Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 23 To August 29, 2021

JUDGEMENTS THIS WEEK1. Fundamental Right To Reside Anywhere In/Move Throughout The Country Cannot Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order Against JournalistCase: Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police ; CrA 912 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 404While quashing an externment order passed against a journalist, the Supreme Court observed that a person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds.The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace.The court observed that the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints lodged by the journalist against government officials, some Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs against the Appellant. The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice, the court said.2. Section 482 CrPC: High Court Not Required To Appreciate Evidence To Find Out Whether Accused Is Likely To Be Convicted Or Not: Supreme CourtCase: Saranya vs. Bharati ; CrA 873 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 402The Supreme Court reiterated that, at Section 482 CrPC stage, a High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not.In this case, the High Court had quashed a murder case against one of the accused. The wife of the deceased thus approached the Apex Court contending that there is ample material against the accused.3. How To Exercise The Discretionary Power For Granting Bail? Principles Summarized By Supreme CourtCase: Harjit Singh vs. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder ; CrA 883 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 401The Supreme Court observed that seriousness of crime is an aspect to be considered while granting bail to an accused. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside a bail granted by the High Court to a murder accused.One Harjit Singh had approached the Apex Court against the High Court order granting bail to persons accused of murdering his father. He contended that the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of the offence; the specific allegation in the FIR that even while in jail he hatched the conspiracy along with other co-accused and that he was the master mind and the main conspirator.The bench observed that the relevant considerations are not at all considered by the High Court in its true perspective. The antecedents of accused; the threat perception to the appellant and his family members are also not considered by the High Court, the court observed. 4. Economic Criterion Cannot Be The Sole Basis For Identifying 'Creamy Layer': Supreme CourtCase: Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana vs. State of Haryana ; WP(C) 60 of 2019Citation: LL 2021 SC 398The Supreme Court has observed that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for identifying 'creamy layer'."..the State of Haryana has sought to determine 'creamy layer' from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so. On this ground alone, the notification dated 17.08.2016 requires to be set aside", the Supreme Court observed.Holding so, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed a notification issued by the State of Haryana specifying the criteria for exclusion of 'creamy layer' within the backward classes.IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES1. More Than One Lakh Children Lost Either Or Both Parents During COVID' : Supreme Court Directs CWCs To Complete Inquiries On Orphans Within 3 WeeksExpressing distress at the Covid pandemic devastating the lives of many children who lost their parents at a tender age, the Supreme Court has directed the Child Welfare Committees to complete the pending enquiries with respect to such children within three weeks."More than a lakh children have lost either or both parents during this pandemic. It is heart-wrenching to note that the survival of so many children is at stake." the Bench said.A Division Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose made the observation while considering the suo motu case taken to deal with the plight of children affected by COVID.2. States Should Bear Fees Of Children Who Lost Either Or Both Parents After March 2020 If Private Schools Don't Waive It : Supreme CourtTo ensure the uninterrupted education of children who lost either or both their parents after the onset of COVID in March 2020, the Supreme Court has asked the State Governments to shoulder the burden of their school fees if the private schools are unwilling to waive it."For children who have lost either parent or both parents after March 2020, the State Governments shall confer with private schools to waive...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 23 To August 29, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags