Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Expands Definition Of 'Vulnerable Witnesses'; Directs HCs To Frame Vulnerable Witness Deposition SchemeCase Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and AnrCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80Noting that "the need for and importance for setting up special facilities which cater to the creation of a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses has been engaging the attention of this court over the last two decades", the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions in this regard.The bench of Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing a Miscellaneous Application as to the wider issue on the need to set up vulnerable witness court rooms in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu. In 2019, notices were directed to be issued to all the High Courts through the Registrars of the respective High Courts, for status report with regard to the establishment of the vulnerable witness deposition court rooms in compliance of the directions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu [(2018) 11 SCC 163]. 2. Leniency Can't Be Shown For Drunken Driving Merely Because No Major Accident Occurred : Supreme CourtCase Title: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) & Thr LRs vs Sanya Sahayak & OrsCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81While dealing with the case of an employee's dismissal from service after being found guilty of driving under influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court of India has observed that merely because no major accident occurred leneincy can't be shown for the micconduct of drunken driving. The Court stated that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. "Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol" Supreme Court said.A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee charged with causing an accident under influence of alcohol, against Allahabad High Court's judgement dismissing a writ petition refusing to set aside the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.3. Voluntariness And Animus Necessary For Execution Of Valid Gift Deed ; Donee To Discharge Burden Of Proving That He Exerted No Influence: Supreme CourtCase name: Keshav vs Gian ChandCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82The Supreme Court observed that voluntariness and animus are necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed."When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.4. High Court While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 401 CrPC Cannot Convert Acquittal Into Conviction: Supreme CourtCase name: Joseph Stephen vs SanthanasamyCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction."If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.5. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme CourtCase name: State of Punjab vs Anshika GoyalCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation.The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab.In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.6. Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Murder Accused; Says Patna High Court Ignored Gravity, Nature & Seriousness of CrimeCase Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags