Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 8 to March 14 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Asks Govt Employees Holding Post Of State Election Commissioner To Immediately Step Down As SECCase Title : State of Goa and another v Fouzia Imtiaz Shaik Citation : LL 2021 SC 158 While holding that serving government employees cannot simultaneously function as State Election Commissioners, the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy also gave a categorical direction that such officers should immediately step down as SECs.The Court passed this important direction in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to "ensure that the constitutional mandate of an independent State Election Commission which is to conduct elections under Part IX and IXA of the Constitution be strictly followed in the future"."The State Election Commissioner has to be a person who is independent of the State Government as he is an important constitutional functionary who is to oversee the entire election process in the state qua panchayats and municipalities. The importance given to the independence of a State Election Commissioner is explicit from the provision for removal from his office made in the proviso to clause(2) of Article 243K. Insofar as the manner and the ground for his removal from the office is concerned, he has been equated with aJudge of a High Court. Giving an additional charge of such an important and independent constitutional office to an officer who is directly under the control of the State Government is, in our view, a mockery of the constitutional mandate.We therefore declare that the additional charge given to a Law Secretary to the government of thestate flouts the constitutional mandate of Article 243K". The bench observed.Read Also: State Election Commissioners Must Be Independent Persons Who Are Not Holding Posts Under Central Or State Govts : SC2. Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Does Not Bar Prosecution By Investigating Agency For Offence U/s193 IPC Committed During Investigation StageCase: Bhima Razu Prasad vs. State [S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2020]Citation: LL 2021 SC 159The Supreme Court this week held that the prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC [for fabricating false evidence] committed during the stage of investigation will not be barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC if the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the Trial Court.In such circumstance, the said offences would not be considered an offence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC, the bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran observed.3. Single Bench Hearing Transfer Petition Cannot Invoke Article 142 To Pass A Decree Dissolving Marriage By Mutual Consent: Supreme CourtCase: Sabita Shashank Singh Vs. Shashank Shekhar Singh [TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 908 OF 2019]Citation: LL 2021 SC 157The Supreme Court observed that its single bench while hearing a Transfer Petition cannot invoke power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass a decree for dissolving a marriage by mutual consent.In this case, the parties (husband and wife) to a transfer petition before the Supreme Court filed a joint application for divorce by mutual consent of the parties. They requested the court to invoke jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and to dispense with the compliance of some of the procedural formalities and timeline contemplated in Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The transfer petition was filed by the wife seeking transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband from the Family Court, Pune, Maharashtra to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.4. Non Filling Of Medical Seats Is Not A Solution: SC Declares Rule 12 (8)(a) Of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam UnconstitutionalCase: Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Civil Appeal No. 867 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 156The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee held that Rule 12 (8) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 is unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.According to Rule 12 (8) (a), the vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counseling (CLC) being conducted after MOP-UP round.In this case, the Writ Petitions filed by Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre and Arushi Mahant and Others challenging Rule 12 (8) (a) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. Before the Apex Court in appeal, it was contended that proscribing medical institutions from...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 8 to March 14 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags