Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Shruti Kakkar
28 May 2022 12:05 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022
x

Supreme Court Judgements 1. Ex- Personnel Of Armed Force Reemployed In Govt. Services Not Entitled To Pay Scales At Par With His Last Drawn Pay: Supreme Court Case Title: Union of India vs Anil Prasad |CA 4073 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513 The Supreme Court observed that an Armed Forces employee on reemployment in government service is not entitled to...

Supreme Court Judgements

1. Ex- Personnel Of Armed Force Reemployed In Govt. Services Not Entitled To Pay Scales At Par With His Last Drawn Pay: Supreme Court

Case Title: Union of India vs Anil Prasad |CA 4073 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513

The Supreme Court observed that an Armed Forces employee on reemployment in government service is not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay in Armed Force.

The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of Central Civil Services (fixation of Pay of Re­employed Pensioners) Order, 1986 does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

2. A Candidate Has No Legal Right To Insist That The Recruitment Process Set In Motion Be Carried To Its Logical End : Supreme Court

Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Dr. Vinay Kumar | CA 4150 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.

Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The bench clarified that this does not mean that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner.

3. Hindu Succession Act - HUF Property Is Presumed For Be For Widow's Maintenance When She Has Its Settled & Exclusive Possession : Supreme Court

Case Title: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D) | CA 5894 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

The Supreme Court observed that settled exclusive possession of a property of Hindu Undivided Family(HUf) by a widow would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance.

This is more particularly when the surviving coparcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi observed.

4. 'Continuing Unlawful Activity' For Gaining Advantages Other Than Economic Or Pecuniary Is Also An "Organised Crime" Under MCOCA: Supreme Court

Case Title: Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra | CrA 869 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

The Supreme Court observed that continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining advantages other than economic or pecuniary is also an "organised crime" under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

There could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said.

5. Endosulfan Tragedy :Supreme Court Slams Kerala Govt For Disbursing Compensation To Only 8 Out Of 3704 Victims

Case Title: Baiju KG vs Dr VP Joy | CP(C) 244/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517

While considering a contempt plea preferred by victims of endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court asked the State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities.

6. Supreme Court Strikes Down Notification Which Required Private Unaided Educational Institutions In Chandigarh To Publish Their Balance Sheets

Case Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3877/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518

The Supreme Court recently struck down the clause of April 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which required private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites.

The part of the notification was struck down by the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, AS Oka and JB Pardiwala while considering special leave petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 28, 2021 of upholding an April 2018 notification issued by the authority by exercising powers under Section 87 of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966.

7. Section 405 IPC - Offence Of Criminal Breach Of Trust Is Not Attracted If There Was Not Entrustment Of Property With Accused: Supreme Court

Case Title: Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh vs Surya Prakasam | SLP(Crl) 5485/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

The Supreme Court observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 will not be attracted if there was no entrustment of the property with the accused.

Sine qua non for attracting Section 405 IPC is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar observed.

8. SC Order Excluding Period From 15.03.2020 Till 28.02.2022 Applicable To Limitation Prescribed Under Commercial Courts Act Also: Supreme Court

Case Title: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne vs Pyrotek India Private Limited | SLP(C) 2522/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520

The Supreme Court observed that its order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation is applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.

In this case, the Trial Court, refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement by the defendants. The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition challenging this order of the Trial Court, observed that the period of 120 days within which the written statement could have been taken on record, expired on 09.05.2020 which was during the lock-down imposed.

Allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the High Court ought to have excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written statement and ought to have permitted to take the written statement on record.

9. Civil Judges Selection : Supreme Court Sets Aside PSC's Rejection Of 8 Candidates For Not Producing Originals Of Certificates

Case Title : Aarav Jain versus Bihar Public Service Commission

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521

The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of Bihar Public Service Commission to reject the applications of 8 candidates to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the ground that they had not produced the originals of their certificates at the time of interviews.

A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath passed the order taking note of the fact that these candidates had scored higher marks than last selected candidate, and that no one had a case that the particulars furnished by them were incorrect.

10. Compassionate Appointments Must Be Decided Within Six Months Of Applications : Supreme Court

Case Title: Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522

The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has opined that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of the completed applications. The Apex Court was apprehensive that if the applications are not decided expeditiously, then the whole purpose of such appointments would be frustrated.

11. Arbitration Act - Dispose Sec 11(5) & 11(6) Applications Pending For Over 1 Year Within 6 Months : Supreme Court To high Courts

Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions v. The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service And Ors. SLP (C) No. 5306 of 2022

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

The Supreme Court of India has made strong observations emphasising the need for High Courts to decide applications for appointments of Arbitrators at the earliest.

A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has observed that if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism.

12. Centre Can't Hold Tribunal Appointments Cleared By SCSC Citing New Inputs; Fresh Materials Must Be Shared With SCSC : Supreme Court

Case Title : Advocate Association Bengaluru versus Anoop Kumar Mendiratta Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708/2021 filed in Madras Bar Association versus Union of India WP(c) No.502/2021

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524

The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of the Central Government putting off the appointments of members to Tribunals despite recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) citing new inputs about the candidates. If fresh materials come to light about the candidates cleared by the SCSC, such materials should be shared with the SCSC. Not doing so will be a deviation from fair process, the Court stated.

13. Supreme Court Directs UIDAI To Issue Aadhaar Cards To Sex Workers Without Insisting On Proof Of Residence

Case Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal And Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

The Supreme Court directed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar Cards to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certification submitted by a Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society.

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna asked UIDAI to ensure that confidentiality of the sex workers is maintained in the process of issuance of Aadhar Cards.

14. Police Should Not Abuse Sex Workers, Media Should Not Publish Their Pictures During Raid & Rescue Operations : Supreme Court Issues Directions

Case Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal And Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Asserting that the basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers, the Supreme Court has directed that the police should treat sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, verbally or physically.

Further, the Court directed that media should not publish their pictures or reveal their identity while reporting rescue operations and stated that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code should be enforced if media publishes the pictures of sex workers with their clients. The Press Council of India has been directed to issue appropriate guidelines in this regard.

Also Read: No Criminal Action Against Voluntary Sex Work By Adults? Centre Expresses Reservation At SC Panel Recommendation

15. 'No Estoppel Against Statute' : SC Upholds Cancellation Of Fair Price Shop Vacancies In West Bengal To Implement Food Security Act

Case Title: State of West Bengal vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey) | CA 4254 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against cancelation of the declaration of Fair Price Shop vacancies in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013.

By recalling the vacancy notification, the State endeavored to enforce the statute and that there can be no estoppel against a statute, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.

16. Time For Payment Of Sale Consideration Can Be Extended Even In A Consent Decree Of Specific Performance: Supreme Court

Case Title: Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath)| CA 3794 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528

The Supreme Court observed that the time for payment of sale consideration can be extended even in a consent decree of specific performance.

The court added that Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, not only permits the judgment ­debtors to seek rescission of the contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount.

A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.

17. Extra Judicial Confession Made By Co-Accused Could Be Admitted In Evidence Only For Corroboration: Supreme Court

Case Title: Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 378 OF 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

The Supreme Court observed that extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence.

In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi said.

18. Stronger The Judge, Worse The Allegations" : Supreme Court Deprecates Lawyer's Conduct Against Judge; Upholds Contempt Sentence

Case Title: P. R. Adikesavan Versus The Registrar General High Court Of Madras And Anr.| Crl.A. No. 847/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 530

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge against a High Court's judgment which punished an advocate for contempt of court.

A vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandracud and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition against the Madras High Court's order holding an advocate guilty of Contempt and sentencing him to 2 weeks imprisonment as well as debarring him from practicing for a period of 1 year for obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by the HC against him.

Terming the Advocate's conduct as "thoroughly contemptuous", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi orally remarked,

"Ultimately you know, judges are assaulted. There is no protection of judges in the district judiciary, sometimes not even a lathi welding policeman. This is happening across the country. You cannot level wanton allegations. Imagine 100 lawyers gathering. Lawyers are also subject to the process of law and we are all citizens of the state. I've seen what happens in other parts of the country and this is becoming a new part of fashion in making allegations against the judges. The stronger the judge, the worse the allegations. This is happening in Bombay, rampant in Uttar Pradesh and now even Madras."

19. Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy

Case Title: Mamta and Anr Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531

The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court order granting bail to a man accused of kidnapping and murdering the 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweler in 2014, whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014.

The Court observed that the trial is going on and important witnesses are yet to be examined. The Court added that the High Court ignored relevant aspects while granting bail and omitted to note the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the accused.

20. Fault Of Subordinate Court Staffs, Delay In Complying An Order, Not Reasons To Transfer A Case: Supreme Court

Case Title: Nazma Naz vs Rukhsana Bano | CrA 820 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532

The Supreme Court observed that any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court or any delay in compliance by the Court are not by itself a reason to transfer a case.

While considering the appeal filed against this order, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed:

"In the totality of circumstances of the case, we do not wish to make any comments on the nature of proceedings this matter has undergone but, we are clearly of the view that because of any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court and for that matter, any delay in compliance by the Court were hardly the reasons for the High Court to immediately adopt the course of transferring the matter and that too, to a different station."

21. Indian Company Liable To Service Tax On Secondment Of Employees From Overseas Group Entities As Recipient Of Manpower Supply: Supreme Court

Case Name: C.C., C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

The Supreme Court has held that when the Overseas group companies providing skilled employees, on secondment basis, to its Indian counterparts amounts to supply of manpower services, the Indian company would be considered as service recipient. Therefore, the Indian company is liable to pay service tax on the salaries of the seconded employees reimbursed to the overseas company.

While the judgment related to the service tax regime, it can have impact on the GST regime as well in view of the similarity of the relevant provisions.

Upon perusal of the agreements entered between the Overseas group companies and the assessee (Indian counterpart), a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha determined the assessee to be a service recipient and liable to be taxed, but the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the revenue was held to be untenable.

Supreme Court Updates

1. "Not Inclined To Pass Orders For Hajj 2022": Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Tour Operator's Plea For Listing As Haj Group Organiser

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by All India Tours Corporation seeking directions to the Union of India for the consideration as Private Tour operator (PTs) for the Hajj of year 2022 and inclusion of the name in the lists of the Haj Group Organisers(HGOs) for Haj-2022.

A bench of Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha observed that similar petitions have been dismissed earlier by the court and no relief can be granted at this stage.

2. Supreme Court Seeks Response Of National Institute Of Open Schooling On Plea To Lay Down Distance Criteria While Determining Exam Centres

A PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) to lay down the distance criteria while determining the Examination centre for NIOS Public Examinations.

A bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice PS Narasimha on Tuesday orally asked for a response from NIOS with regard to the relief sought.

Without issuing notice, the bench asked the counsel appearing for NIOS to take instructions in this regard.

3. "We Don't Know Much About Cricket": Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Change BCCI Cut-Off Date For Domestic Tournaments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition filed seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to fix the cut-off date for eligibility in the 'domestic tournaments', as 1st April/May of every year, instead of 1st September.

4. Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand High Court To Decide First Maintainability Issue Of PILs Seeking CBI/ED Probe Against CM Hemant Soren

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Jharkhand High Court to decide first the maintainability of three PILs seeking CBI/ED investigation against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in relation to grant of mining lease, allegations of MNREGA scam and transfer of money into shell companies.

5. "No Urgency" : Supreme Court On Plea Challenging Talaq-E-Hasan; Asks Petitioner To Mention Next Week

A petition challenging Muslim personal law practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan was mentioned before a vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday for urgent listing.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand mentioned the Public Interest Litigation petition filed by journalist Benazeer Heena before a vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela Trivedi, saying that the petitioner has received the second notice of talaq.

6. Supreme Court To Hear NCLT Bar Association's Plea Challenging 3 Year Tenure Of NCLT Members In June

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a petition filed by the NCLT Bar Association challenging the notification of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs fixing the tenure of the members of National Company Law Tribunal as 3 years.

A vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi deferred the hearing on being told by the Solicitor General of India that a Committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India and consisting of Justice Surya Kant and the Secretary of the MCA is holding a meeting to deliberate on the term of 23 NCLT members appointed in 2019.

7. Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Staying SFIO Probe Against Sahara Group Companies

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the petitions filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office(SFIO) challenging the Delhi High Court order staying the investigation against Sahara group companies.

A vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that the stalling of the investigation at the interim stage was unwarranted. The bench also requested the High Court to dispose the writ petitions filed by Sahara companies challenging the SFIO probe at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months following the reopening after summer recess.

8. Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Order Debarring MBL From Dealing In Securities In Its Proprietary Account For A Period Of 4 Years

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, refused to interfere with the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which had affirmed the order of the Whole-Time Member, SEBI (WTM) to debar MBL Company Limited from dealing in securities in its proprietary account for a period of 4 years.

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi noted that even though the profit made by the Company from the violation was claimed to be meagre, the fact that the manipulation breached the integrity of the securities market and in turn caused detriment to the investor wealth is a crucial consideration. The Bench was convinced that the WTM had rightfully considered the same. Therefore, it opined that the order of the WTM cannot be regarded as disproportionate. Moreso, when the WTM has restrained MBL from participating only in its proprietary account, allowing it to continue operations in its broking account.

9. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Order Denying Bail To Woman In Jail With Infant For Over 4 Months

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition moved against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC had been rejected thereby confirming her incarceration along with her 3.5 month old infant on the ground that the allegations against her are grave and serious in nature.

10. Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Challengnig MCC Notice Modifying OBC Reservation Criteria For Institutional Preference Seats In Central Institutes

The Supreme Court, on Friday, directed Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union Government to file a counter affidavit within 4 weeks in a plea assailing Delhi High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging Medical Counselling Committee's (MCC) notice dated 10.01.2022 of modifying OBC reservation criteria with respect to Institutional Preference seats in Central Institutes ("impugned notification").

11. Supreme Court Rejects Dental College's Plea Seeking Extension Of Deadline For BDS Admissions

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain plea filed by a Dental College seeking directions to Dental Council of India and Union of India for extension of admissions deadline to BDS UG course for its 100 seats to enable the college to effect admissions to their duly approved 100 seats for the academic year 2021-22.

The writ petition also sought directions to the respondent authorities specifically to the State of MP to conduct a centralised common counselling specifically for the Petitioner institution, spanning over a minimum period of 15 days for allotting students to their institution for the academic year 2021-22.

12. Ensure Timely Dispsoal Of Complaints Against Advocates : Supreme Court To Bar Council In Contempt Plea

The Supreme Court recently sought Bar Council of India's detailed reply in a contempt petition alleging disobedience of Top Court's directions asking Bar Councils to decide complaints against Advocates within 1 year of their receipt.

Considering the submissions of BCI's counsel that to comply with the directions, the BCI had issued circular to all the State Bar Councils on December 27, 2021, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna remarked that mere issuance of Circular or sending the intimation is not enough.

Airline company Spicejet Ltd on Friday told the Supreme Court that it has reached a settlement with the creditor and sought an urgent listing of its plea challenging the winding order passed by the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court had passed the winding up order in December 2021 on a petition filed by Credit Suisse AG, a Switzerland based Stock Corporation.

13. "Most Vulnerable Witnesses Are Women & Children" : Supreme Court Says MoW&CD Should Be Nodal Agency For Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres

The Supreme Court on Friday impleaded the Ministry of Women and Child Development in the case in which it has issued guidelines for the protection of vulnerable witnesses.

"Most vulnerable witnesses are women and children", Justice DY Chandrachud, heading a vacation bench, said, while turning down a plea that the Ministry of Law and Justice should be made the nodal agency for implementing the guidelines for Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) in courts.

14. Why Are You Removing MD Radiation Oncology As Feeder Course For NEET-SS?Supreme Court Asks NMC

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Medical Commission why it is proposing to delete MD Radiation Oncology as an eligible feeder speciality qualification for super specialty course of DM Medical Oncology.

The Court has asked the NMC to file its reply and kept the matter in the second week of July.

15. Azam Khan Case : Supreme Court Stays HC's Bail Condition That District Magistrate Should Take Over Jauhar University Land

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court while granting bail to SP leader Azam Khan that the District Magistrate should take possession of the premises of the Mohammed Ali Jauhar University, which is run by a Trust headed by Khan.

The vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi was of the opinion that, prima facie, the said conditions imposed for grant of bail are disproportionate and have no reasonable nexus with the object of securing the presence of the accused or to see to it that the trial is not impeded in any manner.

16. Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court's Order Of Restraining President, IOA To Conduct Special General Body Meeting

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order dated April 22, 2022 wherein the High Court had restrained the President, Indian Olympic Association from conducting the Special GBM which was scheduled to be held on April 25, 2022.

17. Supreme Court Issues Notice To Kerala Govt On Plea Seeking Desilting Of River Sands On Yearly Basis Before Arrival Of Monsoon

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State of Kerala on a plea seeking the desilting of River sands from all rivers in Kerala on yearly basis, before the arrival of monsoon.

18. CBSE Exams : Supreme Court Asks Comptroller Of Examinations To Examine Students' Grievances About Differences In Marks Allotted By School & Board

In a case of difference in marks calculated by CBSE and the respondent School, the Supreme Court has directed the Comptroller of Examinations to reconsider grievances of the students and take appropriate decision.

The dispute in the case is with regard to marks allotted to petitioner students as per 30:30:40 formula for class X, XI, XII respectively for the 2021 exams, where the Board had resorted to alternative assessment in lieu of written exams due to.

19. Ensure Absconding NDPS Accused Are Brought To Book : Supreme Court To Punjab; Seeks Status Report Before July 12

Remarking that "NDPS matter is not a usual matter" and that there are over 2000 absconding NDPS offenders/accused persons in Punjab, the Supreme Court has asked the state to put in place appropriate provisions to ensure that the absconding individuals are brought to book within a reasonable time, and to the effect that in the event of failure, the concerned police officer is proceeded with departmentally.

20. Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Union & States On Plea For Guidelines To Prevent Sexual Harassment Of Students In Schools

The Supreme Court on May 19 had issued notice in a writ petition seeking protection of children from any kind of harassment including the sexual harassment being carried out at educational institutions.

21. Supreme Court Deprecates Judicial Officer For Not Releasing Accused Despite Order Granting Bail

The Supreme Court recently deprecated the act of a judicial officer who refused to release an accused against whom FIR was registered u/s 498A, 304B of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act despite Court's order of directing his release.

The Judicial Officer refused to release the accused on the pretext that while the order mentions the charges under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC it does not mention Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

22. "Misadventurism" : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Lawyers For Filing Petition To Allow Vehicles To Run Till End Of Registered Life

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by two lawyers seeking to allow the vehicles to run till the end of their registered life in both diesel and petrol variants.

Saddling the petitioners with a cost of Rs 50,000/- to be paid to Supreme Court Legal Services Authority, the bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna in their order said,

" We find that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. At least a lawyer practicing before this Court is expected to know that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, cannot be filed to seek any reliefs which are contrary to the orders passed by this Court. In spite of the forewarning, the petitioner in person continued to argue the matter. We therefore, passed an order dismissing the petition."

23. Pendency Of Commercial Cases: Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction At Allahabad HC Report; Asks UP Govt To Consider Proposal For Additional Courts

The Supreme Court has directed the UP State Government to consider the proposal made by the Allahabad High Court to create additional commercial courts in four districts and take a final decision within a period of four weeks.

The direction has been made considering submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad High Court, under the instruction from the Registrar General, stating that now the proposal to create the additional commercial courts in the four Districts of Gautam Budh Nagar, Meerut, Agra and Lucknow has been made to the State Government.

24. Supreme Court Grants Liberty To 268 Jhuggi Dwellers Of Rajiv Gandhi Camp To File Representation Before DUSIB For Relocation & Rehabilitation

The Supreme Court recently permitted 268 Jhuggi dwellers who are members of Rajiv Camp Saidabad to file a representation before the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board for relocation and rehabilitation.

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna also permitted the members to produce evidence to show that they are entitled to relocation and rehabilitation in terms of the policy dated February 8, 2004 and December 11, 2017.

25. Supreme Court Directs Kerala To Complete Identification Of Posts For Reservation In Promotion For Persons With Disabilities

The Supreme Court recently directed the State of Kerala to complete the process of identification of posts for giving reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities.

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna also asked the State to file a status report by 2nd week of July 2022.

26. Supreme Court Allows OCI Candidates In Kerala Entrance Exams To Apply Against NRI Seats Without Uploading Documents Establishing NRI Status

The Supreme Court recently passed an interim order to allow OCI Candidates who had applied for counselling under Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical 2022 ("KEAM") in Kerala to apply for State and All India Examinations and counselling against the NRI seat by production of proof of his/her OCI status and domicile in a state/India.

The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari further said that the OCI candidates could apply without being required to upload documents establishing NRI status.

27. Supreme Court Directs Jammu & Kashmir To Clear Wage Arrears Of Sweepers Within 8 Weeks

The Supreme Court recently directed the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to clear the arrears of minimum wage of sweepers who have been sustaining at a monthly wage of Rs. 100/- per month (Rs. 3 per day) since March, 2015 within 8 weeks.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and AS Bopanna further directed for paying the monthly payment to the sweepers from the month of May, 2022, regularly without break.

28. Andhra Pradesh Govt Moves Supreme Court Against NGT Order Halting Rushikonda Hills Tourism Project

The State of Andhra Pradesh has appealed to the Supreme Court against an order of the National Green Tribunal which halted the construction works at Rushikonda Hills in Visakhapattanam as part of a tourism project.

Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the State's appeal for urgent mentioning before a vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela Trivedi.

29. Disha Case : Judicial Commission Faults Police For Not Registering FIR On Woman Missing Complaint Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction

In relation to the alleged encounter killings of the accused in the gang rape and murder of a 26-year-old veterinary doctor(Disha case), the judicial enquiry commission appointed by the Supreme Court has found fault with the Telangana police for refusing to register the FIR, when the parents of the victim had complained about her missing.

The Commission noted that the police turned away the victim's parents citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. Around 10.30 PM on November 27, 2019, after the victim (given the name Disha) went missing, her sister and parents approached the RGIA Police Station. The police did not register the FIR claiming that they did not have jurisdiction and directed them to approach Shamshabad Rural Police Station. The relatives then searched the nearby areas and went to Shamshabad Rural Police Station where finally at 3 AM on November 28, 2019, the complaint was registered as a woman missing case.

30. Supreme Court Stays NGT Order Imposing Rs 15 Lakh Fine On Coca Cola Bottling Unit For Ground Water Extraction

The Supreme Court recently stayed NGT's order of imposing a penalty of approximately 15 lakhs on Moon Beverages Limited ("MBL"), bottling unit of Coca Cola, guilty of exploiting groundwater for bottling plants in Uttar Pradesh.

31. Supreme Court Dismisses Centre's Review Against CBI Probe Into HZL Disinvestment

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court, dismissed the Central Government's review into its judgment dated 18.11.2021, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a regular case in relation to the illegalities in the 26% disinvestment of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL) by the Centre in March, 2002.

Refusing to list the review petition in open Court, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna concluded that there being no merit in the petition, interference was unwarranted.

"Application for listing the review petition in open Court is rejected. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed."


Next Story