- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (19th- 24th February, 2024)
Gyanvi Khanna
25 Feb 2024 11:25 AM GMT
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week, providing a...
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Title: BHAGWATI PRASAD GOPALIKA & ORS. v. LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT (PRIVILEGES AND ETHICS Respondent(s) BRANCH) & ORS., Writ Petition (Civil) No.116/2024
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privilege committee against the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and three other officials of the State of West Bengal initiated on a complaint filed by BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar over alleged mistreatment against him during the protests at Sandeshkhali region on February 13 and 14.
Case Title: SIDDARAMAIAH Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 2292/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the criminal case against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over a protest march conducted by him in 2022 demanding the resignation of then Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister KS Eshwarappa.
Case Title: Alakh Alok Srivastava v. State of West Bengal and others., W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2024
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL which sought a CBI/SIT investigation into the reports regarding the sexual assault of women in Sandeshkhali in West Bengal.
Case Title: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Sharad Pawar challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to recognize Ajit Pawar's faction as the authentic Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). In a temporary relief to the former, the court also directed that the commission's February 7 order granting name of 'Nationalist Congress Party-Sharad Chandra Pawar' for the faction led by the veteran politician will continue till further orders.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164 of 2023
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing that States and Union Territories must act as per the definition of "forest" laid down in the 1996 judgment in T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India while the process of identifying land recorded as forests in Government records is going on as per the 2023 amendment to Forest (Conservation) Act.
Case Title: DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 129
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that police should exercise "heightened caution" while registering a criminal case over a dispute involving unethical transactions between parties in which civil remedies are barred. The police should ensure that the parties are not resorting to criminal law remedies to achieve unscrupulous results in cases where civil remedies are barred.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. EX. LT. SELINA JOHN., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 135
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a case where a woman nursing officer was terminated from the Military Nursing Service on the grounds of marriage, the Supreme Court firmly termed the same to be a 'coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality'.
The Division Bench also reiterated that rules, on the basis of which such women officers were terminated because of their marriage, are unconstitutional.
Coram: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State of Madhya Pradesh for not filing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with Challan in an NDPS case.
In view of this, the Bench directed the Additional Director General of the Police (Narcotics Wing) to file an affidavit outlining how many matters the FSL report was not filed along with the challan. This only concerned the State of MP.
Case Title: FARHANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 131
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that to prosecute the accused under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act (“Act”), the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being a member of the gang, should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the predicate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: State through CBI vs Naresh Prasad Agarwal., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 133
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court recently quashed a judgment of the Madras High Court on the sole ground that the judge released it after retirement.
Observing that a judge retaining the case file after demitting office is a gross impropriety, the bench remitted the appeal to the High Court for its fresh consideration.
Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 10 lakhs compensation to a patient who developed hoarseness in his voice due to medical negligence committed by doctors while administering anaesthesia.
Apple Has No Duty To Trace Stolen iPhone Using Unique Identity Number: Supreme Court
Case Title: Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court obliterated an observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace a stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number provided by it.
The Supreme Court stated that the observation made by the Consumer Commission was "unwarranted".
Case Title: KULDEEP KUMAR vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH SLP(C) No. 002998 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
In a significant development, the Supreme Court declared Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Kuldeep Kumar as the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.
Setting aside the election results and declaring Mr. Kuldeep Kumar of the AAP-INC Alliance as the rightful mayor of Chandigarh, the Court also initiated criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Mr. Masih for making false statements before the Court.
Case Title: Dr. Mohit Dhawan Vs Rakesh Asthana., Diary No.- 4870 – 2021
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale.
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the prosecution of former Special Director of the CBI, DG of BSF, and former Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition was filed by Chandigarh-based dentist Mohit Dhawan, who made allegations of extortion against Asthana.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS GOPAL K. VERMA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court has asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the advocates representing the State Government are not forced to file petitions in Courts to recover the fees due to them.
Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SWARN SINGH @ BABA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to compel the production of things/documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.
NEET-MDS 2024 | Looking Into Issue Of Internship Cut-Off Date, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Aditya Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The union government told the Supreme Court that it is looking into the grievances of NEET-MDS candidates regarding the extension of internship deadline.
Case Title: CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. TARSEM LAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person with the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State cannot claim the same benefit in another State or Union Territory where he/ she has eventually migrated, where the tribe is not notified as ST.
Supreme Court Surprised At State Opposing Maintenance Plea Of Wife By Siding With Husband
Case Title: Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 140
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In a wife and minor daughter's plea for maintenance, the Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at State's conduct of siding with the husband.
Case Title: MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale
The Supreme Court held that the delay that occurred in preferring an appeal against the acquittal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Concurring with the decision of the High Court, the Bench observed that if there is a delay in filing an appeal against the acquittal of the accused then the delay can be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court Has No Power Of Superintendence Over High Courts : SC
Case Title: Ganpat @ Ganapat v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Coram: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court stated that it has no power of superintendence over the High Courts.
The bench made this observation while refusing to direct a High Court to expeditiously decide a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution aggrieved by the delay in the hearing of his criminal appeal in the High Court.
Case Title: State U.P v. Ramadhar Kashyap (Minor) Thru.Brother Divyanshu., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 148
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's direction asking the Uttar Pradesh police to conduct the medical examination of the person called in the police station after their release.
Up To States/UTs To Explore Option Of 'Community Kitchens' : Supreme Court
Case Title: Anun Dhawan and others versus Union of India and others, WP(c) No.1103/201
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court left it open to the States and the Union Territories to explore the option of 'community kitchens' as a means to achieve the objectives of the National Food Security Act, 2013.
Case Title: Kalinga @ Kushal Versus State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli, Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that when the case of the prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession being circumstantial in nature then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence unless the chain of circumstances is completed by the prosecution.
Police Doesn't Have Power To Recover Money Or Act As Civil Court For Money Recovery : Supreme Court
Case Title: LALIT CHATURVEDI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 150
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court reiterated that the contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to the initiation of a criminal proceeding.
CaseTitle: THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANR. VERSUS GANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 153
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court held that the suit for injunction may not be maintainable against the defendants if the plaintiff fails to prove the title of the property while praying for the injunction.
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 151
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has, recently (on February 13), directed the High Courts to inform whether the decisions taken in Siddharth v. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation have been included in the curriculum of judicial academy.
Supreme Court Records SOP Suggested By Union Govt To Support Poor Prisoners
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 151
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
Recently, in a significant order, the Supreme Court has recorded a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to implement the scheme for support to poor prisoners. The Union proposed this procedure while the Court was ascertaining compliance with the directions in the landmark decision of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation.
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
The Supreme Court has directed the Animal Welfare Board of India to decide a representation filed by the Bombay Natural History Society on framing guidelines with respect to the management of feral, free-ranging, and domestic dogs in wildlife and protected areas.
News Update
Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 1614/2024
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a case raising the issue of whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
The Supreme Court pulled up the Central Government over the denial of the Permanent Commission for women officers in the Indian Coast Guard (ICG).
The bench, hearing a plea of a woman officer in the Short Service Commission, asked if the Union was taking "a patriarchal approach" despite the extensive rulings by the Apex Court on the issue of granting a Permanent Commission to women officers in defense services.
Will Allow Additional Borrowing By Kerala If They Withdraw Suit, Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was informed that talks to resolve the deadlock between the Centre and the State of Kerala over the former's curbs on the state's borrowing limits has not yielded any results.
Case Title: NITISHA vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE MA 000219 - / 2024
The Supreme Court, while hearing an application seeking directions for proper implementation of the judgement in Lt. Col Nitisha v. UOI, was informed by the Centre that a new policy is in progress which shall ensure that both male and female officers of the Indian army empanelled in permanent commission are rotated adequately in regular units.
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State., Diary No. 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court adjourned until February 27 (next Tuesday) the hearing of a plea by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha challenging his arrest/remand in the UAPA case.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Ex-JNU Professor's Defamation Case Against 'The Wire'
Case Title: Amita Singh v. The Wire Through its Editor Siddharth Bhatia And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 6146/2023
Coram: Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel made several allegations against the respondent. Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the respondent news organization, also submitted that there was a solitary reference to the petitioner in the questioned article. She also averred that, at the time of article publishing, the respondents, JNU professors, and even the petitioner understood that such a dossier was submitted. However, when the petitioner wrote to the respondent, a rejoinder was published stating that she had nothing to do with the dossier.
Case Title: DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. CURATIVE PET(C) No. 000108 - 000109 / 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Court reserved judgment on the Curative Petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) challenging the Court's 2021 decision of upholding an arbitral award of Rs 72000 Crores won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL).
Case Title: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus M/S ACZET PRIVATE LIMITED, C.A. No. 3743/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan
In a crucial development, the Supreme Court took up for consideration the issue of whether Tribunals/Commissions across the country, like the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), shall comprise a Judicial Member who shall also be the Presiding Member.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
In a matter where the Supreme Court is hearing whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the Consumer Protection Act of 1986., arguments were advanced where an attempt to distinguish the legal profession from that of the medical profession was made.
Case Title: Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra | SLP [C] No. 7776/2021
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge against the setting aside of MP Navneet Kaur Rana's cast certificate, asked the counsel for the petitioner to examine what would be the procedure laid down by law when a certificate that is granted after verification is to be canceled.
Case Title: GAYATRI BALASAMY VERSUS M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Coram: Justices Dipankar Dutta, K.V. Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court has referred to the larger bench the question of whether the courts have the power to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
In a pivotal hearing on whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 1986., the Supreme Court, inter-alia, deliberated on whether a consumer under the Act can be equated with the client. Additionally, the Court delved into whether negligence on the part of a lawyer can result in deficiency of service as given under the Act.
Is New Bail Law Under Preparation? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Coram: comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to inform whether it is contemplating to introduce a new Bail Law as per the recommendation made by the Court in its 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Case Title: Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra., SLP [C] No. 7776/2021
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court, resuming its hearing on the issue of cancellation of the caste certificate of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana, dwelled into the aspect of the purpose and scope of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and how the designation of Scheduled Castes in different states varied on sociological basis.
Earlier this week, a Supreme Court bench led by the Chief Justice of India passed an interim order that zoos/safaris should not be allowed within forest areas without prior obtaining prior permission from the Court.
However, another bench led by Justice BR Gavai had earlier reserved judgment on the very same issue. Today, Justice Gavai asked the Additional Solicitor General of India, Aishwarya Bhati, if she had informed the CJI's bench about this fact.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court questioned the Tamil Nadu government's standing to file a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the district collectors in connection with the alleged illegal sand mining- money laundering cases.
Case Title: ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN PURNIMA BHAT Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 3932/2024 (and connected cases)
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a set of cases against the Madras Bar Association ("MBA"), the Supreme Court asked the parties concerned to inform by next date of hearing if they have any objection to Justice KV Viswanathan hearing the matter, in light of the fact that he had attended an event at MBA after his elevation.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent., SMW (Civil) No. 3 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court questioned the remit of the high court to set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, merely on the basis that the sexual intercourse was with 'consent', when a minimum punishment has been prescribed under the statute, in the absence of a constitutional mandate to do 'complete justice' that is enjoyed by the top court.
Will Publish Review Committee's Orders On Internet Shutdown: Jammu & Kashmir UT Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2020
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir agreed before the Supreme Court to publish the orders passed by the review committees regarding internet shutdown in the region, except for the internal deliberations.
Case title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has issued notice to Google India Private to get information on the working of Google PIN in the context of conditions put in certain bail orders that the accused must share the live mobile location with the investigating officer throughout the period of bail.
One Bench Of High Court Cannot Cancel Bail Granted By Another Bench : Supreme Court
Case Title: Himanshu Sharma v. Union of India., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 157
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge of the High Court in canceling the bail granted to the accused by another Single Judge of the same High Court and that too, by examining the merits of the allegations tantamounts, to judicial impropriety/indiscipline.
