- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(July...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(July 24-30)
Suraj Kumar
30 July 2023 12:13 PM GMT
Judgments'Bail Orders Must Be Backed By Reasons Considering Vital Aspects': Supreme Court Sets Aside 'Casual & Cryptical' HC OrderCase title: Rohit Bishnoi v State of RajasthanCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560The Supreme Court recently held that vital aspects of the case must be considered while deciding bail applications. The nature of the crime, criminal history of the accused and the...
Judgments
Case title: Rohit Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
The Supreme Court recently held that vital aspects of the case must be considered while deciding bail applications. The nature of the crime, criminal history of the accused and the nature of punishment involved must also be weighed in by the courts. The court pressed for reasoned orders to be passed while exercising discretion in granting bail.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Justice Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against Rajasthan HC which had granted bail to the respondents involved in a case of honour killing.
Settting the "cryptic" and "casual" orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused, the Supreme Court observed: “While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.”
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax-IV vs Prime Focus Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as ‘imparting special effects’, ‘post production service’, ‘digital asset management and content service’ and ‘digital restoration service’, will not fall under the ambit of ‘video-tape production’ under Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Upholding the order of the CESTAT, and after referring to the definitions of ‘Video Production Agency’ and ‘Video-Tape Production’ under the Finance Act, 1994, the bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that services such as editing, cutting, colouring, etc. can be said to be done only after recording is done of any programme, event or function on a magnetic tape or any other media or device.
Case details: Gurbachan Singh (D) vs Gurcharan Singh(D)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562
The Supreme Court observed, that in second appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule.
In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing a second appeal had set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below it.
the court said: "Therefore, the rigors of section 100 do not apply. It has been held by this court that in appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC".
The court added that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court.
"However, it is also equally well recognized that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone...Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding..", the bench observed while dismissing the appeal.
Case Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court that dismissed an application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, the appellant.
The election petition had been filed for nondisclosure of certain pending cases against him. The appellant had contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
While dismissing the appeal and affirming the High Court order, the Top Court observed:
“The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution which enacts that “every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than twenty-one years of age on such date as may be fixed and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election
Case Title: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Citation: SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, indicated that courts should impose realistic conditions of bail considering the economic and social position of the undertrial prisons or else the act of grant of bail does not subserve its purpose.
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed the same while hearing a suo moto writ petition instituted for the purposes of issuing a comprehensive policy strategy for grant of bail.
On Tuesday, the Bench observed, “We do believe that every endeavour be made by concerned courts that when they grant bail it must be fruitful as imposition of conditions of bail which, given the economic and social scenarios the person is unable to meet, does not subserve the purpose. Thus prompt attention to be given where order of bail has not resulted in release.”
It added, “We also believe that the development of a module for judicial officers along with the State Judicial Academy by NALSA can be useful as an educational exercise”.
Case Title: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Citation: SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, observed that countries like the United State of America that have incorporated plea bargaining successfully have encompassed both sentence bargaining and offence bargaining, while the scope of plea bargaining is limited in the Indian context as the criminal justice system here has only incorporated 'sentence bargaining'.
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were hearing a suo moto writ petition instituted for the purposes of issuing a comprehensive policy strategy for grant of bail.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Dhulia pointed out, “Plea bargaining is virtually not there and that was one of the recommendations of the Malimath Committee (constituted to suggest reforms in the criminal justice system)”.
Justice Kaul reckoned, “The problem is also between sentence bargaining and offence bargaining. We have only incorporated one (sentence bargaining). That limits the aspect of plea bargaining. Countries like the USA that have successfully implemented plea bargaining have encompassed both the aspects.”
Justice Dhulia said, “In the recommendation it is both”.
Case Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
It is a paradox that the right to vote is not a fundamental right, though democracy has been held to be one of the basic features of Constitution, said the Supreme Court in a recent judgment. The Court noted that right to vote has been termed as a "mere" statutory right.
"Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right", observed a bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar.
Case details: Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs Jet Airways Ltd.
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564
The Supreme Court observed that any settlement between employee Union and the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless it is more beneficial to the employees.
The employer and workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed.
The court, referring to its earlier rulings observed: "On various occasions, this Court has observed that the certified standing orders have a statutory force. The Standing Order implies a contract between the employer and the workman. Therefore, the employer and workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders"
Case Title: Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565
The Supreme Court on Monday held that without impounding of the passport, the Passport Authority cannot unauthorizedly retain a passport handed over by the Police in the name of a pending criminal case.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal was considering an appeal filed by a husband whose passport was handed over to the Passport Authority by the Police as he was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 498-A, 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in a complaint filed by his wife.
“We fail to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the exercise(of the police) of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal. Thereafter, the passport was never impounded in exercise of power under Section 10 of the PP Act. There is nothing on record to show that the passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport.”
Case Title: Air India Ltd. & Anr. V. Tushar Kothari,
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 23377/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which upheld the order of the State Commission and District Forum directing Air India to pay a compensation of Rs2.03 lakh to a passenger who lost his luggage during travel.
The Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the airline and sought compensation of around 2 lakhs and additional compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses incurred before district forum. The complainant produced bills worth Rs2.03 lakh for the articles purchased for the wedding that were stored in the bag that went missing.
A division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, dismissing the appeal filed by Air India against the order of the NCDRC, observed: “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Case details: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd. Afzal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction granting interim protection to accused while rejecting their anticipatory bail plea. We are amazed to see the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
In this case, the High Court while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, directed that no coercive steps be taken against the respondent(s) for a period of two months.
"It is, thus, clear that self-contradictory orders have been passed by the High Court. On the one hand, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim protection is granted for a period of two months.", the court observed while setting aside the part of the order directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against the respondents for a period of two months.
Case Title: Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Of India V. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 4074/2023
The Supreme Court recently set aside the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that had stayed an order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Of India (IRDAI) directing the transfer of policies from Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited to SBI Life Insurance Company Limited.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol stayed the order of SAT in an appeal filed by the IRDAI calling it a ‘drastic order’.
The order dated December 30, 2020 was passed by the IRDAI holding that Sahara Life Insurance was no longer a “fit and proper” promoter and that its shareholding should be transferred to any other “fit and proper” promoter within 6 months. It further directed the Sahara Life Insurance to recover a sum of Rs. 78 crore from Sahara India.
“Prima facie, we find that drastic order of interim stay has been passed by the Tribunal without adverting to the merits of the case and that also when the order dated 30.12.2020 was not complied with by the appellant for more than two and half years.” The Apex Court observed while staying SAT’s order.
Case Title: M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave to appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) only if it is passed by the Commission in its original jurisdiction. No further appeal will lie against the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the Apex Court clarified.
A division bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in the said case, examined the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution by referring to a catena of Apex Court decisions, to hold that it must only be exercised to consider a question of law of public importance or against a decision that shocks the conscience of the court.
“..the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed.
The limitation, whatever, they be are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers”.
Case Title: Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Anr. v Manish Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568
The Supreme Court has held that a property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be ‘de-sealed’, while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment.
The Bench comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that, “We have already noted that the writ petitioner himself got no case that the building plan submitted by him was sanctioned. When it was not sanctioned and the direction to the DCB under Annexure P-3 order dated 25.09.2020 was only to consider the application for sanction of the building plan in accordance with the prevailing building regulations and bye laws, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed, now, to contend that the DCB got an obligation to de-seal the property of the writ petitioner.”
Case Title: Simarnjit Singh V. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.1443 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the process of drawing of samples under Section 52-A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The entire exercise of collecting the sample must be certified by the Magistrate to be correct, it was held.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal made the observation while considering an appeal by a person convicted by the Special Judge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of poppy husk. The High Court had dismissed his appeal and hence he had approached the Apex Court.
Case details: L/Nk Gursewak Singh vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571
The Supreme Court observed that the term 'cruel' in exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is a relative term. Taking note of the evidence on record, the bench observed that the appellant cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner that will deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
"The term cruel manner is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act. The appellant fired only one bullet which proved to be fatal. He did not fire more bullets though available. He did not run away and he helped others to take the deceased to a hospital. If we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4 which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied.
Therefore, in our view, exception 4 to Section 300 was applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased. This act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the first part of Section 304 of IPC will apply in this case. Under the first part of Section 304 of IPC, an accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.", the court said while partly allowing the appeal.
Justice-Oriented Approach To Be Adopted While Dealing With Delay Condonation Plea : Supreme Court
Case details: Raheem Shah vs Govind Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should adopt the justice-oriented approach rather than the 'iron- cast technical approach' while dealing with delay condonation applications.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there was delay of only 52 days in filing the appeal and the point raised by the appellants was that the that the judgment was not in their knowledge.
The bench, referring to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, observed:
"The above decision expressing the intention of justice oriented approach percolating down to all the courts was rendered nearly three decades ago but unfortunately the case on hand demonstrates the pervading insensitive approach, which apart from continuing the agony of the litigants concerned has also unnecessarily burdened the judicial hierarchy which after going through the entire process will have to set the clock back, at this distant point in time and prolong their agony. If only the court concerned had been sensitive to the justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach, the litigation between the parties probably would have come to an end much earlier after decision on the merits of their rival contention
Case title: Hem Raj v New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574
The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant when he had duly placed on record the evidence of him paying the medical bills of a person injured in a motor accident in respect of which there is third-party insurance coverage.
“The District Forum had specifically referred to medical bills and had directed the insurance company to release the amount found admissible to the appellant. The appellant was naturally under the impression that the amounts covered under the medical bills would also be payable. Even, the State Commission had stated to the same effect.” the court observed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against the order of NCDRC which had denied the claims of appellant for reimbursement of medical expenses.
The court further observed, “the appellant herein has been not only deprived of the aforesaid amount spent by him towards medical expenses owing to the injuries sustained by the injured Ram Parshad Tharu in the accident in respect of which there is a third-party insurance coverage but was also constrained to approach this court.
Case Title: Reserve Bank of India v. Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd,
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15667/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to in an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, against an order of the Kerala High Court that lifted the loan restrictions imposed by it on Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
The notice was issued by a division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared for the RBI.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had affirmed the order of a single bench that lifted the restriction placed on the Co-Operative Bank by RBI to stop further sanction/disbursal of loans and advances as the bank was not given an opportunity of hearing.
RBI had conducted an inspection before issuing a prohibitory order to the Cooperative Bank, along with an inspection report. According to the inspection report, there were some deficiencies in banking practice, including some loan advance schemes that were susceptible to foul play
Case details: Sandeep Kumar vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573
The Supreme Court observed that the merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial and not at the stage of Section 319 CrPC.
In this case, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved before the Trial Court and the same was allowed. Allowing the revision petition filed by the accused, the High Court set aside this order on a reasoning that he was found innocent during investigation and that he never used the gun and had actually fled from the spot.
In appeal, the Apex Court observed that this approach of the High Court is not correct. It said:
"The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.PC. The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319, though this is precisely what the High Court has done in the present case. Moreover, the High Court did not appreciate the important fact that the charges being faced by the accused were under Sections 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC."
The court added that for attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly. "Any specific individual role or act is not material.. No overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly", it said.
Case Details: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575
Mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act, the Supreme Court of India held while granting bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused and activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. This verdict was delivered yesterday by a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Court also held that there was "no credible evidence" against them regarding the commission of any terrorist act as defined under the UA(P)A.
"There has been no credible evidence against the appellants of commission of any terrorist act or enter into conspiracy to do so to invoke the provisions of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act...Nor there is any credible case of conspiracy to commit offences enumerated under chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act", the Court observed after noting that the materials collected by the NIA were in the nature of "hearsay evidence" and materials seized from third parties.
Case details: Yashodhan Singh vs State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576
The Supreme Court held that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC need not be given the opportunity of hearing before being added as an accused.
"The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure is not at all contemplated therein.", the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
The court made these observations:
Section 319 clearly uses the expression “to proceed” which means to proceed with the trial and not to jeopardize the trial at the instance of the person(s) summoned by conducting a mini trial or a trial within a trial thereby derailing the main trial of the case and particularly against the accused who are already facing trial and who may be in custody. A person who is summoned in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot hijack the trial so to say and deviate from its focus and take it to a tangent in order to bolster his own case in a bid to escape trial. All that is contemplated when a person is summoned to appear is to ascertain that he is the very person who was summoned and if any summoned person fails to appear on the given date.
On the appearance of the summoned person, no procedure of an inquiry or opportunity of being heard is envisaged before been added as an accused to the list of accused already facing trial unless such a summoned person had already been discharged, in which event, an inquiry is contemplated as discussed above. Thus, the contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Doctor’s License Cannot Be Suspended By Court As Penalty In Contempt Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title: Gostho Behari Das V. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a medical practioner’s license cannot be suspended as penalty in contempt proceedings.
A division bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:
“A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of Court may also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question. They are, however, offenses separate and distinct from each other. The former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. “
The Top Court opined that it is trite law that the power of contempt must be used by courts judiciously and sparingly:
“The Court has time and again asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majority of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously.” the Court stated.
Case Title: Poonam Anjur Pawar v. Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579
The Supreme Court observed that non-participation in a proceeding of restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences.
The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed:
"We are of the view that it cannot be said that nonparticipation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights, of the party who seeks for transfer of such proceeding is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences as is evident from the aforesaid provision. In such circumstances and taking into account the distance of the court where the case sought to be transferred is pending and the place where the petitioner-wife is presently residing, we are inclined to allow the captioned transfer petition.", the court said.
29 Constitution Bench Matters Pending In Supreme Court, Oldest From 1992
There are 29 Constitution Bench matters pending in the Supreme Court. Out of these 29 cases, 18 cases are pending before 5-Judge Bench, 6 cases pending before 7-Judge Bench and 5 cases pending before 9-Judge Bench for adjudication.
This information was given y the Union Law Ministry in response to a query raised by CPI(M) MP AM Arif.
In the list of pending cases, the oldest case is Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors which dates back to 1992, relating to the election of the Santacruz Legislative Assembly Seat held in 1990 for the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly.
Case Title: Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad V. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 246 Of 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by a Mechanical Transport Driver enrolled in the Army Service who was dismissed from service for overstaying the leave granted to him. “Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” the Top Court said in this regard.
The Armed Forces Tribunal had upheld his dismissal from service for having failed to rejoin duty on the expiry of the leave granted to him. A division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, while dismissing his appeal observed:
“Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service.”
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Installation Of CCTV Cameras In All Vehicles
Case Title: Mithun Mondal vs Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 18063-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to direct the Union to frame guidelines for the installation of CCTV cameras in all vehicles across the country. The PIL also requested the implementation of Section 136-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires the installation of body cams and dash cams in public vehicles. The bench, comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, showed reluctance to entertain the plea, stating that the matter should be addressed by the executive rather than the court. Justice Kaul said–
"You want this court to monitor where all cameras will be put, regulate traffic, call all states? Sorry, it's a matter to be looked into by the executive.
Case title: State of West Bengal v Suvendu Adhikari
Citation: 2023 INSC 647
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation in six FIRs related to Ram Navami violence from March 31 to April 3 to the National Investigation Agency.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that in the present case, after the High Court's order, the Central Government has exercised its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to ask the NIA to investigate these cases. It also noted that the Centre's subsequent notification has not been challenged by the State Government.
The bench further noted that Section 6(1) of the NIA Act casts an obligation on the part of the police officer to inform the State Government about any scheduled offence and later, the State Government is obliged to forward such information to the Central Government. However, the power of the Central Government to refer the investigation to the NIA is not constrained by the report submitted by the State Government.
Reports on hearings
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement V Raman Bhuraria
Citation: Diary No.- 23447 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that it will consider whether the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court on an accused requiring him to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, could be permitted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against the Delhi High Court order that had granted bail to the internal auditor of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL) in a money laundering case involving bank loan fraud of several crores.
During the course of the hearing Justice Abhay S Oka remarked that imposing the condition requiring the accused to share his google location to the IO, would amount to surveillance and is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution:
“Read clause D, can this be done under Article 21? Applicant is to drop google pin location from his mobile phone to IO, so IO will keep a track, because of this he will be under constant surveillance.”
Case Title: Hirendranath Gohain vs Union of India and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 51/2023
While refusing to stay the ongoing process of delimitation of the assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies being undertaken by the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge made to it by a group of non-BJP party leaders.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra agreed to hear a challenge to Section 8A of the Representation of Peoples Act and issued notice on the writ petitions filed by the opposition party leaders.
the court refused to stay the ongoing delimitation process in Assam. It held–
"The process of delimitation has commenced following the rescinding of the deferment. Section 8A makes a special provision for the 4 north eastern states and in case of these 4 states, upon rescinding of the deferment order, the delimitation exercise is to be carried out by the Election Commission. At this stage when delimitation has commenced, having due regard to the issuance of the draft proposal of June 2023, it would not be proper to interdict the process. Hence while reserving the constitutional challenge, we are not issuing any orders restraining Election Commission to take any further steps"
Case Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs High Court of Gujarat
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 432 Of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused a request for urgent hearing of an interim application seeking vacation of an order that stayed the promotion of 68 Gujarat magistrates to district judge posts.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave argued "The interim order is hurting us. Promotion has been stayed. We may be heard on the interim relief of vacating stay. These are drastic orders. Interim orders are against the law laid down by this court.”
Justice Roy however asked the Counsel why the said case needed to be prioritised. "Why should it be taken up tomorrow? Why should this case get precedence? We have far more pressing and important matters tomorrow. I decline your request. Can you guarantee that the other matters are less important?”
The Court informed Dave that it would not be able to decide the matter by July 31, when some of the judges are set to retire
Case Title: Mizoram Chakma Students Union And Anr. v. The State Of Mizoram
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14073/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court which dismissed a petition challenging the sub-classification within the Scheduled Tribes in Mizoram. The Court restored the petition to the High Court.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by the Mizoram Chakma Students Union who had challenged a notification issued by the State in 2021 which sub-classified scheduled tribes of Mizoram into the majority Zo (Mizo) tribe for whom 93% of seats were reserved, and Non-Mizos comprising Chakmas and communities residing permanently in Mizoram for whom 1% of seats were reserved.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not to have dismissed the plea merely because a reference was pending before a 7-judge bench. Accordingly, the court stated–
"We allow the appeal and set aside the Division Bench order. The proceedings stand restored before the High Court."
Case Title: OBC Advocates Welfare Association v. HC of MP
Citation: WP(C) No. 718/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a petition filed by the OBC Advocates Welfare Association assailing the legality of three circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court asking District and Sessions Courts to dispose of 25 of their oldest cases every quarter to clear pendency.
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was not inclined to issue notice in the petition. Not satisfied with the challenge to the circulars, Justice Kaul said, “It is a misconceived endeavour. This is some Association wanting a little extra mileage.”
Considering the same, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Association sought permission to withdraw it.
Case title: Kapil Dev and others v Union of India
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000536 - / 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian cricket team captain Kapil Dev challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which allow "the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed" and "the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law"
The Court observed that the High Courts can be moved for the reliefs sought. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition giving them liberty to approach the concerned High Court.
Your petitioners' standing is very high in the country, the will earn the same respect even if they go to HC", the bench said. "When the Supreme Court takes up such cases, it gives an impression that the high court is not capable of taking up such issues", it added.
National Policy On Menstrual Hygiene: Supreme Court Warns States & UTs Which Haven't Filed Responses
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v GoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 1000/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all States and Union Territories to submit their responses concerning their respective menstrual hygiene policies to the Union Government by August 31, 2023. The direction was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra in a plea seeking menstrual hygiene for school-going girls in the country.
CJI DY Chandrachud, dictating the order said – "We direct all States and Union Territories to file responses in the matter by August 31, 2023. A copy of this order shall be made available to all the Chief Secretaries of the States & UTs. In case this order is not complied with, this court will have to take recourse to the coercive arm of law. List the matter in the second week of November."
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court in the matter relating to criminal cases against MPs/MLAs has pointed out that as of July 2022, 44% of Lok Sabha members and 31% of Rajya Sabha members have criminal cases pending against them. He stated this in the 17th report submitted in the case relying on a study done by the Association for Democratic Reforms.
The Supreme Court has been monitoring the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs since 2016 in a PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Supreme Court Stays Fresh Proceedings Against Kerala Minister Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case
Case title: MR Ajayan vs State of Kerala and Antony Raju vs State of Kerala
Citation: Diary No. 18482-2023 and SLP(Crl) No. 7896/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed fresh proceedings against Kerala transport minister Antony Raju in the case for alleged tampering of an underwear evidence in a drugs case conducted by him as a junior lawyer in 1990.
The Court passed this interim order while issuing notice on two special leave petitions challenging the Kerala High Court's order quashing the criminal case against Kerala transport minister Antony Raju over
On March 10, 2023, a single judge of the Kerala High Court had quashed the criminal case on the technical reason that as per Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, cognizance cannot be taken on a police chargesheet in a case relating to fabrication of evidence in a court proceeding. At the same time, observing that the offence was of a serious nature interfering with the administration of justice, the High Court directed the Registry of the Court to take appropriate action to pursue the complaint under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
Challenging the High Court order quashing the criminal case against the Minister, a third party named MR Ajayan approached the Supreme Court. Minister Raju also filed another petition challenging the High Court order to the extent it allowed fresh proceedings to be initiated against him. Both the petitions were listed before a bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar.
Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Project 39A of National Law University-Delhi to intervene in a PIL seeking to abolish the present practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and to replace the same with less painful alternatives. The PIL was being heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
At the outset, the court decided to adjourn hearings in the matter owing to the Attorney General's absence today. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Project 39A sought intervention in the matter which was allowed by the bench
The PIL seeks to abolish the present practice of executing a death row convict by hanging which involves “prolonged pain and suffering” and to replace it with intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber in which a convict could die in just a matter of minutes.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a plea seeking the elimination of harmful chemicals and pesticides used in the country, raised concerns over the Union Government's repeated formation of expert committees to review the banning of pesticides. The court questioned the rationale behind appointing several committees when the initial expert committee had already recommended the banning of 27 pesticides in the country.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, said that the impression was that the Union Government kept appointing committees until they obtained a favorable decision.
At this juncture, CJI DY Chandrachud also questioned the government's approach, asking why the formation of a new committee was necessary after Khurana's recommendation. He sought clarification on the basis for the Rajendran committee's divergent stance and inquired about the reasons behind the change of view. He asked–
"Why do you have to make so many committees? Once Khurana recommended the ban of 27, why make another? What was the basis of Khurana committee recommending ban on 27? And then why did Rajendran committee say 3? Show us what led the Rajendran committee to take a different view than Khurana committee?...It seems that every time you have an adverse report from one committee you form a new committee. You keep appointing committees till you get a favourable decision.”
Case Title: People Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. The State of Nagaland
Citation: Civil Appeal No.3607/2016
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, called the Union Government out for not taking action in the State of Nagaland to implement the constitutional scheme of one-third reservation for women in municipal and town council elections.
The Court said that while the Centre takes 'extreme stands' against other State Governments, it does nothing against its own State Governments are violating the Constitution..
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the Central Govt cannot wash its hand of the issue especially when the political dispensation in the State is in line with that at Centre. Justice Kaul said, “You have to be roped in...You are one political dispensation so it would be easier for you to actively participate.”
Justice Kaul came down heavily on the Union Government for showing lack of willingness in implementing a constitutional scheme. He told ASG, KM Nataraj, “Don’t make me say that the Central Government is not willing to implement the Constitution, because I’ll say it.
Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Anr. v. Union Of India Cabinet Secretary Citation: W.P.(C) No. 333/2015
In the batch of petitions seeking the inclusion of all political parties as "public authorities" under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Supreme Court made oral remarks suggesting that political parties had valid reasons for not wanting to disclose the details of their candidate selection process.
Advocate PV Dinesh, representing CPI(M), expressed support for transparency regarding financial matters of political parties but argued against disclosing the reasons behind candidate selection and internal party discussions.
Acknowledging the concerns raised by him, CJI DY Chandrachud commented – "They have a point. They're saying that don't ask us why we selected a candidate."
The matter was before a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. However, due to the Attorney General's absence, the hearing was adjourned to August 1
Case title: Radhe Shyam Sharma v State of Bihar
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15059/2023
A retired judicial officer from Bihar has approached the Supreme Court challenging the penalty of deduction of 50% of pension imposed on him in a disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Patna High Court. He contended that he was suspended 4 days before his retirement on a complaint regarding "hasty decision" in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mitthal took note of the submission that the concerned case for which his suspension was ordered was not a part of the article of charges framed against the petitioner. The said case was belatedly added as a charge beyond the permissible time of 4 years as per the rules.
The bench issued notice on the petition on July 25.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a clarification regarding its order passed on July 24, 2023 in the Gyanvapi Mosque case, aiming to clear up any confusion surrounding the matter. The order, which was meant to dispose of the Interlocutory Application (IA) filed by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid Committee concerning the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey, mistakenly mentioned that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Committee challenging the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea against the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit was disposed of.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the trial court for ASI survey of the property, which was allowed on July 21. On July 24, the Supreme Court stayed the ASI survey till 5PM, July 26 to enable the Committee to challenge the order before the High Court.
At present, the hearing of the Mosque Committee's petition is ongoing before the bench led by Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court
Case Details: Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra & Ors.
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 952 of 2023
Only transgender persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or Economically Weaker Sections can avail the benefits of reservation, the Centre has told the Supreme Court in response to a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the top court’s 2014 judgement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.
In this historic ruling, a bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri not only recognised gender identities outside the male-female binary and granted legal recognition and protection to the ‘third gender’, but the court also directed the central and state governments to devise mechanisms for the realisation of their rights, including by according them the benefits of affirmative action.
Case Title: Gail (India) Limited v. National Green Tribunal
Citation: Civil Appeal Diary No(S). 18853/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change to consider the application of the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) for clearance for laying pipeline of 255 meters in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area in Tamil Nadu.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, noted that the matter was at the stage of being considered by the National Coastal Zone Management Authority coming under the Union Environment Ministry, but no clearance had been given yet. GAIL has filed an application before the authority for clearance to use the pipeline, which has already been laid:
“..we find that at this stage a direction ought to be issued to the third respondent (Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change) to consider the application made by the appellant for grant of clearance for the pipeline already laid by the appellant herein, more particularly, with regard to 255 meters which is stated to be in the CRZ zone out of a total 29 kms.”
Case Details: Megala v. The State | V Senthil Balaji v. The State| Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. Megala
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8652-8653 of 2023| Diary No. 28176 of 2023| Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8750 of 2023
The power of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to make an arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be conflated with the power to seek the remand of an accused in its own custody, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday.
“The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is an inquiry for the purposes of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In other words, the ED officers conduct inquiries, gather evidence, and make arrests once a conclusion of guilt is reached before filing a complaint. All statements recorded during this inquiry are admissible. Now, in this context, the question arises: If ED officers are neither police officers, nor officers in charge of a police station, and the ‘investigation’ is in the nature of an inquiry, then under what power will they seek police remand?”
A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was hearing a batch of pleas in connection with the ED seeking custody of DMK leader and Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam in the state. The minister and his wife have both filed separate petitions challenging a verdict of the Madras High Court holding that the central agency was entitled to take him into custody.
Case Title: Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
The first view claimed that the Hindu Marriage Act was a beneficial legislation and its intent was to confer social status of legitimacy on a group of innocent children who were otherwise treated as illegitimate. Further, no child should be considered 'illegitimate' as it was the marriages that resulted in the bearing of such children which had a degree of illegitimacy, not the child. Thus, the status of legitimacy given to children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act also provided them a right in their parents' ancestral property.
The opposing view that arose in the matter was that the legitimacy conferred on a child by Section 16 did not mean that the said child could be raised at the level of a coparcener as a coparcener property in Hindu succession, depended upon 'survivorship' and not 'succession'. restoration of legitimacy on the child should not allow the invasion on the rights of other innocent coparceners. Stating that a reasonable classification existed between children born out of a void or voidable marriage and a valid marriage, it was argued that not providing illegitimate children with rights in coparcener property was a 'balancing act'
Cooperation With Investigation Cannot Mean That Accused Says "Yes" To Allegations: Justice SK Kaul
In an interesting courtroom exchange today, Supreme Court judge Justice SK Kaul orally remarked that cooperation with the investigation by the accused did not necessarily mean that the accused person had to say "yes" to the allegations. Justice Kaul added that the police could not merely claim that an accused individual was not cooperating during an investigation and emphasized the necessity of providing concrete evidence to support these assertions.
"Cooperation with investigation cannot mean that you call him and he says yes. Police can't just say that accused is not cooperating, it has to show how he isn't cooperating.” he said.
Case Details: Jaya Thakur v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1106 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the term of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) SK Mishra till September 15 in "larger public interest". Mishra's term was to end on July 31 as per the July 11 judgment which held the previous extensions given to the officer to be illegal.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol partly allowed Centre's plea to extend Mishra's term till October 15, 2023. The bench however added that no further extensions will be allowed to him.
"In ordinary circumstances, we would not have accepted such an application having held that the extension granted to him was illegal. We allowed him to continue till July 31 to allow smooth transition. Taking into consideration larger national interest, we permit ED director to continue for some more period. We add that no further application would be entertained for grant of extension. We also direct that the respondent will cease to be the director of ED with effect of midnight of 15th/16th September 2023", the bench ordered.
The Centre cited the involvement of the outgoing ED director in the review of India’s anti-money laundering mechanisms by the Financial Action Task Force(FATF), a global peer review body.
The bench comprising Justices Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which set aside the bail granted to one Fasahat Ali Khan, who was accused of forcefully demolishing the house of one person in Rampur using bulldozer and looting Rs.20,000 from the house in 2016.
The objection made by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the grant of bail to a person accused of bulldozing a house elicited a comment from the Supreme Court.
“So you agree that bulldozing houses is wrongful? Then you will of course not follow the principle of bulldozing houses? Should we record your statement that you say that bulldozing houses is wrong? You just now argued that bulldozing houses is wrong."
The AAG laughed and said– "My plea is limited to this case. I will not exceed that."
Ultimately, the bench set aside the High Court order and restored the bail granted by the trial court. "The mere existence of cases during a particular period of time albeit large number but prior to the issue itself shall not be a ground for cancellation", observed the bench in the order.
Kashmiri Pandit Body Supports Abrogation Of J&K Special Status; Says Article 370 Was Discriminatory
In yet another development in the case pertaining to the abrogation of Article 370, which the Supreme Court is set to start hearing from August 2, 2023, certain intervenors, advocating for the rights of Kashmiri Pandits, have filed intervention applications in support of the central government's decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Additionally, these applications have urged the Supreme Court to recognize the violence inflicted upon the Kashmiri Pandit community between 1989 and 1991 as a "direct or indirect consequence of the powers granted to the Jammu & Kashmir State government under Article 370". The applications have been filed by an organisation representing Kashmiri Hindus, the Youth 4 Panun Kashmir, as well as Virinder Kaul, a Kashmiri pandit social activist.
Case Details: Megala v. The State | V Senthil Balaji v. The State| Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. Megala
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8652-8653 of 2023| Diary No. 28176 of 2023| Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8750 of 2023
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal expressed his apprehension over the ‘abuse’ of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002 to target political opposition in the country. He made this remark on Thursday during the Supreme Court hearing on the legality of DMK MP and Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji’s custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam in the state. Balaji and his wife have both filed separate petitions challenging a verdict of the Madras High Court holding that the central agency was entitled to seek police remand and take him into custody.
The senior counsel told a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh:
“What I am worried about is that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been used and abused enough. My worry is that. We stand here for our clients, who may win, or lose. But, the more important thing is the future of India in terms of the powers of the Enforcement Directorate, which has come into question. This is not straightforward.”
Supreme Court Expresses Anguish At States Not Implementing Prohibition Of Manual Scavenging Act
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India,
Citation: Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a PIL on implementation of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 asked the Centre, why the states have not taken action on implementation of the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing the matter
During the course of the hearing Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court Adv. K Parameshwar pointed out that only 5 states have so far constituted a state level survey committee as required under the Act. These states include Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Karnataka, Rajasthan and West Bengal.
Justice Ravindra Bhat asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati- “Why are the states not taking action? Think of a mechanism where the states can report to the Union. We can mandate the committees to be constituted within 2 months and each of them will report to the Ministry of Social Justice. We can also mandate that they meet atleast once a month.”
To this, the ASG responded that a draft will be submitted before the Court with suggestions of directions to be issued to states. The Amicus Curiae suggested that the central monitoring committee be empowered to coordinate between states.
Supreme Court Hears PIL Petition Raising Corruption Allegations Against Arunachal Pradesh Govt
Case title: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v State of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: SLP(C) No. 034696 / 2010
The Supreme Court on Thursday pondered on whether to entertain a PIL which raises allegations of corruption regarding certain tenders floated by Arunachal Pradesh government years ago at a belated stage.
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing a Special Leave Petition where the petitioners alleged that contracts were given by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh without floating any tender. The former Chief Minister of the state and beneficiary contractor were parties in the original SLP. An Interlocutory Application was also filed impleading the present CM as Respondent
According to the petitioner, only the High Court (HC) and Supreme Court (SC) possess the authority to order a CBI or any other investigating agency to look into such cases.
The court scheduled further hearings for directions in four weeks and in the meanwhile asked Adv Prashant Bhushan to submit a short note of his compilation for assisting the court.
The Government of India, in response to the distressing incident involving the video of two women in Manipur being paraded naked and subjected to sexual violence amidst the ethnic conflict in the State, has decided to entrust the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with the investigation in the matter. The step has been taken with the consent of the State Government of Manipur considering the gravity of the offence.
In a recent affidavit filed in the matter, the Union Government has also requested the Supreme Court to transfer the trial out of the State of Manipur to any other State. The Centre has also sought a direction to complete the trial within six months of filing the chargesheet.
Saying that it has "zero tolerance towards crimes against women", the Government stated in its affidavit that several remedial measures have been taken to support the victims.
On July 20, 2023, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the distressing incident and had asked the Centre and the State Government to inform it of the steps taken to bring the perpetrators into law.
Case Title: Rajan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.485/2021
The Supreme Court recently closed a plea filed by a Sri Lankan citizen for his premature release after being incarcerated in India for over 35 years. The matter was closed on the submission of the Tamil Nadu Government that his release had been arranged for by providing him documents for his travel issued by the Sri Lankan Government.
A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol recorded in its order:
“Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu states that the documents issued by the Government of Sri Lanka to enable the petitioner to travel to Sri Lanka have been handed over to the petitioner and in fact, air ticket has been handed over to the petitioner which shows that he is traveling to Sri Lanka on 26.07.2023. A Copy of the ticket is placed on record. Hence, no further orders are required at this stage.”
The Supreme Court has rescheduled to July 31, 2023, the hearing of Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing's plea challenging the summons issued against him by a Manipur Court. The summons was in connection with his alleged defamation of the Metei community during an interview with 'The Wire.'
Originally slated for today (July 28, 2023), the matter was supposed to be heard by the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. However, due to the Chief Justice's absence, the hearing could not take place as planned.
Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing, who serves as the Head of the Department for Political Science at the University of Hyderabad, found himself in legal trouble after he was issued a summons notice by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on July 6, 2023. He stands accused of defaming the Metei community during an interview with journalist Karan Thapar on 'The Wire.' As a result, he is facing charges under Sections 153A (promoting enmity on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or language), 200 (knowingly declaring something false), 295(A) (deliberate acts to outrage religious feeling), 298 (verbally outraging religious feelings), 505(1), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) raising alarm over an increase in cases of lynching and mob violence against Muslims, particularly by ‘cow vigilantes’, despite the court’s Tehseen Poonawalla ruling. In this 2018 judgment, the top court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the union and state governments regarding the prevention of lynching and mob violence.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala sought the response of the Union home ministry and the police chiefs of the states of Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana today
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Cryptocurrency Fraud In Four Different States
Case Title: Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar V. State of Gujarat
Citation: Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(S).268/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar, booked in connection with a cryptocurrency fraud in four different states. He has been accused of duping innocent investors to become part of a sham exchange whereby investors were lured into selling cryptocurrency.
A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta granted bail in the case registered by Gujarat police in Surat noting that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed and the trial may take some time to commence. The Apex Court also took into consideration that he had been in custody since 30.04.2022.
The Court however imposed several bail conditions including the surrender of his passport and restricted him from indulging in the sale or purchase of crypto currency.
“We, however, find merit in the apprehension of the State that the possibility of misuse of concession of bail cannot be ruled out as the petitioner might abscond or start the business of cryptocurrency again to allure the innocent investors.” The Court stated while imposing stringent bail conditions.
Case title: K Muthu Sumathi v. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
Diary Number: 27546/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in a petition filed by K Muthu Sumathi, a candidate of Communist Party of India challenging the election of AIADMK candidate K.Chokkayee as a Councillor in Madurai Corporation in 2022. The petitioner sought a recount of votes alleging irregularities by erring officials. The officials had declared an AIADMK candidate as the winner by 4 votes.
The petitioner highlighted that the Election Rules mandate two key obligations- handing over data that contains vote details to the candidate and providing a reasonable opportunity for raising grievances and requesting a recount of votes. He submitted that these obligations were not fulfilled.
Supreme Court Directs ED To Withdraw LOC Against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee & Wife Rujira Banerjee
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee And Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 2806-2807/2022
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) today to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee in connection with the money laundering allegations over the alleged coal scam. The direction was passed by a bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in an application filed by the Banerjees seeking to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The ED told the Court that the petitioners will be allowed to travel abroad after informing their travel plans one week in advance.
Justice Kaul said– "The problem is this- someone goes, you say they can go. The pendency of LOC creates a scenario that someone is stopped somewhere. That is not done. Your time wasted, my time wasted. In criminal cases, prosecution has to prove case beyond reasonable doubt Mr Raju. You know that. That principle cannot change...there is an LOC, you recall the LOC."
