prosecution, it would be in violation of the legislative mandate.

11. Right To Default Bail Is Enforceable Even If Charge Sheet/Report Seeking Extension Of Time Is Subsequently Filed: SC [Ravindran V. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence]

The Supreme Court has observed that where the accused has already applied for default bail, the Prosecutor cannot defeat the enforcement of his indefeasible right by subsequently filing a final report, additional complaint or report seeking extension of time. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, while allowing an appeal against a Madras High Court judgment, summarized the legal position in this regard, as follows:

Other Important Updates:

1. [Vijay Mallya-UBHL] About Rs 3,600 Crore Recovered, Rs 11,000 Crore Still Due, SC Told; Dismisses UBHL's Appeal Against Winding Up [Vijay Mallya V. UOI]

The Supreme Court dismissed United Breweries Holdings Ltd.'s appeal against the Karnataka High Court's decision as regards its winding up for recovery of dues payable to Kingfisher airlines.

2. [Disha Salian Death] "What Is The Problem In Bombay High Court? Supreme Court On Plea Seeking CBI Probe [Puneet Kumar Dhanda V. UOI]

The Supreme Court on Monday granted liberty to the Petitioner in a plea seeking a CBI probe monitored by top court into the death of Disha Salian, former manager of Late Actor Sushant Singh Rajput to approach the Bombay High Court instead. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun stated that the Bombay High Court would be an appropriate forum to approach in terms of the averments sought in the plea.

3. It Is For State To Assess, Review Threat Perception: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Withdrawal Of 'Z+' Security To Mukesh Ambani & Family [Himanshu Agarwal V. Commissioner Of Police, Mumbai & Ors.]

Dismissing a plea seeking withdrawal of security cover to Reliance Industries' Mukesh Ambani and his family members, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, nevertheless, observed that "it is for the State to assess and review the threat perception of individual on case to case basis". The bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M. R. Shah were hearing a SLP against the December, 2019 decision of the Bombay High Court, where it was held that that the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and other respondents "have no option but to ensure that the highest level Z+ security is provided to these private respondents", "irrespective of whether any individual or any authority is convinced about the existence or otherwise of real threat to their life or liberty", particularly when they are "willing to bear the entire cost for said security to protect their lives in view of their own grave threat perceptions"

4. Vizag Gas Leak: SC Adjourns Appeal Against NGT Order; Proceedings Before NGT Deferred Till Further Orders [L.G. Polymers V. APPCB]

The Supreme Court adjourned the appeal filed by LG Polymers against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order wherein it had been directed that the South Korean company would deposit 50 crores and a Committee would be formed to inquire into the tragedy. A Bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat further directed for the proceedings before the NGT to be deferred till further orders were given and directed the Appellant to file a response to the 28th May Inquiry Report within the next ten days.

5. Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Alleging No Approval For Remdesivir and Favipiravir To Be Used To Treat COVID-19 [ML Sharma V. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Union Government in a plea alleging that two medicines Remdesivir and Favipiravir are being used for the treatment of COVID-19 without approval. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun said that the issue needs to be brought to the attention of the Indian Government and issued notice to the Centre.

6. [Central Vista] "SG May Keep His Advice to Himself" Shyam Divan To SG When SG Said "Words Like 'Shameless' Can't be Used In Context Of Govt"

The Central Vista hearing before the Supreme Court on Thursday witnessed a verbal spat between Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan and SG Tushar Mehta, when the former described the Government's stand on the matter as "shameful". The hearing is progressing before a bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjeev Khanna. Mr. Diwan was appearing for the petitioner.

7. Supreme Court Declines Stay On Calcutta High Court Direction To Reduce Private School Fees By 20%

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the directions passed by the Calcutta High Court whereby private schools were asked to reduce their fees by a minimum of 20% and to not hike fee for the financial year 2020-21. The apex court also left untouched the High Court direction that schools should not charge for non-essential services(such as laboratory, craft, sporting facilities or extracurricular activities) which the students are not availing on account of lack of physical functioning. The HC had also said that for the present financial year, only a maximum of five per cent excess of revenue over expenditure will be permissible for schools.

8. Supreme Court Directs States To Ensure Supply Of Dry Ration To Sex Workers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed State Governments to follow the Standard Operation Procedure formulated by National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) and to commence distribution of dry ration to sex workers. Further, the States have also been directed to file compliance reports pertaining to the implementation of schemes for the distribution of ration. Additionally, in order to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of the sex workers, the States have been directed to follow the framework set up by NACO. A Bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao presided over the matter and decided to pass a general direction in today's proceedings and then observe what the States had to respond.

9. Criminal Trial Deficiencies: Supreme Court Seeks High Courts' Response On 'Draft Rules Of Criminal Practice'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, during the suo moto proceedings related to inadequacies and inefficiencies in the criminal trial system, sought the response of all High Courts on the implementation of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice prepared by the amici curiae. Senior Advocate Luthra, one of the amici curiae appointed by the court in the suo moto matter, suggested that the High Courts should adopt the draft criminal rules by adopting them in the administrative side.

10. Expeditious Trial Of Section 138 NI Act Cases : Supreme Court Seeks High Courts' Responses To Amici Curiae Report

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the responses of all High Courts to the preliminary report submitted by Amici Curiae with suggestions for expeditious trial of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India S A Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao passed the order in the suo moto case In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

11. 'You Cannot Ask For A General Direction To Implement A Law' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Enforce Farmers Acts 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL which sought directions to the Centra and States for enforcing the recently passed three Famers Acts. "You cannot ask for a general direction to implement the Act. You have to bring forth specific cases", observed the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, while dismissing the PIL. The PIL filed by "Hindu Dharma Parishad" had also sought for directions to ban all protests and agitation against Farmers Acts.

12. CA Exams : Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Seeking SOP's/Guidelines For Upcoming CA Examination On Nov 2 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday has adjourned a petition filed by certain CA aspirants, seeking uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed during the upcoming physical examinations to be conducted by ICAI. A Bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar has asked Advocate Bansuri Swaraj to serve the copies to the Central Government and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), and has listed the matter for hearing on November 2, 2020.

13. Supreme Court Asks 2002 Gujarat Riots Victim Bilkis Bano To Approach Authorities For Job And Accommodation

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Bilkis Bano, who was gang- raped when she was five months pregnant during the 2002 Gujarat riots, to approach the authorities concerned with her grievances over the job offer and accommodation provided by the state. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian asked advocate Shobha Gupta, representing Bano, to withdraw her interlocutory application and make a representation.

14. Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Interim Order For Implementation of 50% OBC Reservation in Medical College Seats in 2020-2021

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by State of Tamil Nadu and AIADMK seeking a direction for implementation of 50% quota for Other Backward Classes in the All India Quota for undergraduate, post-graduate medical and dental courses in Tamilnadu for the academic year 2020-2021. A Bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi dismissed the pleas which challenged the July 27 order of the Madras High Court and submitted that the High Court had not stated that the OBC quota should be implemented in the current academic year itself.

15. Supreme Court Terms Ex-HC Judge Karnan's Attempt To Forcibly Enter Ex-SC Judge's House "Unfortunate" 

The Supreme Court said that it was "unfortunate" that C S Karnan, former judge of Madras & Calcutta High Courts, forcibly tried to enter the residence of retired apex court judge R Banumathi in Chennai. A 3-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar was hearing a petition filed by Delhi Tamil Advocates Association seeking action against Karnan for his conduct.

Next Story
Share it