- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (29th...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (29th January- 3rd February, 2024)
Gyanvi Khanna
4 Feb 2024 3:15 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 and also the...
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 and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status matter, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Title: PG Manu v. State of Kerala and others., SLP(Crl) No. 666/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by a former Government Pleader at the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case.
The allegation was that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim, who had approached him as a client in relation to another sexual assault case in which she was the victim.
"You were in a position of dominance...we have to consider that", Justice Roy said. Observing that there was no infirmity in the Kerela High Court's order (denying bail), the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 978 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the high court granting anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister and Telegu Desam Party (TDP) President N Chandrababu Naidu in the Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam case.
Case Title: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned until April a batch of pleas pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute but extended the interim stay granted on a high court order appointing a commission to inspect the premises of the mosque in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.
CASE TITLE: GOA FOUNDATION V. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12234-35 of 2018
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In appeals filed for modification of the criteria for identification of private 'forests' in State of Goa, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the existing criteria are adequate and valid, and require no alteration.
Caste Or Religion Of Parties Should Not Be Mentioned In Any Filings Before Courts : Supreme Court
Case Title: SHAMA SHARMA v. KISHAN KUMAR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 62
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has passed a general order directing that the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Courts. To ensure the immediate compliance of these directions, the Court also directed a copy of this order to be placed before the concerned Registrar. The same shall be circulated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts.
Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Non-Appearance Of Accused Before Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: KRISHNA SHARMA ALIAS KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 65
Coram: B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the non-appearance of the accused party is no ground for cancellation of bail.
The High Court had noted that, on several occasions, it directed the accused person to appear personally before the Court. However, the Court, while cancelling the bail, had observed that neither the accused nor his lawyer was present. It recorded that this non-appearance 'exposes an insolent stance of opposite party No.2 to evade the process of law.' Against this backdrop, the matter came up before the Top Court.
The Court observed that if bail has been granted, the same can be canceled if any conditions are violated or liberty is misused.
Case Title: Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association (Regd.) V M/S. Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 63
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has held that the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has no effect on the execution of a decree against the Directors or Officers of the Company (Corporate Debtor), which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under IBC.
The Bench held that the protection of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is only available to the Company and not to its Directors or Officers, thus the execution of decree can be done against them even during moratorium.
Case Title: M/S ALANKAR WINES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION SOCIETIES SLP(C) No. 015399 - / 2023 & Connected matters
Coram: Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
The Supreme Court noticed that it had wrongly applied a precedent while ordering the relocation of a liquor shop in Puducherry to an area beyond 500 meters from a temple, mosque or an educational institution.
Taking note of the developments, the Court recalled the earlier order and restored the writ petition back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, the Supreme Court called for responses of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force as to why he had not been paid the court-ordered sum of Rs.1.6 crores in compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV. The Bench, while issuing notice, declined the respondents' request to defer the proceedings on the ground that a review petition has been filed against the court's judgment awarding compensation.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Alleging Allotment Of Contracts To Arunachal CM's Family
Case Title: Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 54/2024 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court agreed to issue notice in a PIL seeking directions for SIT probe into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to the companies owned by relatives of the incumbent chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Pema Khandu.
As per the petition, there was alleged partiality in giving away key tenders to the close associates of Mr Pema Khandu including the construction company 'M/s brand Eagles' belonging to Khandu's spouse. Additionally, Pema's nephew Mr. Tsering Tashi, an MLA from Tawang District owning M/s Alliance Trading Co. has been awarded work contracts without following due procedure.
Case Title : Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 64
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused is disputing the signature on the cheque, then the certified copies of the signatures from the bank could be summoned from the bank to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque. The Court explained that the indorsements on a cheque carry a presumption of genuineness as per Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is incumbent upon the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of signatures.
Case Title: DASHRATH SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be sustained if the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not committed on the ground of caste.
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the principles of Hindu law could be applied while adjudicating inheritance rights under the Mohammedan law. The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, while issuing notice in a partition matter, ordered:
“The question of seminal importance, which is required to be decided in this case is whether the principles of Hindu law could be applied while deciding the right of inheritance falling under the Mohammedan law.”
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone), WP(C) No. 13381/1984
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court today asked the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine whether the road construction proposed for the State of Uttar Pradesh could take place without felling 3874 trees. Calling the State's application (for felling of 3874 trees on the basis that they would be affected by proposed construction of Agra-Jalesar-Etah road in the State) "vague", the Bench deprecated the manner in which the same had been filed and said, "we will not allow trees to be cut so easily".
Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Ors v The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16557/2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay
The Supreme Court extended the interim stay granted to the Vice Chancellor and other officials (present appellants) of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) in a case pertaining to the alleged forceful religious conversion of a woman to Christianity. The Bench Kumar also directed the State of UP to file a counter-affidavit within one week. The matter is listed after three weeks.
Case Title: Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2020
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
In a significant development on Tuesday, January 30, the Supreme Court called for the publication of review committee orders concerning internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir.
This observation was made by a bench in response to an application filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals, pressing for compliance with the court's May 2020 judgment. In this ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a special committee - consisting of the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary of the Department of Communication and the Chief Secretary of the UT- to assess the necessity of internet restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking review of its judgment in Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement which held that the ED need not supply to the accused the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest and that written information can be given within 24 hours. "In our opinion, no case for review is made out.
Consequently, the Review petition is dismissed," observed the Bench.
Case Title: SANJAY UPADHYA VERSUS ANAND DUBEY., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal defamation case against the owner of a newspaper over an article published against an advocate.
The Court opined that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and A Amanullah
In a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated to address the issue of overcrowding of prisons in India, the Supreme Court today directed States/Union Territories to constitute District-level Committees, which shall assess and report on available infrastructure in jails and give a decision on the number of additional jails required in terms of the Model Prison Manual, 2016. The Bench ordered that the governments of the States/UTs shall notify constitution of the Committees within 1 week from the date of receipt of the court's order and the Committees shall hold their first meeting within 2 weeks of their constitution.
Case Title: GULSHAN BAJWA vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OR DELHI., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court, while convicting an advocate in a seventeen-year-old criminal contempt case, reiterated that an apology must be evidence of remorse for the contemptuous acts. It must not be used as a weapon 'to purge the guilty of their offence'. Further, an apology lacking sincerity and not evidencing contriteness cannot be accepted.
Case Title: SHEIKH ARIF VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 68
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
To sustain the offence of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage, it must be established that right from the inception, the consent of the woman was obtained based on the false promise, reiterated the Supreme Court.
CASE TITLE: VANDEEP SINGH BASRA & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., W.P.(C) No.32/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
While hearing a plea against the embargo placed on medical candidates resigning from NEET seats after joining, the Supreme Court directed the Directorate General of Health Services - Medical Counselling Committee (DGHS-MCC) to permit 3 doctors, who had secured selection in Super Specialty courses in INIs (Institutions of National Importance), to resign from the Institutes where they were admitted.
Case Title: P.C. JAIN VERSUS DR. R.P. SINGH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 70
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court granted relief to the 84-year-old man by directing the Doctor to award him compensation amounting to Rs. 2 Lacs in a medical negligence case. The complainant patient has lodged a consumer complaint against the Doctor after he lost vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed by the Doctor in a surgical procedure.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. IN RE CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATION TRIBUNALS (SUO MOTO), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order stipulating that the Uttar Pradesh Educational Service Tribunals should be established only after the permission of the High Court.
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR DAS JOINT SECRETARY vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST (SOLE RESPONDENT)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 73
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court recently, in a case where the status quo order qua possession of the suit premises was wilfully violated, held that the same amounts to civil contempt. Thus, instead of vacating the stay of execution proceedings, the Court held that contempt proceedings should have been initiated.
Supreme Court Rejects Widow's Plea To Abort 32-Week Pregnancy, Suggests Giving Child For Adoption
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale
The Supreme Court refused to allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy which was over 32-weeks. A bench, noting that the medical board has opined against the termination of pregnancy, rejected the woman's plea. The bench suggested that the woman could give up the child for adoption if she wanted.
CASE TITLE: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra
With a view to entrench "environmental rule of law" into India's environmental governance, the Supreme Court on Wednesday enunciated features that environmental bodies, authorities and regulators must imbibe to effectively preserve forests, wildlife, environment and ecology.
The Supreme Court passed a slew directions while approving the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on September 5, 2023, under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, constituting the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent body for “the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court covering the subject matter of Environment, Forest and Wildlife".
Case Title: SACHIN GARG VERSUS STATE OF U.P & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 75
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate, while issuing the summoning order, shall not act in a casual manner; rather they should be satisfied that there exists a sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. The recording of the satisfaction of the Magistrate while issuing the summons should not be in a cryptic manner but only when a prima facie case is made out from the allegations.
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta
While hearing a plea by medical candidates challenging restrictions imposed on resignation from NEET seats, the Supreme Court approved a proposal brought forth by Union of India to allow only those candidates to resign who had joined Institutes of National Importance (INIs) post counselling.
The Bench opined that the proposal given was reasonable and balanced the interests of meritorious students with concern of medical institutions where seats would fall vacant if upgradation is permitted.
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the question of whether the underlying debt is time-barred is based on the evidence. Thus, the High Court should not decide the same in a petition under Section 482 (quashing of FIR) of the CrPC.
Case Title: SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS VERSUS VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 77
Coram: Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, imposed a cost amounting to Rs. 6 lakhs on six police personnel of the Maharashtra Police for conspiring and illegally detaining tenants, coercing them to sign documents against their will, and demolishing the premises in question without any order from a competent court.
As per this law, a divorce can be sought without making any ground and there are no pre-conditions. Pertinently, this law applies to Non-Muslim UAE nationals and Non-Muslim foreigners residing in the UAE. Further, this decree under the no-fault clause can be implemented and enforced in India under 'the Bilateral Treaty 1999', where the UAE is treated as a reciprocating territory.
Case title: Hemant Soren v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2024
Coram: (Special Bench) Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister, Hemant Soren, challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with an alleged land scam case. The court asked Soren to approach the Jharkhand High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, adding that Soren was at liberty to seek expeditious listing of his petition before the high court.
Case Details: KULDEEP MISHRA vs. BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH W.P.(C) No. 000024 - / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by a law graduate challenging the enrolment fee charged by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council. The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, told the Bench that the present fee cited by the State Bar Council is Rs. 16,665 for lawyers to be enrolled at the U.P Bar. An additional sum of Rs. 5000/- would be charged for those wishing to expedite the processing within a single day. The petitioner challenged this fee as "exorbitant".
Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT LTD VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS., Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 968-969/2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court refused to transfer the criminal appeal pending against Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited (MCFPL) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court to the Telangana High Court.
CASE TITLE: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS BINEESH KODIYERI, SLP(Crl) No. 3155/2022
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to Bineesh Kodiyeri, actor and son of former Kerala State Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), in a money laundering case.
While refusing to entertain the agency's plea, the Bench noted that there was no allegation against Bineesh that he had misused the relief of bail. Although, it was clarified that the impugned order of the Karnataka High Court shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
Case Title: BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that if there is a repugnancy between the earlier and later clauses of a deed, whereby a later clause destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, then the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant to the earlier clause and the earlier clause prevails.
Case Title: GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court raised doubts about the viability of its earlier directions which mandate that retired judges should appear in a written examination for appointment as President and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.
Supreme Court Asks Litigant To Approach High Court For Preservation Of Protected Monument In Goa
CASE TITLE: THE GOA FOUNDATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a public interest litigation initiated for protection of a monument of national importance in Goa, the Supreme Court today granted liberty to the petitioner/Goa Foundation to move the concerned High Court.
Union & Tripura Govts Settle Dispute Over Assam Rifles Land; Supreme Court Disposes Of Suit
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. STATE OF TRIPURA., Diary No.- 11922 – 2015
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In a land dispute (The Assam Rifles Ground) between the Union of India and the State of Tripura, the Apex Court was informed that a settlement has been reached between the parties. Accordingly, the Division Bench disposed of the matter.
The Supreme Court recently quashed an FIR against a Belgian citizen over the death of 13 trekkers due to a forest fire which took place at the Kerala-Tamil Nadu border in 2018.
This trekking expedition was organized and arranged through a website owned by the Belgian citizen, Peter Van Geit. Based on this, the appellant was also embroiled in the matter. Pertinently, he was accused under Sections 304 A (Death by negligence) and 338 (Grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) IPC.
Declaration Of Title Can Be Sought Based On Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Reiterates
Coram: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for declaration of title based on the plea of an adverse possession can be filed by the plaintiff. Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench, while referring to the Judgment of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur, observed that it is a settled position of law that a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title by adverse possession.
Constitution Bench Hearing- on the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Case Title: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma
In the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Union Government submitted before the Supreme Court that an institution of national importance must reflect that national structure.
Stressing that AMU is an institution of national importance, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested the Court to analyse the issue from the angle of social justice, so that students belonging to SC/ST/SEBC sections can also gain access to it. The SG underscored that about 70-80% of the students in AMU are Muslims at present.
The issue whether a group constitutes a 'minority' must be decided on the basis of present-day standards and not based on the situation which existed before the commencement of the Constitution of India, observed the Supreme Court during the hearing.
The observation of the seven-judge Constitution Bench came in response to an argument made by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that Muslims were not a minority at the time of the establishment of AMU in 1920 during the British rule. Dwivedi is appearing for one of the petitioners who had approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the minority status of AMU.
On the 7th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court discussed whether an institution of national importance can have a minority status as well. As per Entry 63 of List 1 of the Constitution, institutions such as the AMU, Benaras Hindu University, Delhi University etc., are declared to the institutions of national importance.
On the 7th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution to the respondents on making arguments which may limit the law-making powers of the Parliament.
Senior Advocate Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul expressed, “By a legislative fiat or legal fiction you cannot take away a historical legislative fact, you cannot alter history” The CJI was however quick to remind the senior counsel of the serious repercussions such an argument may have. He cautioned Mr NK Kaul to not assert anything that may impact the unfettered law-making powers of the Parliament and the prospective bearing such a contention would have.
On the final day of hearing, the 7-judge Constitution Bench and petitioners dwelled to see whether the Amendment Act of 1981 restored the position of AMU as it was before 1951 or was amendment done “half-heartedly”.
The 1981 Act amended Section 2(l) of the AMU Act to state that “University” means the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University.
News Update
The Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to exercise the functions of its Standing Committee till the committee can be properly and legally constituted.
Underscoring the prevailing situation, Mayor, in her petition, has also argued that several amenities have been affected. Some of them include the procurement of textbooks and medical supplies for MCD's schools and health centers and the maintenance of public parks and public toilets.
Case Title: TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA., Diary No.- 42856 - 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court granted a week time to RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav to file a clear statement withdrawing the “Gujarati hi thag hai ho sakta hai (only Gujaratis can be cheats)" comment made by him last year. The Bench sought a simple and clear statement from Yadav after an objection was raised by the respondent(complainant) that the previous statement filed by Yadav in Court regarding the withdrawal of the statements was not clear.
CASE TITLE: TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, SLP(Crl) No. 14489/2023, TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI Diary No.- 1106 – 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the practice followed by Courts in Gujarat of giving the police liberty to seek remand of the accused even while granting anticipatory bail. The Bench remarked that such a practice would defeat the objective of granting anticipatory bail, nullifying the guarantee of personal liberty. It further observed that proper training must be given to the Judicial Magistrates in the State.
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court today called for a report from the Registrar General (RG) of Madras High Court over a Single Judge of the court taking suo motu cognizance of the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in corruption case.
The Bench has asked the RG to clarify whether prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court was obtained by the Single Judge before taking suo motu cognizance wrt Ramachandran's discharge.
Case Title: Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust v. Union of India., Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 669-670 of 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 4751-4752 of 2021
The Kerala government has denied wilful non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order to conduct a socio-economic study to revise the reservation list for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) in the state.
The Kerala government has refuted allegations of intentional disobedience to the court's directions, claiming that it was not in possession of the socio-economic survey report, as it was not published by the central government.
Refusing to entertain a PIL seeking directions to State Governments to set up 'Courts Special Cells' to ensure compliance with Court Orders, the Supreme Court today admonished the lawyer to be aware of the existing nuances of law before filing such petitions.
CJI rebuked the petitioner, “ You are back again? Last time I told you not to file such PILs….somebody will impose costs of on you. Now this direction in PIL that all state govt. Must comply with court orders… we were gentle on you last time, but you have persisted on filing these PILs . Please do something else. If you have a little free time you can attach yourself to a Senior Lawyer, learn some law and not file these kinds of petitions”
Case Title: Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 9388 of 2022
The Gyanvpai mosque committee made an unsuccessful attempt to get an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court for their application challenging the Varanasi District Court's order which allowed Hindus to perform prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque. Few hours after the District Court passed the order on January 31 afternoon, the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi filed an urgent application seeking status quo at the mosque site. The lawyers of the mosque committee approached the residence of a Supreme Court registrar yesterday night seeking an urgent hearing at night itself, raising the apprehension that poojas will be performed inside the mosque during the night.
AAP Councillor Moves Supreme Court Against HC's Refusal To Stay Chandigarh Mayor Election
An Aam Aaadmi Party(AAP) councillor has approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to stay the Chandigarh Mayor polls. AAP councillor Kuldeep Kumar has filed the Special Leave Petition aggrieved by the decision of the High Court to list his petition after three weeks without granting an immediate stay of the results.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud agreed to consider a request for urgent listing of the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Kuldeep Kumar challenging the Chandigarh Mayor election result.
Can Dismissal Of 6 Women Judges Be Reconsidered? Supreme Court Ask Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Junior Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Services., SMW (Civil) No. 2 of 2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court orally asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court if it could reconsider the decision to terminate the services of six women judges.
The bench was considering a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court over the termination of these judges by the Madhya Pradesh government in June last year. Last month, the Court had issued notice to the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the suo motu case.
Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001405 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the treatment meted out to a transgender teacher who had been terminated from her appointment by two private schools in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner addressed the issue of social stigma that the teacher had been facing in the women's hostel and how the school environment has been unwelcoming of her sexual identity.
