Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 18 to September 24]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Not Necessary To Give Opportunity Of Hearing To Would-Be Accused Before Court Makes Complaint U/Sec 195/340 CrPC : Supreme Court Case Title: State of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh CrA 335/2020 The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to a would- be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195/340 CrPC. The Three Judges Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul , Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath were answering the reference made to it by a two judges bench. The issues referred were i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry? Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench Case Title: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered While Imposing Death Sentences The Supreme Court referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him. Larger Bench Judgement Will Prevail Regardless Of Number Of Judges In Majority: Supreme Court Case Title: Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judgement delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgement of a 7-judge bench delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench. A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi. Supreme Court Asks Centre To Frame Policy For Employment Of Transgender PersonsCase Title: Shanavi Ponnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation And Anr. WP(C) No. 1033/2017 The Supreme Court, bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli by way of an interim order, asked the Central Goverment in consultation with the National Council for Transgender Persons to devise appropriate policy framework in terms of which reasonable accommodation can be provided to transgender persons in seeking recourse to avenues of employment in all establishment covered by the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (2019 Act), within a period of 3 months. Fixed Term Sentences Exceeding 14 Years Can Be An Alternative To Death Sentence In Certain Cases: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Haryana vs Anand Kindoo The Supreme Court observed that fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years can be awared in appropriate cases to strike a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for the convicts. This fixed term sentence can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath observed. Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order Awarding Compensation To Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Undergoing Tubectomy Surgery Case Title: Civil Hospital vs Manjit Singh The Supreme Court set aside an NCDRC order that directed a hospital to pay compensation to a woman who delivered a child despite undergoing tubectomy procedure. In this case, a woman underwent tubectomy procedure twice, though both the procedures remained unsuccessful. She gave birth to a male child in the year 2003. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging medical negligence on account of failed tubectomy surgery. The same was dismissed on the ground that the hospital is not a consumer. The State Consumer Commission (SCDRC) affirmed this order. Later, National Consumer Commission (NCDRC) allowed revision petition and directed to pay compensation as per the guidelines and the policy of the State. Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014Case Title: Harbhajan Singh versus State of Haryana and others (WP(c) 735/2014) The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath upheld the validity of the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014 and dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Any State Enactment Related To Agricultural Land Tenures Is Special Law : Supreme Court Upholds Section 50(a) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954Case Title: Har Naraini Devi vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783 CA 22957 OF ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [September 18 to September 24]

Deepankar Malviya

Tags