- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022
Sohini Chowdhury
3 Sep 2022 4:16 AM GMT
AIFF Elections - 'Equal Representation Of Players Necessary', Bhaichung Bhutia Moves Supreme Court Supporting CoA Ex-Indian football captain Baichung Bhutia had moved the Supreme Court seeking the draft constitution finalised by the CoA to be adopted as the new Constitution of the All India Football Federation as it prioritises and promotes welfare of the players over the vested...
Ex-Indian football captain Baichung Bhutia had moved the Supreme Court seeking the draft constitution finalised by the CoA to be adopted as the new Constitution of the All India Football Federation as it prioritises and promotes welfare of the players over the vested interest of those who have been controlling Indian football for several years now. The intervention application filed by Bhutia also seeks that the order passed by the Apex Court on 03.08.2022 directing the inclusion of 36 football players in the electoral college for the election of the executive committee of the AIFF, be given full effect.
Supreme Court Directs Status Quo On OBC Reservations In Maharashtra Local Polls
Case Status: Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra And Ors. SLP(C) No. 19756 of 2021
The Supreme Court directed status quo to be maintained in the matter pertaining to OBC reservations in Maharashtra local elections. This means that the OBC quota cannot be implemented for the time being in 367 local boies where the election process has already been notified. A special bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, was considering an application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking recall of the July 20 and July 28 orders which restrained the State Election Commission from re-notifying election process in 367 local bodies, where election process was already notified, so as to implement OBC quota.
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Review Of Its PMLA Judgment
A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against its July 27 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India which upheld the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The plea was mentioned before CJI NV Ramana was eventually listed.
Case Status : Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No.7413 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea moved by Social activist Teesta Setalvad seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. At the outset, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, the presiding judge of the bench, asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Teesta, whether there was any objection to him hearing the matter, due to his representation of "few of the accused in the Sohrabuddin murder matter". Sibal expressed that he has no objection. The Supreme Court directed Teesta to serve the Standing Counsel for the State and has kept the matter for hearing on August 25.
[Delhi Govt vs LG] Justice DY Chandrachud Led Constitution Bench To Hear The Issue Of Control Of Services
The CJI, NV Ramana said that he has constituted a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud to decide upon the questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital. The issue in the case is - whether the Govt of NCT of Delhi has legislative and executive powers in relation to 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Constitution of India and whether the officers of the various 'services' such as IAS, IPS, DANICS, and DANIPS who have been allocated to Delhi by the Union of India, come under the administrative control of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Case Status: All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra SLP(C) 30748 of 2017
In a significant development in Indian football, the Supreme Court passed a direction to terminate the mandate of the Committee of Administrators (CoA) - which has been constituted by the Court- to manage the affairs of the All India Football Federation (AIFF). The Court passed this order in the light of the decision taken by the FIFA to suspend AIFF, which construed the functioning of the CoA as a "third party interference". The Central Government requested the Supreme Court to end the mandate of the Court-appointed Committee of Administrators(CoA) for the management of the All India Football Federation so as to lift the suspension of AIFF by FIFA. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna modified the earlier directions relating to the CoA and the elections of AIFF so as to facilitate the revocation of the AIFF suspension and to ensure that India can host the Under-17 women's World Cup in October 2022 as scheduled.
Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order To Register FIR Against BJP's Shahnawaz Hussain In 2018 Rape Case
Case Status: Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 7653 of 2022
The Supreme Court stayed all proceedings against BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape case. Hussain has approached the top court challenging an order of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIR against him. The matter will now be heard next month. Meanwhile, the top court has granted liberty to the complainant, who was allegedly threatened and assaulted at the behest of the accused, to approach the Police which shall be under an obligation to provide protection, if required. The Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia has granted liberty to the complainant side to file its objections.
Case Status: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India And Ors .T.C.(C) No. 27 of 2007
The Supreme Court adjourned a plea filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeking directions to the Centre for declaring Ram Setu as a national heritage monument. The issue of declaring Ram Setu as a National Heritage monument was raised by Dr Swamy, in his plea filed in 2007 against Sethusamudram Ship Channel project for protection of Ram Setu. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna noted that the decision regarding the grant of National heritage status is the prerogative of the executive. However, Dr. Swamy apprised the Bench that the Central Government has been dilly dallying on the pretext that the Apex Court is in seisin of the matter. Dr. Swamy sought the Court's indulgence to ask the Central Government to file its counter affidavit in the matter and take a stand. He added that if the Centre is opposing his petition, then they should clearly indicate the same. Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta submitted that he would review the documents and get back in this regard.
Case Status: Christian Medical College Vellore v. State of TN W.P.(C) No. 8 of 2022
The Supreme Court has approved the seat-sharing formula free agreed by the Christian Medical College(CMC) at Vellore and the State of Tamil Nadu for sharing the MBBS and PG medical seats among themselves on 50-50 basis. Recording terms of the agreement, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha disposed of the writ petition filed by CMC Vellore seeking the quashing of Selection Committee's letter whereby the State of Tamil Nadu sought to impose the state policy of reserving 50% of seats ("state quota") in its favour in the undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses.
Case Status: Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Limited v. Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority And Ors. SLP(C) No. 11190 of 2022
The Supreme Court heard a plea by Adani Port Trust and Special Economic Zone aggrieved by Bombay High Court's order of dismissing its plea challenging the disqualification for upgradation of the container terminal in Navi Mumbai by the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA). The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Hima Kohli.
Case Status: Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696
The Supreme Court has observed that the consumer complaint in a dispute regarding premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable. A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
"A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' and it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Indian Olympic Association : Supreme Court Extends Status Quo On CoA Take Over
Case Status: Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India & Ors. Dairy No. 25767 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice in the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) plea against the Delhi High Court's Order as per which the affairs of IOA were put in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA). The matter was listed before the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J.K. Maheshwari. The bench, while issuing notice, also extended the status quo order on the CoA take over until further orders. The matter will be heard after four weeks. On August 18, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India had passed the status quo order after being told that the CoA was yet to take over. However, the CJI-led bench had not issued notice, as the matter was only orally mentioned by the Solicitor General of India.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
The Supreme Court declared that Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 as unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary. Section 3(2) prescribes the punishment for entering into a benami transaction.
"Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution", the bench declared.
The Court further held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the 2016 amendment cannot be held as merely procedural. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli delivered the judgment in an appeal field by the Central Government against a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that that 2016 amendment Act was prospective in nature (Union of India versus M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd).
Remission Granted To 11 Convicts In Bilkis Bano Case Challenged Before Supreme Court
The remission granted by the Gujarat Government to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case has been challenged before the Supreme Court. Advocate Aparna Bhat had mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India today morning seeking an urgent listing tomorrow. CJI NV Ramana agreed to look into the matter. CJI Ramana asked if they were granted remission by virtue of a Supreme Court order. The petition challenging the pre-mature release of the convicts has been filed by Subhashini Ali, a member of the Communist Party of India(Marxist), journalist Revati Laul and Professor Roop Rekha Verma. TMC MP Mahua Moitra has also moved the Supreme Court challenging their release. Filed through Advocate Shadan Farasat, the public interest litigation states that the victim has legitimate apprehensions regarding the safety of her and her family members.
Baba Ramdev Should Not Abuse Other Medicine Systems, Says Supreme Court While Hearing IMA Plea
Case Status: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2022
The Supreme Court pulled up Baba Ramdev for making statements against modern medicine systems like Allopathy. A bench led by the CJI, NV Ramana orally criticised Ramdev while hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association seeking to control the "smear campaign" and negative advertisements against the vaccination drive and modern medicines. The petitioner, inter alia, sought to direct the Centre, ASCI and the CCPA to take action against such advertisements and campaigns to promote Ayush system by disparaging the Allopathic system. The bench, also comprising Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar, issued notice to the Union Government, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Advertising Standards Council of India, Central Consumer Protection Authority of India and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd (the company run by Ramdev).
Case Status: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697
The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the petitions filed by the rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the political developments in the State of Maharashtra. A 3-judge bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli referred the petitions to a 5-judge bench observing that important questions of constitutional issue arise. On a prayer made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Uddhav camp, to restrain the Election Commission of India from deciding Eknath Shinde's claim as the official Shiv Sena party, the CJI agreed to post the matter before the Constitution Bench in a couple of days to consider the interim relief. Till then, the Election Commission has been asked to not take a final call.
Case Status: Sukash Chandra Shekhar @ Sukesh & Anr. v. Union Of India & Anr. WP (Crl) 129 of 2022
The Supreme Court directed to shift alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar and Wife Leena Paulose from Tihar Jail to Mandoli jail in Delhi within a week. The direction was passed by Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia while considering a writ petition filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife Leena Paulose seeking their transfer from Tihar Jail to a prison outside Delhi owing to safety reasons.
"Don't Think You're The Only Wise Party" : Supreme Court To DMK In "Freebies" Case
Case Status: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Anr. WP(C) No. 43 of 2022
While hearing the case relating to promises of "freebies" by political parties, the Supreme Court on Tuesday took a dim view of certain statements made by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. DMK, in an impleading petition filed before the Supreme Court, stated that welfare measures intended to uplift the marginalized persons cannot be termed as "freebies". The DMK also stated the Court should examine whether the tax holidays and loan waivers granted by the Union Government to big corporate houses would amount to "freebies".
The Central Government has notified further amendments to the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959 (Rules), inter alia, deploying a domestic help, a chauffeur and a secretary assistant to serve retired Chief Justices of India during their lifetime. The Judges of the Supreme Court would be entitled to lifelong domestic help and chauffeur after retirement.The rules were earlier amended on August 23 to provide for chauffeur and secretarial assistant to former CJI and SC judges for a period of one year after retirement. But now, as per the latest amendment notified on August 26, these benefits have been made life-time.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
While hearing a PIL filed by lawyer and former BJP Delhi Spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns, the Supreme Court acknowledged the complex nature of the issue. A bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the intention of the Court was to initiate a wider public debate on the issue, and it is for that purpose the constitution of an expert body was mooted.
"We have to see what is freebie and what is welfare", CJI NV Ramana said.
"For example, some state gives cycles to poor and women. It is reported that by giving bicycles has improved lifestyle. The problem is which is freebie and which can be said a beneficiary for the upliftment of a person. For a rural poverty stuck person, his livelihood may depend on that small boat or bicycle. We cannot sit here and argue on this", CJI Ramana added.
Inherent Power U/Sec 151 CPC Can Be Invoked Only When Alternate Remedies Do Not Exist: Supreme Court
Case Status: My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court observed that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked only in circumstances where alternate remedies do not exist.
"Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews", the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
In the judgment delivered relating to the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act 1988, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the ratio in the recent PMLA judgment which allowed the taking possession of the property before trial in exceptional circumstances. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, while dealing with the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, observed that the ratio of the PMLA judgment in relation to Section 8(4), while allows the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to take the possession of the attached property once the provisional attachment order is confirmed, requires "further expounding in an appropriate case, without which, much scope is left for arbitrary application". In the case Vijay Madanlal Choudary & Ors v. Union of India, a 3-judge bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 8(4) of PMLA. However, the bench held that "the provision in the form of Section 8(4) can be resorted to only by way of an exception and not as a rule."
Case Status: X v. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
As the Supreme Court was exploring ways to extend the benefit of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (Act), to unmarried women so that they can also seek termination of pregnancy which exceeds the period of 20 weeks but not 24 weeks, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, beseeched it to intervene in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules rather than the Act. She was of the opinion that it might be more effective to interpret the Rules as the distinction between married and unmarried women is made in the Rules and not the Act. Considering her suggestion, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala indicated that Rule 3B(b) of MTP Rules can be interpreted in a manner so as to include both married and unmarried women who have suffered abandonment.
Case Status: My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court observed that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court.
'The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned', a Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Status: Md. Nijamuddin v. State of Jharkhand And Ors. Diary No(s). 19812 of 2022
The Supreme Court has directed Jharkhand High Court to expedite the hearing in the Jharkhand cattle traders lynching case where two persons (Majlum Ansari and Imtiyaz Khan) were killed. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice P. Narasimha stated that while they were not inclined to entertain the petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judges of the High Court of Jharkhand were requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and in any case, within a period of one year.
Case Status: Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court has held that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme is applicable with effect from 01.09.2008 and not from 01.01.2006 (the date from which the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission are effective). The Court further held that under MACP, the entitlement is to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade pay and not to the immediate next promotional post. Deciding a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India(Union of India versus Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh and connected cases), a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi set aside the judgment of the High Court which had held that MACP scheme is applicable with effect from 01.01.2006 and that under the MACP Scheme the employees are entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the next promotional post. However, as regards the MACP scheme for Central Armed Forces, the Court held that fulfilment of pre-promotional norms for grant of financial upgradation would not be insisted for personnel who, for administrative or other reasons, could not be sent or undergo the pre-promotional course.
Aarey Forest : Supreme Court Asks MMRCL To Not Cut Trees As Undertaken By It Till August 30
Case Title: In Re Felling Of Trees In Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) SMW(C)No(s).2/2019
The Supreme Court reiterated that Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRCL) would be bound by its earlier affidavit which stated that no trees have been cut and would be cut in the Aarey Forest post the Supreme Court order dated October 7, 2019. During the previous hearing, the MMRCL had told the Court that no cutting of trees had been carried out in the Aarey forest. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Court only trimming of certain branches were carried out and that no trees were cut.
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) 43 of 2022
The Supreme Court asked the Centre why it cannot call for an "all party meeting" to determine issues pertaining to election freebies. In its last hearing, the court, while acknowledging the complex nature of the issue, had stated that the intention of the Court was to initiate a wider public debate on the issue, and it is for that purpose the constitution of an expert body was mooted.
Supreme Court Refers BCCI Matter To Bench Led By Justice Chandrachud
Case Status: BCCI And Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bihar And Ors. CA No. 4235 of 2014
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the matters related to the Board of Cricket Control for India's ("BCCI"). The BCCI has now moved applications seeking permission to amend its constitution.
When the matter came before a bench led by CJI NV Ramana, he pointed out that the earlier order in the BCCI case was passed in August 2018 by a bench comprising the then CJI Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Chandrachud. Of the members of the previous bench, only Justice Chandrachud is remaining in the Supreme Court, as the other two judges have retired. Therefore, the CJI told the Solicitor General of India that the matter will be referred to the bench led by Justice Chandrachud.
Case Status: Parvez Parwaz And Anr. v. State of UP And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 6190 of 2018
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a plea challenging the denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI N.V. Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The petitioner Parvez Parwaz alleged that Yogi Adityanath had made anti-Muslim hate remarks while addressing "Hindu Yuva Vahini" activists in a meeting held in Gorakhpur on January 27, 2007. He challenged the decision taken by the UP Government on May 3, 2017 to refuse sanction to prosecute the accused in the case and also the closure report filed in the case. He had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the petition on February 22, 2018, following which he filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Case Status: Union of India v. CitiBank NA 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court observed that the authorities are required to initiate proceedings within a reasonable period when no such period has been provided in the Statute. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha quashed show cause notices issued in the year 2002 against some banks to explain certain transactions of the year 1992-Â1993. In this case, proceedings were initiated under FERA against CitiBank, Bank of America and Standard Chartered Bank. The Delhi High Court, allowing their writ petitions, had quashed the proceedings against which the Union of India approached the Apex Court.
Supreme Court Disapproves Entertaining Of Writ Petitions For Executing Arbitration Awards Against NHAI: Supreme Court
Case Status: National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court disapproved the entertaining writ petitions seeking execution of Arbitration awards passed against National Highways Authority of India.
"If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The court was considering an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment which had allowed writ petition filed by original land owners and directed the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Arbitrator and thereafter permitting the original land owners to withdraw the amount.
Case Status: State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706
Upholding Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, the Supreme Court observed that the financial burden on the State can be a valid ground to fix a cut off date for the purpose of payment of revision of pension. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment passed by Tripura High Court that had struck down the Rule 3(3). The High Court had observed that the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and had consequently directed the state to pay the original writ petitioner the arrears of pension for the period from 1 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008. The High Court had rejected the submission made by the State that due to the financial burden on the State, which the State was not in a position to bear the additional burden of revised pension, a policy decision has been taken to grant the benefit of revised pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 and to grant the actual benefit of the revised pension from 01.01.2009 only.
Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing For Review Against PMLA Judgment; Hearing Tomorrow
Case Status: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement RP (Crl) No.219/2022
The Supreme Court allowed open court hearing in the review petition filed against the judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A 3-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar passed the order allowing oral hearing in the review petition filed by Karti P Chidambaram. It may be noted that review petitions are ordinarily considered in chambers and oral hearing in open court is allowed only in exceptional cases.
Case Status: HS Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The averments in the plaint alone are to be examined while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
In this case, the High Court of Karnataka had allowed a revision petition filed by the defendant and rejected the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code. The plaintiff had pleaded that the sale deeds were executed on the basis of alleged fabricated General Power of Attorney.
Case Status: Sonadar v. State of Chhattisgarh SLP(Crl) No. 529 of 2021
The Supreme Court is exploring options of popularizing the concept of "plea bargaining". However, the Court noted that the major stumbling block is the reluctance of accused persons to avail "plea bargaining" option due to the fear of bearing the taint of guilt. At times the accused have hesitancy in accepting their conviction under a particular offence which may lead to other civil consequences. In this regard, the Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh noted that Indian law permits plea bargaining only with respect to the sentence and not with respect to the natue of offence. However, plea bargaining in foreign jurisdictions operates qua the nature of the offence. While the Court was wondering if an amendment of the law is required, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, apprised it that such a course can be adopted in India without legislative action, merely by applying the principle of 'Alford plea' and the 'nolo contendere plea' prevalent in the USA.
Case Status: VR Soji v. Veena George SLP(C) No. 12656 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging the election of Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Veena George in the Kerala State Assembly Elections, in 2016. The petitioner alleged that Veena had been involved in corrupt practices as per the Representation of People's Act while contesting in the 2016 elections. Though a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the plea as it has been infructuous, it also looked at the matter on merits at the insistence of the petitioner counsel, Senior Advocate Kailasanatha Pillai. He told the court that if there's any finding pertaining to corrupt practices during election campaigning, it would have large scale ramifications.
Case Status: State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
Observing that the purpose of a judgment is not to "confuse or confound the readers", the Supreme Court has urged the Courts and Tribunals to "provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact" in their verdicts. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made this crucial observation while dealing with a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was found to be "incomprehensible".
Case Status: ML Sharma v. Union of India and others and connected cases WP(Crl) 314 of 2021
The Supreme Court took on record the sealed cover report submitted by the independent committee probing the allegations of illegal surveillance using Pegasus spyware. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli orally remarked that Government of India did not cooperate with the Committee and that the Government followed the same stand which it took before the Court as well, whereby it refused to clearly state if the spyware was purchased or not. The Pegasus controversy erupted on July 18 after The Wire and several other international publications published reports about the mobile numbers which were potential targets of the spyware service given by NSO company to various governments, including India. 40 Indian journalists, political leaders like Rahul Gandhi, election strategist Prashant Kishore, former ECI member Ashok Lavassa etc are reported to be in the list of targets, as per The Wire.
Case Status : Lawyers Voice v. Union of India WP(C) No. 13 of 2022
The Supreme Court noted that as per the committee appointed by the Supreme Court, Punjab SSP, Harmandeep Singh Hans, had failed to discharge his duties in ensuring security of the Prime Minister during his visit to Punjab in January 2022. The case, which had sought probe into the security lapse during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab in January 2022 was heard by the bench led by Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana. In the hearings, CJI Ramana read out the committee's report, which stated that Harmandeep Singh Hans, Punjab SSP Ferozpur had failed to discharge his duty, and augment the route even though sufficient time and forces were available with him. As per the report, despite clear instructions, before the PM entered, the SSP failed to act on instructions. The Committee report recommended the constitution of a committee for periodic review of the 'Blue Book'.
Case Status: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement RP (Crl) No.219/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram, seeking review of its July 27 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India which upheld the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A bench headed by CJI NV Ramana opined that prima facie, two aspects of the judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) require to be reconsidered: (i) regarding no legal requirement to provide ECIR copy to the accused and (ii) the reversal of presumption of innocence.
Case Status: Subhashini Ali And Ors. v. State of Gujarat And Anr. WP(Crl) No. 319 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition challenging the order of Gujarat Government allowing premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case for gangrape & murder. It directed the Petitioners to array the accused persons, the affected party, as Respondents.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath however posed a query with respect to the legal bar on grant of remission to the convicts.
Case Status: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat SLP(Crl) No.7413 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India has deferred the petition filed by Teesta Setalvad seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia adjourned the matter to August 30, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat sought time to make corrections in the response to the petition.
Case Status: St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708
The Supreme Court has held that a writ petition raising service disputes against private educational institutions are not maintainable, if they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
"The actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service", the bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Status: State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
The Supreme Court observed that judgments should be accessible to persons from all sections of society including persons with disability. The court added that the judgments should be signed using digital signatures.
"They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Status: M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701
The Supreme Court observed that a breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. The issue before the Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna was, whether the ingredients of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust have been made out on the face of the complaint?
Case Status: Sau Rajani v. Sau Smita 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court observed that a civil suit claiming reliefs beyond the scope of the Act which bars its jurisdiction will be maintainable.
Even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Status: Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court held that a confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence under Section 18 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 [MCOCA].
The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Father For Taking Away Son From Mother's Custody
The Supreme Court quashed a First Information Report which was registered by the Ghaziabad Police Station against a father for secretly taking away his son from his mother's custody four years back. A bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia The Court was considering an appeal plea moved by the father seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. It reckoned -
"In a matter like this why should there be FIR and criminal charges? You will be actually putting burden on your normal criminal courts. What kind of FIR is this? The Father has taken the custody of the child. Therefore, he is supposed to be guilty of what? We'll quash the FIR on the condition that he will take care of the child, whatever is supposed to be the financial expenditure for school education, the father will take care."
Case Status: Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Anr. v. Adan Power (Mudra) Ltd. And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court has held that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd needs to pay compounded interest to Adani Power limited, on account of "change in law".
The bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli, held that if the banks had charged Adani Power interest on monthly rest basis for giving loans to purchase the installations required on grounds on Change in Law, any restitution will be incomplete, if it is not fully compensated for the interest paid by Adani to the banks on compounding basis.
Case Status: Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court observed that some kind of physical manifestation of agreement to commit an offence is required to attract the offence of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted that the principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence.
"Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and other accused...It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence", the bench observed.
Case Status: Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise.
"We think it appropriate that the legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case", the bench observed.
Election Freebies Issue: Supreme Court Refers Matter To 3-Judge Bench
Case Status: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717
The Supreme Court has referred the issues pertaining to promises made by political parties and election freebies to a three-judge bench. The bench led by CJI NV Ramana observed, "The issues raised by parties require extensive hearing. Certain preliminary hearings need to be determined, such as what is the scope of judicial intervention, whether appointment of expert body by court serve any purpose, etc. Many parties also submitted that judgment in Subramaniam Balaji requires reconsideration. The Court in the said case held such practices would not amount to corrupt practices. Looking at the complexity of issues and the prayer to overrule Subramaniam Balaji, we refer the matters to a 3-judge bench."
Case Status: Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court had held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) will prevail over the Customs Act. The bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli observed that the customs authority can only determine the quantum of duties and levies but cannot initiate recovery proceedings. While pronouncing the judgment, CJI Ramana stated that once moratorium under IBC is declared, Customs authorities have only limited jurisdiction to assess the quantum and they cannot take steps to recover the dues. The court stated that after such assessment, customs authorities had the option to approach the adjudicating authority, claiming the customs dues as operational debt under IBC. IRP can take steps to secure the property.
Case Status: S Hymavathi and others v. National Testing Agency and another SLP(C)14546/2022
The Supreme Court refused to entertain pleas seeking directions to the National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct additional sessions of IIT-JEE Mains Examination 2022 for both the first and the second sessions which were disrupted owing to some technical glitches. After the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, the petitioners chose to withdraw the petition. The bench said that it does not want to interfere when the IIT-JEE(Advanced) exam is scheduled to happen on Sunday.
Case Status: Archita And Ors. v. National Medical Commission And Ors. WP(C) 607 of 2022
The Supreme Court issued notice on a batch of petitions filed seeking the relief of allowing nearly 20,000 Indian students who had to return from Ukraine due to Russian attack to complete their medical education in India. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath issued notice returnable by September 5 on seven writ petitions. The petitioners relied upon the report submitted by the Lok Sabha Committee on External Affairs on August 3 in which it recommended the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to consider accommodating the students who returned from Ukraine in Indian private medical colleges as a one-time measure.
Case Status: Nimesh Kumar v. Union of India WP(C) 687 of 2022
Why are you coming at the last minute", the Supreme Court observed while dismissing a writ petition filed by an IIT-JEE aspirant seeking a one-time relaxation to appear for the IIT-JEE (Advanced) 2022 exam due to modification of relaxation policy for COVID-19 affected candidates.
It was the petitioner's case that in the light of COVID-19 induced disruptions and hardships, the joint admission board of the IIT had announced a one-time special measure relaxation for JEE (Advanced) 2022 for certain categories of candidates. However, he was not granted the said relief. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala was not inclined to interfere.
Case Status: Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714
The Supreme Court observed that a drawer of a cheque is liable even if the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
Supreme Court Directs Supertech's IRP To Deposit Rs 1 Crore With Registry For Homebuyers' Relief
Case Status: Chandrani Banerjee v. R.K. Arora And Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 151 of 2022
With a view to ensure that homebuyers get some relief, the Supreme Court asked the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Supertech Ltd. to deposit an amount of Rs One Crore with the Supreme Court Registry before September 30, 2022. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Surya Kant also directed the Amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal and the IRP to jointly work out the outstanding dues of the homebuyers and submit the details before the next date of hearing so that directions on disbursement of the said fund could be issued. In this regard, the order reads,
Case Status: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India WP(C) 1003/2021
The Supreme Court highlighted that asking young couples made to wait three to four to adopt a child is not correct and that the adoption process in India needs a reconsideration. While considering a plea moved by a society, the Temple of Healing seeking to simplify the adoption process in India, Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwalaorally told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj :
"This is a genuine petition, Mr. Natraj, people are waiting for 3 and 4 years for adoption. If we make couples wait for years, lakhs and lakhs of children are waiting to be adopted. You have to expedite adoption. People are waiting for years….That's a huge waiting time."
Case Status: Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court observed that, in MCOCA cases, more than one charge-sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person. Charge-sheets with respect to the organized crime syndicate are sufficient to fulfil the condition in Section 2(1)(d) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed. The court also held that the order of approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA need not name every accused person at the outset.
Case Status: Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force [1.10.2018]. The bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed thus while allowing an appeal arising out of a specific performance suit. In this case, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. While allowing the appeal, the Telangana High Court held that specific relief in essence is a part of the law of procedure, and hence the 2018 amendment is retrospective.
Case Status: Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court observed that the demand for increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord. the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and JB Pardiwala observed:
"The demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises by the appellant. We find that even if a notice is served upon by a landlord to increase the rent, that notice has nothing to do with the bonafide requirement as the landlord is statutorily prohibited from increasing the rent in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible in terms of Section 6 of the Act."
The court therefore set aside the order of the High Court remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority. It restored the Revision Petition and directed the High Court to decide it afresh.
Case Status: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya And Ors. v. State of Karnataka And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
Noting that the situation merits a cautious approach, the Supreme Court, on Friday (26.08.2022), refused to accept the recommendation of the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to grant complete relaxation of the ceiling limit imposed on production of iron ore in certain districts in the State of Karnataka. The Apex Court observed that though generally it has accepted the recommendation of the CEC with respect to ceiling limits, it cannot accede to its latest recommendation in toto. A Bench comprising CJI N.V. Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and C.T. Ravikumar enhanced the limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for iron ore production in Bellary District and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT for Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts collectively. While increasing the ceiling limit, it observed that in order to achieve sustainable development, the environmental concerns have to be balanced against the goals of economic development.
