Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 13 To December 19, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Alienation Of Joint Hindu Family Property By 'Karta' For Legal Necessity Or Benefit Of Estate Binding On Other Members: Supreme Court

Case name: Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy vs V. Manjunath

Citation: LL 2021 SC 732

Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment.

In this case, K. Veluswamy as a Karta of the joint Hindu family executed the agreement to sell of the suit property for Rs.29 lakhs and had received Rs.4 lakhs in advance from Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy. Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell impleading both K. Veluswamy and V. Manjunath (son of Veluswamy). This suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

The Apex Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.

2. Sexual Enhancement Drugs Do Not Attract NDPS Act: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused

Case name: Bharat Chaudhary vs Union of India

Citation: LL 2021 SC 733

Sexual enhancement tablets meant to enhance male potency do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court observed while granting bail to NDPS Accused.

In this case, the accused was granted bail by the Special Court on the ground that he was not found to be in possession of any psychotropic substance and no contraband was recovered from his residence or office during the search. That the test reports in respect of the seized material were awaited and it was not established whether the tablets which, as per the accused were sexual enhancement tablets, would qualify either as a narcotic or psychotrophic substance so as to fall within the ambit of the NDPS Act. The High Court later cancelled the bail so granted by the Special Court. The High Court observed that the test reports did not totally negate the fact that the seized contraband goods were not narcotic substances.

While considering the appeal filed by the accused, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed that the test report stated that the "quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities"

3. Ingredients Necessary To Prove Charges Under Section 409, 420 & 477A IPC: Supreme Court Explains

Case name: N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI

Citation: LL 2021 SC 734

The Supreme Court has explained the ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli made these observations while allowing appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted under Sections 409, 420, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Referring to the evidence on record, the bench noted the following: First, no financial loss was caused to the Bank. Second, the record does not indicate that any pecuniary loss was caused to B. Satyajit Reddy or to any other customer of the Bank. Third, the material before us does not disclose any conspiracy between the accused persons. Therefore, it held that none of the acts proved against the accused constitute 'criminal misconduct' or fall under the ambit of Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC.

4. Trial Court Not Expected To Act In A Particular Way Depending On 'Sensitivity' Of A Case: Supreme Court

Case name: Mohan @Srinivas @ Seena @Tailor Seena vs State of Karnataka

Citation: LL 2021 SC 735

The Supreme Court observed that a Trial Court cannot be expected to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case.

Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while upholding a Trial Court judgment acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer.

The prosecution case against the accused duo was that both the accused carried three weapons, waylaid the deceased at a signal in a main road at about 5 p.m. and after the initial attack, dragged him to the pavement, and thereafter inflicted multiple injuries. During trial, most of the witnesses pertaining to conspiracy, occurrence, recovery and extraordinary judicial confession turned hostile. The accused were acquitted by granting benefit of doubt.

5. Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Version In Consumer Cases Pending On 04.03.2020 Not Impacted By CB Judgment : SC Clarifies

Case Title : Diamond Exports and another versus United India Insurance Co Ltd and others

Citation : LL SC 736

Settling a conflict between two division bench judgments, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the applications to condone the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party in consumer cases, which were pending as of March 4, 2020, will not be impacted by the ruling of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, which had held that Consumer Forum cannot condone the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party.

In the instant case Diamond Exports and another versus United India Insurance Co Ltd and others, a three judge bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath settled the divergent views expressed in the judgments in Daddy Builders Private Ltd vs Manisha Bhargava LL 2021 SC 78 and Dr. A Suresh Kumar vs. Amit Agarwal LL 2021 SC 290.

The Constitution Bench judgment had declared that it will operate prospectively. The prospective impact of this judgment was understood differently in Daddy Builders and Dr.A Suresh Kumar cases. In Daddy Builders, a two-judge bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah held that the delay condonation applications which were pending as on March 4, 2020, will be impacted by the Constitution Bench judgment. 

6. Supreme Court Allows Defence Ministry's Plea To Allow Double Lane Widening Of Char Dham Highway Project

Case Title : Citizens for Green Doon and others versus Union of India and others

Citation : LL 2021 SC 737

The Supreme Court allowed an application filed by the Ministry of Defence for the double-lane widening of roads that are part of the 899-km Char Dham project in Uttarakhand.

A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath pronounced orders in the application filed by the Ministry of Defence seeking modification of the order dated September 8, 2020, which was passed by a three-Judge Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman, in order to permit the Union of India to make roads with 10 Meters tarred surface as opposed to the 5.5 meters as ordered by the Court.

The Court modified the order dated September 8, 2020, and allowed the Defence Ministry to widen the road as sought. At the same time, the Court took note of the environmental concerns raised by the High Powered Committee and directed the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway to implement the recommendations made by the HPC

7. NCLT Cannot Direct Parties To Settle A Dispute While Considering A Petition U/Sec 7 IBC: Supreme Court

Case name: E S Krishnamurthy vs Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd

Citation: LL 2021 SC 738

The Supreme Court observed that Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute.

While they Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can encourage settlements, they cannot direct them by acting as courts of equity, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

"The Adjudicating Authority must either admit the application under Clause (a) of sub-Section (5) or it must reject the application under Clause (b) of sub-Section (5). The statute does not provide for the Adjudicating Authority to undertake any other action, but for the two choices available.", the bench noted.

8. Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Awarded To A Man Accused Of Rape And Murder Of A Three Year Old Girl Child

Case name: Lochan Shrivas vs State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 739

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man accused of rape and murder of a three year old girl child, considering his socio-economic background and the possibility of reform and rehabilitated.

"It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative."

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna upheld the conviction of the appellant (Lochan Shrivas), but commuted the death penalty on the consideration of the 'criminal test', which the Court asserted was conducted neither by the Trial Court nor the High Court.

9. Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in a Triple Murder Case

Title: BHAGCHANDRA Vs STATE OF MP

Citation : LL 2021 SC 740

Supreme Court has recently commuted the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for triple murder.

A bench comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai was considering an appeal filed by the convict against the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment sentencing him to death by affirming the death sentence passed by the trial Court for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506B of Indian Penal Code.

The bench while commuting the sentence of death penalty and converting it to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years, observed that:

"Since the appellant comes from a rural and economic background and has no criminal antecedents, he cannot be called a hardened criminal and this was his first offence. In addition to this, the certificate issued by Jail superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration has been satisfactory so there is a possibility of appellant being reformed and rehabilitated and thus, we are inclined to convert the sentence imposed from death to life."

10. Bank Can't Be Directed By Writ Of Mandamus To Grant 'One-Time Settlement' Benefit To Borrower : Supreme Court

Case name: Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor vs Meenal Agarwal

Citation: LL 2021 SC 742

No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to a borrower, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.

The court observed that merely because the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years, the Bank cannot be held responsible for the same.

11. Supreme Court Acquits Three Death Row Convicts, Holds Prosecution Utterly Failed To Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Case name: Jaikam Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 741

The Supreme Court acquitted three murder accused who were sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court.

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Momin Khan was accused of murdering his parents, brother and other relatives following a property dispute. Jaikam Khan is a cousin of Momin Khan. Sajid is Jaikam Khan's son. Momin Khan (A­1), Jaikam Khan (A­3), Sajid (A­4) were sentenced to death by the Trial Court. Their appeals were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. Nazra, wife of Momin Khan was also sentenced to death by the Trial Court. But the High Court set aside the conviction recorded against her.

12. Election Petition Can't Be Rejected Summarily For Curable Defects : Supreme Court

Case Title : A Manju versus Prajwal Revanna

Citation : LL 2021 SC 743

The Supreme Court has held that the verifying affidavit in support of election petition need not be thrown out merely because it is not in Form 25 as prescribed under Rule 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kaul and Justice M.M.Sundresh was presiding on a matter regarding lack of attachment of affidavit in support of claims made in an election petition, where the appellant had later attached the affidavit, and observed, "Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25." Appreciating that the petition was at the threshold stage, the bench further added that, "It's not as if the appellant has failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so. This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is sought to be urged on behalf of respondent no.1"

13. Right To Dignity A Fundamental Right' : Supreme Court Directs Issuance Of Ration Cards, Voter IDs To Sex Workers

Case Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal| Criminal Appeal No(s).135/2010

Citation : LL 2021 SC 745

The Supreme Court has directed the State Governments and Union Territories to commence the process of issuance of ration cards/ Voters Identity cards immediately to sex workers from the list that is maintained by NACO.

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna found that its directions to provide sex workers almost a decade back were not complied with. Accordingly in its order the bench noted,

"As this Court has directed the State Governments and the Union Territories to issue ration cards and identity cards to sex workers almost a decade back, there is no reason as to why such direction has not been implemented till now. Right to dignity is a Fundamental Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of this country irrespective of his/her vocation. There is a bounden duty cast on the government to provide basic amenities to the citizens of this country. The State Governments/Union Territories and other authorities are directed to commence the process of issuance of ration cards/ Voters Identity cards immediately to sex workers from the list that is maintained by NACO."

14. Burden To Prove Full Repayment Of Borrowed Amount Is On The Party Claiming It : Supreme Court

Case Title: Anita Rani v. Ashok Kumar And Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 7750-7751 of 2021

Citation : LL 2021 SC 746

The Supreme Court has held that when payment of money and repayment of a portion of it is admitted by a party, then the onus to establish that there was full and final settlement of the dues is also on that party.

"A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is the one on whom the onus lies", the Court observed.

A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed an appeal challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had set aside the order and decree of the first appellate court in two money suits, initially dismissed by the trial court. It further imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondents.

15. Contempt Jurisdiction Is Always Discretionary, Should Be Exercised Sparingly : Supreme Court

Case Title: THE BORDEURI SAMAJ OF SRI SRI MAA KAMAKHYA v. RIJU PRASAD SARMA & ORS.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 747

Noting that the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the Supreme Court has held that the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple Management case is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the members of the Kamakhya Debutter Board or directing the refund of the Temple money allegedly misappropriated by the Board.

The Supreme Court had on July 7, 2015 upheld the 2011 Gauhati High Court decision to restore the administration of the temple to the Bordeuri Samaj, comprising five main families of priests who had run the temple since time immemorial until 1998- when the Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed and taken over control of the shrine. The contempt case, at the instance of the Bordeuri Samaj, arises out of the non-compliance with the Court's July 7, 2015 judgment.

16. Plaintiff Is 'Dominus Litis'; High Court Cannot Direct Impleadment Of Additional Defendant In Suit : Supreme Court

Case Title : IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Company vs M/s Bhargavarma Constructions and others

Citation : LL 2021 SC 748

The Supreme Court has disapproved the approach taken by a High Court in setting aside a decree in a suit and remanding the same for fresh trial after directing the plaintiff to implead a party as an additional defendant in the suit.

The Top Court reminded that the plaintiff is the "dominis litis"(master of the suit), who is entitled to decide who all should be added as parties in the case.

The issue arose out of a money suit filed by IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Company against M/s Bhargavarma Constructions and others. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The defendants challenged the decree in appeal before the High Court. The defendants contended that another party A.P. Transco and MAYTAS Infra Pvt. Ltd had executed the subject contract work and hence it was liable to pay the sums. With this argument, the defendant filed an application to implead AP Transco as a party in the appeal.

17. Power To Issue Notification Under S. 48(1) Of Land Acquisition Act Includes Power To Rescind : Supreme Court

Case Title: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Housing Commissioner & Anr. v. Noor Mohammad And Ors.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 749

The Supreme Court has reversed a High Court judgment which had set aside a notification cancelling a previous notification issued under S.48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the release of land of respondents from acquisition, and stated that, "A notification under S.48(1) confers benefit upon an individual and hence it is not supposed to be preceded by any enquiry. An order given under S.48(1) is an administrative Act and the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind one."

A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian looked into the question as to whether a notification under S. 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act is a quasi-judicial order and thus, does not give government the power to recall an order previously made, or is it an administrative order. And the bench noted that "a proceeding under S. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature and what is provided in S.48(1) is the power/liberty to withdraw from acquisition." 

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by U.P. Avas Ekam Vikas Parishad which is a statutory body under the State of Uttar Pradesh for housing and development.

18. Supreme Court Directs Bar Councils To Decide Complaints Against Advocates Within One Year Of Their Receipt; Suggests Empaneling Retired Judicial Officers As Inquiry Officers

Case Title: K. ANJINAPPA vs. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY C.A. No. 7478/2019

Citation : LL 2021 SC 750

The Supreme Court had issued directions to the State Bar Councils to dispose of complaints under Section 35 expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36 B of the Advocates Act. The Apex Court also passed directions to expedite the disposal of the transferred proceedings before the Bar Council of India.

A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that only in exceptional cases and on providing cogent and valid reasons for non-disposal within one year, the proceedings would be transferred to the Bar Council of India. It further observed that BCI ought to dispose of the transferred proceedings/complaints within a period of one year from the receipt of transfer.

19. Initiation Of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Persons With Mental Disabilities Is A Facet Of Indirect Discrimination : Supreme Court

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr v. Union of India

Citation : LL 2021 SC 751

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. The Apex Court was adjudicating upon a case wherein disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force who had been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent mental disability.

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed while setting aside the disciplinary proceedings:

"A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act."

"The mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct. The mental disability impairs the ability of persons to comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination."

20. Candidate Has To Comply With Eligibility Criteria As Per Advertisement Before Cut-Off Date Unless Extended By Authority : Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Bihar & Ors vs Madhu Kant Ranjan 

Citation : LL 2021 SC 752

In a matter relating to the appointment of a candidate to the post of Constable in Bihar Police Force, the Supreme Court of India has observed that a candidate or applicant has to comply with all the conditions and eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date unless extended by the recruiting authority.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observations in a civil appeal filed by State of Bihar challenging Patna High Court's order whereby it directed DIG Munger to appoint the respondent as Constable.

21. MSMED Act: If Conciliation Not Successful, Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Resorted To: Supreme Court

Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 753

The Supreme Court, while dealing with a matter pertaining to delayed payment of dues by Jharkhand electricity board to a Conductors supplier held that Section18 of The Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act 2006 [MSMED Act] and noted that "Under S. 18(3), when conciliation fails and stands terminated, the dispute between the parties can be resolved by arbitration. The council is empowered either to take up arbitration on its own or to refer the arbitration proceedings to any institution as specified in the said section."

A bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Subhash Reddy was presiding over a matter where an appeal was filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited to challenge an order by the Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court which dismissed an intra-court appeal by the appellant to challenge the order given by Rajasthan Micro & Small Industries Facilitation Council (respondent no. 2) in favour of M/S Anamika Conductor Suppliers (respondent no. 3) directing the appellants to make a payment of INR 74,74,041, towards principal amount plus INR 91,59,705.02 towards interest, to respondent no. 3 because of a contract between appellant and respondent no. 3 and appellants failing to make the due payments. The appellant's grievance was that the order given by respondent no. 2 ordering the appellant to make the payment of the aforementioned sum to respondent no.3 was without any jurisdiction and contrary to the terms & conditions of the contract signed between appellants and respondent no.3.

22. Right To Equality Would Apply To A Man Who Has No Choice But To Accept A Standard Form Contract However Unfair It May Be : Supreme Court

Case Title: Pani Ram v. Union of India and Ors|Civil Appeal No. 2275 OF 2019

Citation : LL 2021 SC 754

The Supreme Court has directed the grant of disability pension to a member of the Territorial Army by rejecting the reliance placed by the Union of India on a document signed by the appellant at the time of enrollment in the Territorial Army, whereby he had apparently waived his right to get enhanced pension.

The Court said that the Army cannot rely on the said document in view of the unequal bargaining power between the parties.

The bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai was considering a civil appeal assailing the judgement dated October 10, 2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by which it had dismissed the appellant's OA seeking grant of disability pension.

23. Recovery Based On Disclosure Statement Made In Another Crime: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Murder Case

Case Title: Rakesh Rai @ Vishal Rai @ Purna Rai & Anr. v. State of Sikkim, Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2018

Citation : LL 2021 SC 744

The Supreme Court has opined that recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act would not be admissible if the disclosure statement was made in connection to a crime undergoing separate trial, especially when such statement was not made to the jurisdictional police officer.

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi upheld the order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, for committing murder.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES 

1. Supreme Court Asks Delhi High Court To Have A Relook On The Assignment Of Cases To Trial Courts For Speedy Trials

While hearing a special leave petition assailing Delhi High Court's order of dismissing the bail application filed by an accused, the Supreme Court recently observed that merely because the trial court judge is the District and Sessions Judge, it cannot imply that he is burdened more than necessary.

The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed,

"We are of the view merely because the learned Judge concerned in the cases is the District and Sessions Judge, it cannot imply that he is burdened more than necessary or we lay down impractical timelines. It does appear to us that the High Court needs to have a relook on the assignment of cases to facilitate a speedier trial and thus, we call upon the High Court to examine whether the cases including the present one can be distributed to facilitate the conclusion of the trial on an early date. The High Court will take necessary steps."

2. Delhi Riots : Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Decide Within 3 Months Plea Seeking FIR Against Politicians For Alleged Hate Speech

The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi High Court to decide expeditiously, preferably within three months, a writ petition seeking registration of FIR and investigation against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma who allegedly made hateful comments to incite the Delhi riots of 2020.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai passed the direction in a writ petition filed by three victims of Delhi riots complaining that the Delhi High Court was not hearing their case

3. Supreme Court Stays Probe Of Justice Lokur Commission Constituted By WB Govt In Pegasus Case

The Supreme Court has passed an interim order to stay the enquiry proceedings by the Judicial Enquiry Commission led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur, which has been constituted by the State of West Bengal, to inquire into the allegations of snooping using the Pegasus spyware.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressed its unhappiness over the Commission conducting the proceedings when the Supreme Court has constituted an independent committee to probe the matter.

When the matter was taken, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner NGO "Global Village Foundation Charitable Trust", submitted that they are challenging the proceedings of the West Bengal commission.

4. Delhi Pollution : Supreme Court Directs Air Quality Commission To Invite Suggestions Of Public & Experts For Permanent Solution

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Regions and Adjoining Areas commission to invite suggestions of the general public and experts regarding a permanent solution to the air pollution problem in the national capital.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant observed that suggestions received have to be considered by an expert group constituted by the Commission.

The direction has been issued while hearing a petition seeking urgent directions required to improve the air quality in the National Capital.

The Bench also recorded Centre's submission that a decision with regard to restriction on construction activities in Delhi NCR and adjoining areas will be taken tomorrow. The Bench will hear the matter next in the first of February. 

5. Porn Videos Case : Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Raj Kundra From Coercive Action

The Supreme Court has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against Raj Kundra in a 2020 porn videos case registered by Nodal Cyber Police Station, Bandra.

The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose while issuing notice in the special leave petition assailing Bombay High Court's order dated November 25, 2021 ("impugned order") directed the State of Maharashtra to file its response within four weeks.

The High Court on November 25, 2021 while extending the protection granted to Raj Kundra by 4 weeks, had rejected his anticipatory bail application.

6. Use PMLA Reasonably; Otherwise Act Will Lose Relevance : Supreme Court Tells Enforcement Directorate

The Supreme Court of India has made strong remarks against the indiscriminate use of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which according to the Bench will result in dilution of the Act.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli made the observations while hearing two matters where the petitioners have been accused under the PMLA.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said " You're diluting the act. Not just this case. If you start using it as a weapon against 10000 rupees case and 100 rupees case, what will happen? You can't put all people behind bars. You've to use it reasonably."