- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: December 12 To December 18, 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Dec 2022 3:25 AM GMT
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Accused's Plea On Applicability Of Section 300 CrPC Has To Be Considered At Discharge Stage U/Section 227 CrPC : Supreme Court Chandi Puliya vs State of West Bengal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019 | SLP(Criminal) 9897 of 2022 The Supreme Court observed that the accused's plea on applicability of Section 300 CrPC has to be considered at the stage of discharge...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Chandi Puliya vs State of West Bengal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1019 | SLP(Criminal) 9897 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the accused's plea on applicability of Section 300 CrPC has to be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
In this case, the accused filed a discharge application under Section 227 r/w Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. He contended that he had already been acquitted of the offence of kidnapping and on the basis of the same facts, he is now being sought to be prosecuted for the offence of murder. The same was dismissed on the ground that such an objection can be raised at the stage of framing of charge and not discharge. The Calcutta High Court upheld this order.
Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Ravindra Balkrishna Patel (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020 | CA 8531-8532 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that an Execution Court should attach the debt under Order XXI Rule 46 CPC before proceeding against garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46A of Code of Civil Procedure can be
In this case, the Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank granted a financial facility to a firm Vimal Traders. Since the amount was not repaid, the proceedings were initated under Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The Adjudicatory authority passed an award in favour of the bank. Under Section 103 of the Act, the Award is to be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court. Therefore the Society filed filed Execution Application before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. This application was dismissed for default and later the Bank filed another Execution application. In these proceedings, an application under Order XXI Rule 46A was passed requesting the Court to proceed against Garnishee and this came to be allowed. This order was set aside by the Gujarat High Court.
Priyanka vs Santoshkumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 | Transfer Petition(Civil) 964 of 2021
The Supreme court observed that orders giving visitation rights or temporary child custody cannot be passed in a proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of conjugal rights).
In this case, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, against the wife before the Family Court at Puducherry. In these proceedings, he filed an interlocutory application which was purportedly to be a petition under Section 26 of the Act, for grant of custody of the child. Both the petitions were entertained exÂparte and then decreed.
Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Ravindra Balkrishna Patel (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020 | CA 8531-8532 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that mere dismissal of the first execution petition on the ground of default will not preclude decree holder from filing a fresh execution petition provided it is within time.
In this case, the Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank granted a financial facility to a firm Vimal Traders. Since the amount was not repaid, the proceedings were initated under Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. The Adjudicatory authority passed an award in favour of the bank. Under Section 103 of the Act, the Award is to be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court. Therefore the Society filed filed Execution Application before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. This application was dismissed for default and later the Bank filed another Execution application. In these proceedings, an application under Order XXI Rule 46A was passed requesting the Court to proceed against Garnishee and this came to be allowed. This order was set aside by the Gujarat High Court inter alia observing that to maintain the second application, the order dismissing the execution application should have been set aside within a period of 30 days since Section 5 of the The Limitation Act, 1963 is not available in execution proceedings.
B R K Aathithan vs Sun Group | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022 | CrA 2080Â-2083 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a second criminal complaint can be maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed.
In this case, the complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the accused alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC etc. This was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that there is no prima facie case as it falls in the Fourth exception of U/s 499 of IPC. Challenging this dismissal order, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision before the Madras High Court but the same was withdrawn. Later he filed a second complaint before the Magistrate which contained the same averments he had made in the first one. In this complaint, he stated that he had filed a second complaint "as per the order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court". Apparently, the Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint and summon the accused. The accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court which then quashed the complaint.
State Of West Bengal vs Sandip Biswas | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1024 | SLP (Crl) 10029 of 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court does not have the power even under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath observed thus while considering appeal against a direction issued by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court order. While disposing a bail application filed by an accused allegedly involved in misappropriation of public money, the High Court had observed that 'whatever further investigation is to be carried out, must be completed by 31st October, 2022 after expiry of which the petitioner shall automatically be released on the following terms and conditions'.
Ram Pratap vs State of Haryana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025 | CrA 804 Of 2011
Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a concurrent conviction of murder accused.
Ram Pratap was one of the accused in murder case. He was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the same was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the appellant-accused, it was contended that there is no evidence worth the namesake.
Desh Raj vs Rohtash Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1026 | CA 921 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that, in a specific performance suit, the Courts cannot suo motu grant relief of refund of earnest money if it is not specifically prayed for.
Unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Section 313 CrPC Not Empty Formality, Circumstances Must Be Explained To Accused : Supreme Court
Kalicharan vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027 | CrA 122 OF 2021
The Supreme Court observed that while questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC, he must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
"If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence.
Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
State of Rajasthan vs Gurbachan Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028 | CrA 2201 OF 2011
The Supreme Court observed that 'common intention' for the purpose of Section 34 IPC can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself.
For Section 34 of the IPC to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
R Nagender Yadav vs State of Telangana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1030 | CrA 2290 OF 2022
The Supreme Court, in an judgment passed yesterday, quashed criminal proceedings against an accused in a cheating case after noticing that the complainant in fact availed civil remedy.
The court however clarified that this order in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be cited as a precedent.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 | Cr A 1669 of 2009
The Supreme Court observed that there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
The fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence, the Constitution Bench observed.
The bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna observed thus while answering the reference 'whether in the absence of direct evidence regarding demand or giving of bribe, there can be conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial inferences' in the affirmative.
State of Gujarat vs Sandip Omprakash Gupta | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1031 | CrA 2291 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of 'organised crime' under Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 is constituted by at least one instance of continuation, apart from 'continuing unlawful activity'.
In this case, the State of Gujarat had approached the Apex Court challenging the Gujarat High Court judgment that the five FIRs, which were registered in the past for different offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be construed as a 'continuing unlawful activity' of the accused so as to prosecute him under the provisions of the 2015 Act. The High Court had followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane reported in (2015) 14 SCC 272.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
On Thursday, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification, without establishing the offer made by the bribe giver or demand raised by the public servant, would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d)(i) or Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna noted what would qualify as offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)
Hasmukhlal D. Vora vs State of Tamil Nadu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 | CrA 2310 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that unexplained inordinate delay can be considered as a 'very crucial factor' for quashing a criminal complaint.
The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword to threaten them, the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M J | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034 | CA 9252-9253 OF 2022
The Supreme Court held that the consumption of electricity in excess of the connected load/contracted load would amount to 'unauthorised use of electricity' under explanation (b) to Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J B Pardiwala also declared Regulation 153(15) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 as invalid for being inconsistent with the provision of Section 126.
Delegated Legislation Which Is Ultra Vires The Parent Act Cannot Be Given Any Effect : Supreme Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M J | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034 | CA 9252-9253 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a delegated legislation which is ultra vires the parent Act cannot be given any effect.
It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J B Pardiwala observed while allowing an appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the judgment of Kerala High Court.
Delegated Legislation Which Is Ultra Vires The Parent Act Cannot Be Given Any Effect : Supreme Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M J | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1034 | CA 9252-9253 OF 2022
The Supreme Court observed that a delegated legislation which is ultra vires the parent Act cannot be given any effect.
It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J B Pardiwala observed while allowing an appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the judgment of Kerala High Court.
Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8822-8823 OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020] | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under a specific set of rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter. However, the court has further pointed out a distinction between rules in the context of qualification/eligibility versus rules regarding the change in the selection process.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh also stated that a change in the selection process will not amount to changing 'rules of the game'. The principle that the 'rules of game cannot be changed after the game has started' will apply only when the basic qualification is sought to be changed after the notification.
NEWS THIS WEEK
Justice Dipankar Datta Takes Oath As Supreme Court Judge
Justice Dipankar Datta took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court on Monday at 10.30 AM. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud administered the oath to Justice Dutta in the swearing-in ceremony held at Court No.1 of the Supreme Court in the presence of all judges.
While considering the application filed by Asish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, seeking bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the trial court to indicate the time which will be tentatively required to conclude the trial without affecting the schedule of other pending matters.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari directed the Registrar (Judicial) to find out from the first Additional Sessions judge at Lakhimpur Kheri as to how much time the trial is likely to take to conclude in the normal case without compromising with other pending or prioritised matters.
The Supreme Court on Monday took exception to certain scurrilous statements made against minority religions in the PIL filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay alleging "mass conversions" taking place across the country.
The Court asked Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, who is appearing for the petitioner, who is seeking directions to prevent forceful and deceitful religious conversions, to ensure that such remarks do not come on record.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea filed challenging the third extension granted to Director of Enforcement Directorate Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath sought response from Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission and Sanjay Mishra on the plea filed seeking directions to quash the order granting extension of tenure as Director of Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court on Monday passed orders to the State Government of Odisha and the State Police to take stringent actions against lawyers who indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike over a long-standing demand for a permanent bench of the Orissa High Court in the western part of the state, at Sambalpur.
A Bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka further ordered the State Government and the Director General of Police, including the Police Officer In-Charge of the Sambalpur District, to be present before the court day after tomorrow through video-conferencing, explaining what steps have been taken against the protesting lawyers.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka, on Monday refused to quash the criminal defamation case filed against Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over the statements made against him by Sisodia in a press conference on June 4, 2022.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Sisodia submitted that, "The petitioner had not made any false statement. I said you have given a contract. It is a fact. You later on said that this contract was given for charity. That you have said after it came in public domain. Now I have nowhere said that you have received money. He has nowhere said that she has received money."
On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a plea moved by Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain seeking expeditious hearing of his bail application in a money-laundering case.
Satyendar Jain was arrested on May 31 in cases pertaining to black money, benami properties, ghost companies, money laundering and disproportionate assets. He is currently in judicial custody.
Parity Of High Court Judges' Pension: Supreme Court To Hear Pleas In Second Week of January, 2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, stated that plea seeking parity in pension of High Court judges who are appointed from subordinate judiciary and those elevated from the Bar would be taken up for hearing in the second week of January, 2023.
At the outset, the Bench comprising CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Dutta noted that the matter would require 'a little hearing because High Court judges who are appointed from subordinate judiciary are seeking pension as per judges of High Court elevated from the Bar'.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, indicated that it would have Bilkis Bano's petition seeking review of the judgment of the Apex Court allowing the Gujarat Government to make a decision on the remission of the convicts placed early for hearing.
Appearing before a Bench comprising the CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S.Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Dutta, Advocate, Ms. Shobha Gupta representing Bilkis Bano apprised the Bench that though Bano's writ petition challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts sentenced to life for gang rape and murder during 2002 Gujarat Riot have been listed, the Registry had not yet listed her review petition.
India Can't Be International Arbitration Hub If There Is No Enforcement Of Award : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that India cannot aspire to be an international arbitration hub if there is no enforcement of arbitration awards.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath made this observation while considering a petition filed by Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in relation to the enforcement of the award to the tune of Rs 7200 crores passed in its favour against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).
Will the Supreme Court lay down a general principle that every accused facing murder charges will be released after one year custody? Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave asked this question when the Court contemplated whether it should grant bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, considering the fact that he has undergone custody for over a year.
"If your lordship can lay down a general principle that in all 302 cases accused will be released after one year, then I bow down. But do not make an exception in this case", Dave submitted before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari. He contended that ordinarily, the Supreme Court will not interfere if bail has been concurrently refused by the trial court and the High Court in a serious crime like murder.
The Supreme Court, allowed the plea filed by Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Ritu Maheshwari IAS, inter alia, challenging Allahabad High Court's orders seeking her personal presence before it and issuing non-bailable warrant against her after she failed to appear in a contempt case.
"We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 28.04.2022 and 05.05.2022."
Supreme Court To Hear Challenge Against Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 In February 2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, indicated that it would list the plea preferred by Madras Bar Association that assailed the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 (now Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021)for final disposal in the third week of February, 2023.
"Third week of February we will hear the Madras Bar Association (main matter) for final disposal."
The plea challenges the Ordinance to the extent it amends Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017. Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017 give Central Government rule-making power in relation to the mode of appointment, terms of service, allowances of members etc., of various Tribunals.
Face-off Between DRT Member & Advocates : Supreme Court Leaves Matter To Be Decided By DRT Chairman
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India disposed of a plea moved by the Judicial officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the High Court's order dated October 27 that restrained him from passing adverse orders in pending matters.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had moved the High Court, arguing that the judicial member had been passing adverse orders deliberately.
In the cases related to the rift in the Shiv Sena party, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Uddhav Thackeray group, submitted before a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the matter needs to be referred to a 7-judge bench, to consider the correctness of the 2016 judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench in Nabam Rebia versus Deputy Speaker.
In Nabam Rebia, a 5-judge bench ruled that a Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending. Sibal submitted before a 5-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha that the correctness of this proposition laid down in the Nabam Rebia is one of the issues referred to the Constitution Bench.
The Supreme Court of India has listed matters concerning the validity of the marital rape exception in the second week on January 2023. The issue was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha by Senior Advocate CU Singh who stated that the matters needed to be listed urgently.
Senior Advocate CU Singh stated–
"One is the batch of petitions filed against the split verdict passed by the two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court on the criminalisation of marital rape. That is before a bench of Justice Rastogi. One is the Karnataka matter."
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Raj Kundra In Pornography Case
The Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to Raj Kundra and other co-accused in the several FIR's arising out of the porn videos case registered by Nodal Cyber Police Station, Bandra.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, taking into consideration that the State of Maharashtra did not oppose the application for anticipatory bail filed by the Petitioner, allowed the application
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, posted the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act inserted by way of an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord, for directions, on 10th January, 2023. The 5-Judge Bench comprised Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha.
Supreme Court Pulls Up LLM Student For Filing PIL To Remove Reservation System
The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking to remove the system of reservations in the country while terming the said PIL "an abuse of process". The PIL, which was filed by an LLM student was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Supreme Court judge Justice Bela Trivedi on Tuesday recused from hearing the writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano challenging the premature release of the 11 convicts sentenced to life for gang rape and murder during 2002 Gujarat Riots.
The writ petition was listed before a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi. When the matter was taken, Justice Rastogi told Advocate Shobha Gupta, petitioner's lawyer, about the recusal of Justice Trivedi.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition filed by Rashtriya Hindu Swabhiman Party challenging the refusal of the Election Commission of India to register it as a political party.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the ECI has taken a "contradictory stand" as it has stated in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that it has no power to refuse registration of parties with religious names.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, closed the plea assailing order of the Sikkim High Court refusing to quash summons issued by a Gangtok magistrate against Managing Editor, Managing Director and Joint Managing Editor of Malayalam newspaper, Mathrubhumi in defamation case filed by Santiago Martin in 2020.
Martin had filed the complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code aggrieved by the publication of a defamatory statement - "lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala" which was said by the then Kerala Finance Minister Thomas Issac.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined an oral request made on behalf of Cardinal George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church, for exemption from personal appearance before the Magistrate tomorrow in the criminal case related to alleged land sale scam.
The submission was advanced by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on behalf of the Cardinal before a Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Dr.Rajasree MS seeking to review the judgment which set aside her appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Kerala Technological University.
While rejecting the review, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that in the impugned judgment, the Court has not opined anything about the salary, emoluments and perquisites drawn by the petitioner and hence there is no question of review on that ground.
In a matter pertaining to compensation sought by homebuyers of Supertech Twin Towers, that has now been demolished, the Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the disbursal of INR One crore that has been deposited by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Supertech Ltd. with the Apex Court's Registry on 8th December, 2022. The amount has been directed to be distributed to the 15 homebuyers (applicants) on a pro rata basis. It also directed that the additional INR 1 crore to be deposited by the IRP on 31st January, 2023 be disbursed to the 15 homebuyers in a similar manner.
Supreme Court Extends Gautam Navlakha's House Arrest Till January Second Week
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the interim protection granted to human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon Case, allowing him to stay in house arrest till the second week of January.
The matter was listed for interim orders before a bench of Justices K M Joseph and BV Nagarathna today.
Counsel appearing for Navlakha apprised the court that the house arrest of Navlakha had remained "smooth".
BREAKING: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 5 Names For Elevation To Supreme Court
The Supreme Court collegium today recommended names of 5 High Court Chief Justices/Judges for elevation to the Supreme Court.
1. Justice Pankaj Mithal, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court (PHC: Allahabad)
2. Justice Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice, Patna High Court (PHC: Himachal Pradesh)
3. Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Chief Justice, Manipur High Court (PHC: Telangana)
4. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judge, Patna High Court, and
5. Justice Manoj Misra, Judge, Allahabad High Court.
BREAKING| SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices For High Courts Of Jharkhand, Gauhati And J&K&L
Supreme Court Collegium has recommended names of 3 judges for elevation as Chief Justices of the respective High Courts as follows:
Justice Sanjay Mishra, judge of the Uttarakhand High Court as CJ of Jharkhand High Court,
Justice N Kotiswar Singh, judge of the Gauhati High Court, as CJ of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court,
Justice K Vinod Chandran, judge of the Kerala High Court, as CJ of Gauhati High Court.
On 13 December, the Indian Army informed the Supreme Court of India that special selection board for the women officers in the Army will be commencing from 9 January 2023, when cases of approximately 246 women officers will be heard. The information was provided to a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha by the Army responding to an application filed in a plea seeking rank promotion for women army officers.
Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on Monday revealed that his chambers are almost paperless since all his notes and case files are received in digital format. "I don't receive any physical files from Courts. My Law Clerks send me all notes digitally and my chambers is almost paperless," he said.
The CJI was delivering his inaugural speech at the opening of District Court Digitization Hubs (DCDH) in 10 districts of Odisha in virtual mode in the presence of Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and the Judges of High Court.
In a matter related to the demolition of four illegal buildings in Maradu, Kochi two years ago, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday directed the properties of two of the builders, namely, Alfa Ventures Private Limited and K.P. Varkey and V.S. Builders, to be 'de-attached' and their bank accounts unfrozen. The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, directed the applicant builders to provide a security of Rs 25 crores and Rs 10 crores respectively for being allowed to regain control of their properties and bank accounts. The security has to be furnished to the satisfaction of the committee led by former Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair, who is overseeing the compensation claims.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday agreed to list the petitions challenging the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
"We will examine and give a date", CJI said.
Earlier, former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit had said that the pleas would "certainly" be listed after the Dusshera breaks. However, the petitions did not get listed.
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a SLP filed by Srinivas Kodali, an engineer from Hyderabad, alleging that Election Commission of India has indulged in "voter profiling" by deploying an "undisclosed software" to link voter records to Aadhaar.
A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha orally remarked, "It is an important issue".
Kodali had earlier approached the Telangana High Court which dismissed his PIL.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. One Lakh on the School Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu for challenging the pensionary benefits of a former sanitation worker.
" (We) are inclined to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay as also these petitions with the imposition of exemplary costs where unnecessarily this matter relating to pensionary rights of a Sweeper-cum Sanitary Worker is sought to be dragged in further litigation", a Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on two petitions seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court in pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in India. The petition was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy and Advocate Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners stated that the matter was concerning marriage equality. The petitions in question were under consideration in the Delhi High Court and were requested to be transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court To Consider Petition Seeking Proper Implementation Of Child Protection Law
While hearing a miscellaneous application filed in the PIL Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. UoI And Ors. filed in WP(C) No. 906/2014, seeking directions to urgently implement safeguards available in child protection laws, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered the petition to be clubbed with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 496/2021 titled In Re The Menace of Drug Mafia Network Operating In The Country, in which the Supreme Court had taken a suo motu notice on the basis of a letter petition sent to the then CJI NV Ramana regarding drug mafia in the country.
While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's 2021 notification as per which OCI students are entitled to apply only to NRI seats in NEET admissions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally asked whether Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) are entitled to be treated at par with Indian Citizens.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat today remarked, "Where is your entitlement? You are not an Indian Citizen. You are a foreign student. Whether it is NRI or you.... In fact we allow quota for everyone. An Indian citizen is discriminated against. You are not an Indian citizen. You are here on visa. All of you want quota separately. What happens to our own citizens who are born and brought up here?."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition filed by a same-sex couple seeking legal recognition of their marriage in India. The petitioners in this case– an Indian national and a Citizen of the United States of America (USA) married and registered their marriage in the USA in 2014 and now seek to register their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, made it abundantly clear that there is no requirement to create new Benches of the Orissa High Court in a day and age when the use of technology, such as virtual courts and e-filing, is so widespread.
It categorically rejected the resolution of the Central Action Committee of the Bar Associations which had proposed to withdraw the strike only if their demand for formation of a Bench in Sambalpur is met. The Apex Court directed the Committee to withdraw the strike unconditionally.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, sternly asked the Odisha Government and the police authorities in the State not to 'mollycoddle' the lawyers who have indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike demanding formation of new Benches of the Orissa High Court. The Apex Court said that it would not let the litigants' interest be sacrificed at the altar of such unruly strikes by lawyers. The Court endeavoured to remind the advocates that their duty is to assist the litigants in attaining justice and not act as an impediment to their cause.
KSRTC Moves Supreme Court Challenging High Court Direction To Remove Ads From Buses
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved Supreme Court challenging Kerala's High Court direction to remove advertisements from buses. Kerala High Court division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar had ordered that transport vehicles owned or operated by KSRTC and KURTC shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements since they are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. Noting that even after the order was passed, KSRTC buses continued to paste advertisements on the body, the High Court had directed the Transport Commissioner and State Police Chief to take the necessary steps to ensure that no such vehicles are allowed in public places by KSRTC or KURTC.
"What is the purpose of awarding a death sentence? If a death sentence is to be executed after 20-25 years, what is the use of that?", the Supreme Court asked the state of Maharashtra on Tuesday, in the latter's challenge to the Bombay High Court commuting the death penalty of 2 sisters to life imprisionment citing inordinate delay in disposing off their mercy petitions.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court gave a deadline of three months to the Centre to complete the process of constituting the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal to resolve the Pennaiyar river dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
A Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar directed, "In the facts & circumstances of the case & considering the facts stated herein above, we grant three months to the Central government to complete the process of constituting the Tribunal to resolve the dispute between the two states."
Don't Suspend Whole Day's Work To Condole Death Of Lawyers : Supreme Court To Odisha Courts
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, expressed disapproval of the practice in Odisha of suspending the whole day's work for condolence meetings at District Courts and High Court.
While the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka were hearing the plea, inter alia, about lawyers' strike in Odisha, demanding a new High Court bench at Sambalpur, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar apprised it about a peculiar problem that District Court and High Courts in Odisha are facing. He submitted that whenever a lawyer of the District Court passes away, the Bar Association calls for a meeting in the morning session, at 11AM. He alleged the same disrupts the functioning of the District Courts.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition challenging the order of the Madras High Court which granted bail to 5 accused persons in the Kallakuruchi student suicide case.
A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath sought response on the plea filed by the mother of the victim. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra assisted by AOR Rahul Shyam Bhandari and Advocate G Priyadarshini appeared for the petitioner.
Don't Confine Scribes To Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court To CLAT Consortium
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a plea challenging stringent conditions imposed by CLAT consortium on persons with disabilities intending to avail scribes. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
At the outset, the petitioner, a disability rights activist, submitted that the consortium was only providing the services of a scribe to people with benchmark disabilities. He submitted that this was against the Supreme Court's judgement in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission. While referring to the policy of only providing scribes to people with benchmark disabilities as "exclusionary", the petitioner also stated that the consortium was only permitting scribes who had not yet graduated 11th standard.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi High Court to execute within three months the arbitral award of Rs 7,200 crore won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) run by Reliance Infrastructure against the state-owned Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), of which an amount of Rs 2,600 crore has already been disbursed. A division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath came down heavily on the government corporation, saying, "The law with regard to execution is not different for statutory corporations or the government." The High Court was directed to execute the award and take recourse to such remedies as permitted under the law, including initiating contempt proceedings, if required.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed anguish at the attempt made by the Union Government to delay an international arbitration proceedings initiated by the Reliance Industries and asked if this is the way to create a business friendly environment.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Reliance Industries, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud the issue regarding the delay in the commencement of the international arbitration, although two foreign arbitrators are present in India. He said that the Centre's application seeking the termination of the panel of arbitrators on the ground of bias was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Yet the proceedings have not been commenced on the ground that the Centre is seeking to challenge the High Court's order.
Supreme Court Allows Request Of Goa Govt To Resume Mine Dumping Activities
The Supreme Court on Tuesday approved an application filed by the Government of Goa to carry out mine dumping activities in the state, subject to the condition that the recommendations given by an expert committee constituted earlier by the top court were followed. This decision by a Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath comes as a major relief to the state government, which had, in December 2021, ahead of the 2022 assembly elections, cleared a new policy for permitting mining companies to export low-grade iron ore extracted from dumpsites and was waiting to be given a go-ahead by the top court.
Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Preventing Attacks Against Forest Officers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a comprehensive report from Central Empowered Committee giving suggestions for preventing incidents where forest officers are attacked while discharging their duties.
A bench comprising of Justices B. R. Gavai and Vikram Nath was hearing an application filed by Senior Advocate A. D. N. Rao, Amicus Curiae in the matter(TN Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India) where he had highlighted that the forest officers implementing Court's orders are being murdered.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition mentioned by the government of West Bengal seeking liberty for the registration of an FIR against the current leader of the Opposition in West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari, in relation to a stampede at a blanket distribution event in Bengal's West Burdwan district. The State approached the Supreme Court saying that the Calcutta High Court has passed a blanket order barring the registration of FIRs against Adhikari without its prior permission.
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to a convict named Farook, sentenced to life in the Godhra carnage case, considering the fact that he has undergone 17 years sentence and that his role was of stone-pelting at the train.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha passed the order in an interlocutory application filed by him in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned till the last week of January 2023 the hearing in the cases challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners Association for Democratic Reforms, submitted before a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath, that the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench as "weighty issues of public importance" are involved, on which an "authoritative pronouncement" is required.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, granted time to the State of Karnataka till 31-03-2023 for the purpose of submitting the Commission's report, constituted based on the directions of the High Court, on the question of political reservation and reservation for OBCs in local bodies.
Supreme Court Seeks Status Report From States & HCs On Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas
A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Hima Kohli, on Thursday, ordered all the State Governments and High Courts in the country to file status reports/reply within a period of 8 weeks from today in a plea seeking establishment of "Gram Nyayalayas" as per the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008 in the States across the country.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(December 14) issued notice in a plea filed by five specially-abled MBBS students seeking to set aside a Delhi High Court order upholding the retrospective application of the amendment to Regulations of Graduate Medical Examination 1997. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
In 2019, the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019 were passed to amend the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Thursday, reckoned that in corruption cases where public servants are accused, the complainants and teh prosecution should make sincere efforts to see to it that that corrupted public servants are punished, in order to eradicate corruption from administration.
"We hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and the governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption."
Ensure No Disabled Candidate Is Denied Access To CLAT: Supreme Court To NLU Consortium
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a plea challenging the stringent conditions imposed by CLAT consortium on persons with disabilities intending to avail scribes. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court on Thursday permitted the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association at Jaipur to conduct elections for the post of office-bearers on Friday, December 16, strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Rajasthan High Court and without contravening the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote'. This decision by a Division Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar comes as a major relief to the bar association since the petitioner, Bar Council of India, had stayed the election on receiving a complaint regarding the lack of fairness and transparency in the process. Although the state High Court had held the bar council's order in abeyance, the final hurdle before the bar association came in the form of an appeal by special leave against the High Court's decision.
'Do Not Dig Well When House on Fire': Supreme Court Cautions Punjab Govt, Cites Bihar Hooch Tragedy
"Do not dig the well when the house catches fire," the Supreme Court on Thursday warned the government of Punjab to immediately adopt strict measures to address the large-scale manufacture and sale of illicit liquor in the state. The state government told the bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, that they had already taken steps in the right direction "because of this court's indulgence". "We have implemented all the directions issued by this court, including issuing a circular holding local police accountable if illegal bhatthis are found. We have conducted awareness campaigns, appointed informers who will be rewarded,' the bench was informed. "Have you seen Bihar today?" Justice Shah asked, referring to the Bihar hooch tragedy in Saran district that has claimed the lives of at 39 people, with the death toll still rising. "This is exactly what we want to avoid!" the judge exclaimed.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To TN Govt On Plea Alleging Taking Over Of 38,000 Temples By HR&CE Dept
The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Government of Tamil Nadu in a petition alleging that the government indirectly took over the management of around 38,000 temples in the state of Tamil Nadu by appointing executive officers but refraining them from putting in place temple trustees. As per the petition, this has resulted in mismanagement of huge temple funds. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Andhra Pradesh Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Division Of Assets & Liabilities With Telangana
The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking a "fair, equitable and expeditious" division of assets and liabilities between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana including the Institutions/Corporations specified in Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.
The petition pointed out that not a single institution specified in Schedule IX (91 institutions), Schedule X (142 institutions) and Institutions not mentioned in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (12 institutions) have been apportioned between the States following their reorginazation in 2014. The petition specified that the total amount of fixed asset which was to be divided of the institution is about Rs. 1,42,601 crores. The petition also stated that Telangana would be the state that would be benefitted by the non-division of assets as 91% of these assets are in Hyderabad which has become the Capital City of Telangana.
Do Not Insist On Benchmark Disabilities To Grant Facilities Of Scribe: Supreme Court To SBI
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed the State Bank of India to not insist on granting the facility of scribe to only the candidates who had benchmark disabilities. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday directed the National Medical Council to not disturb the admission of a NEET-UG candidate who passed her 10+2 courses as a private student from National Institute Of Open Schooling (NIOS). The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The petitioner, a NEET-UG candidate, averred that though she has been admitted for counselling, the States of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab were insisting that she submits her Class 11 marksheet. She claimed that other States were not urging on making such submissions. The petitioner, along with the counsel of NIOS, submitted that providing a Class 11 marksheet was not possible as the NIOS curriculum was such that when a student undertook class 12th examination, they also undertook class 11th examination.
No Supreme Court Benches During Winter Break : CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud informed on Friday morning that there will be no regular benches for the Supreme Court during the winter break, which starts from tomorrow. The Court will reopen on January 2, 2023.
The Supreme Court on December 15 issued notice on a Writ Petition seeking reservation for persons belonging to the SC/ST/OBC/PWD categories in respect of appointments to Central Government posts and services in temporary appointments which are to last for 45 days or more and, to positions in autonomous bodies/institutions/universities that are receiving grants-in-aid from the Government of India.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Medical Council to broaden its framework to be more inclusive towards persons with disabilities and form a committee for the have a relook at the provisions barring persons having more than 40% disability from MBBS admissions. The remark was made by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha in a petition challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to the extent that it precludes candidates with speech and language benchmark disability (quantified at 40% or above) from availing reservation and taking admission in MBBS courses. As per the regulations, the petitioner, who had 55% speech disability had been denied admission in medical colleges.
No Offence Found Against Ex-Judge Tahilramani : CBI Says On Reference Made By Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi
The Lok Sabha on Wednesday was informed that the Central Bureau of Investigation's scrutiny of the allegations of impropriety, corruption and political bias against a former chief justice of the Madras High Court, Justice V.K. Tahilramani, did not reveal the commission of any cognizable offence. In 2019, the then-Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi had directed the central agency to take action against her 'in accordance with the law' on the strength of a five-page report by the Intelligence Bureau flagging Justice Tahilramani's allegedly illegal acquisition of property in Chennai, the decision to dissolve a special bench dealing with idol theft cases, and her alleged close ties with a Tamil Nadu minister.
Supreme Court To Hear Andhra Pradesh Plea For Division Of Assets With Telangana In January 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the petition filed by the government of Andhra pradesh seeking a fair, equitable and expeditious division of assets and liabilities of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, in terms of the Apportionment made under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and ordered it to be listed in the second week of January.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday agreed to the request made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan to decide whether the guidelines made under the case of Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India are applicable to the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner, even after the retirement of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Former Indore Law College Principal In FIR Over Library Book
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the arrest of the now resigned principal of Indore's Government New Law College, Dr Inamur Rahman, in an FIR registered over an allegedly "Hinduphobic" book in the college library. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
The complaint was filed by a third year LLM student. The counsels for petitioner Advocate Aljo K Joseph and Abhinav P Dhanodkar submitted that the book in question was published in 2014 and purchased by the college in 2014 as well. As per the petitioner, he was a professor in the college at that time and not the Principal of the college.
CJI DY Chandrachud Announces Launch Of 'Advocate Appearance Portal'
The Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud on Friday announced the launch of 'Advocate Appearance Portal' - an online portal through which the advocates can record their appearance. The online portal will do away with manual filing of appearance slips and is a step taken towards making the registry paperless.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a circular stating that any advocate who is seeking relief in urgent matters, either on court holidays or after court hours, can approach a notified officer of the Registry, and if required, a bench will be constituted.
Such an officer, who shall be the Vacation Officer, would screen the papers, seek directions from the Competent Authority and thereafter inform the advocate concerned about the directions.
PILs Are Becoming An Instrument Of Blackmail Against Infrastructural Projects: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday remarked that PILs were becoming an instrument of blackmail when infrastructural and building projects were concerned. The remark came up in a matter heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
An appeal had been filed against an order of the Bombay High Court which had imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a society for filing a PIL devoid of any public interest. The petitioner in the matter, Sarthi Seva Sangh had moved the Bombay High Court challenging redevelopment of a plot at Worli, citing ecological concerns. Once the High Court read the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner society, it found that promoting ecology was not the society's object. Thus, stating that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands, the Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL with ₹1 lakh costs.
Can Fishermen Be Allowed Use Purse Sein Nets Beyond 12 Nautical Miles? Supreme Court Asks TN Govt
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Tamil Nadu government if a regulation can be brought to allow fishermen to continue purse-seine fishing beyond the 12 nautical miles, outside the zone prohibited by the state government, so that it does not affect their livelihood.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the election of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi from Wayanad constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Dutta dismissed the petition filed by Saritha Nair, an accused in the high profile solar scam case, whose nomination to contest from Wayanad seat was rejected. She approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in October 2019 to reject her election petition.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Bilkis Bano seeking review of the May 2022 judgment which held that Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to decide the remission applications of 11 convicts, who were sentenced to life for gangrape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
In May 2022, a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath had ruled that the Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to consider the remission request as the offence took place in Gujarat. The bench further directed the Gujarat Government to decide the application as per the remission policy of 1992 within a period of two months. The Gujarat High Court had earlier held the remission had to be considered by the State of Maharashtra, as the trial was held in Mumbai, upon transfer from Gujarat.
CBI Moves Supreme Court Challenging Grant Of Bail To Anil Deskhmukh By Bombay High Court
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved to the Supreme Court of India challenging the Bombay High Court order granting bail to former Maharashtra home minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in a corruption case over alleged llegal gratification from bar owners and corruption in police transfers and posting in Maharashtra.. The Bombay High Court, through its order dated December 12, had provided the CBI with ten days to appeal against the order of bail.
