- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 Oct 2022 1:53 PM GMT
JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Writ Of Quo Warranto Can Be Issued Where An Appointment Has Not Been Made In Accordance With Law : Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed thus while dismissing the appeals filed by the State...
JUDGMENT THIS WEEK
The Supreme Court observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed thus while dismissing the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal and Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which had set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University. The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Anindya Sundar Das, an alumnus of Calcutta University and a practicing advocate seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University.
The Supreme Court observed that an order of issuance of process is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court made this observation while setting aside a summoning order of a magistrate in a complaint filed under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
"The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself.", the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed. The court clarified that such an order need not contain detailed reason.
The Supreme Court held that, the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory.
However, the consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha clarified.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has held that when a part- payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 NI Act would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.
The Supreme Court reiterated that positive action proximate to the time of suicide on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide should be established for conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by a High Court to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation in an appropriate case.
"The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice.". the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed that there is no bar in taking on record a counter claim filed long after filing of written statement but before framing of issues.
In this case, the counter-claim in question was filed nearly 13 years after filing of the written statement. Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dealing with the trial of suit in question, had accepted the notice of motion moved by the defendant-appellant so as to take the belatedly filed counter-claim on record. The Division Bench of the High Court later set aside the said order and remitted the matter for consideration afresh, essentially on the ground that the plaintiffs were not afforded adequate opportunity to file reply and to contest the said notice of motion.
The Supreme Court today passed a split verdict on a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.
Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational institutions in the State.
Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the hijab ban case.
While Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the Karnataka High Court verdict, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia proposed to set aside the controversial Government Order passed by the State of Karnataka that effectively allowed college development committees to place a ban on the hijab in government colleges in the State. A batch of 23 petitions was filed in this connection, some of which were writ petitions placed directly before the Supreme Court, while others were appeals by special leave preferred against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court upholding the impugned order. However, the matter has been placed before the Chief Justice of India since the Division Bench, comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivered a split verdict, with Justice Gupta moving to dismiss the appeals.
"Secularism is applicable to all citizens, therefore, permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbols would be antithesis to secularism", the Supreme Court judge Justice Hemant Gupta observed in his judgment in Hijab case.
The judge observed that the accommodation sought would result in different treatment of students in secular schools who may be following varied religions beliefs.
In the judgment in the Karnataka hijab ban case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that "asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity".
Justice Dhulia opined that asking the girl student to remove the hijab at the school gate "is clearly violative of the Fundamental Right given to her under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Departments Of Union Of India Should Not Take Contradictory Stands , Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the departments of the Union of India should not take contradictory stands. It does not augur well for the Union of India to speak in two contradictory voices, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar said.
The court suggested the Union of India to evolve a mechanism to ensure that whenever such conflicting stands are taken by different departments, they should be resolved at the governmental level itself.
Both Judges Of SC Bench Did Not Decide Whether Hijab Is An Essential Religious Practice
Though the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in Hijab ban case, both the judges of the bench did not decide the question whether the wearing of hijab is considered as an essential religious practice. The Karnataka High Court had held that hijab was not an essential religious practice of Islam and hence the petitioners could not claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The essential religious practices of the followers of Sikh faith cannot be made basis of wearing of hijab/headscarf by the believers of Islamic faith, Justice Hemant Gupta observed in his judgment in the Karnataka Hijab Ban Case.
Before the Apex Court bench, it was argued that since Kirpan is allowed in terms of Explanation I to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the students who want to wear headscarf should be equally protected as in the case of the followers of the Sikh students. They also relied on a judgment of Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurleen Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. that held that the essential religious practice of the followers of Sikh faith includes retaining hair unshorn, which is one of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion.
The Supreme Court observed that employers have to deposit the employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date for availing deduction under Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz. the employers' contribution and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer, the bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
The Supreme Court observed that provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the Jammu and Kashmir - State Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed thus while allowing appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu which directed to determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR 2013. The lands in question were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
The Supreme Court held that a stock broker should obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates.
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna disagreed with the Delhi High Court judgment that a single registration with Securities and Exchange Board of India( "SEBI") is sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and functions from several stock exchanges.
Hijab Verdict : Judges Express Contrasting Views Regarding Fraternity & Discipline
An interesting aspect of the hijab case judgment of the Supreme Court is the contrasting, if not diametrically opposite, views expressed by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the concepts of fraternity, diversity and discipline. While Justice Gupta is of the opinion that allowing religious headscarf in the classroom will fragment the concept of fraternity, Justice Dhulia expressed that it can expose students to diversity and enable them to inculcate tolerance towards religious and cultural differences.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, while proposing to overturn the controversial ban on the hijab in government colleges in Karnataka, held that the doctrine of essential religious practice did not have to be invoked at all to put the matter to rest. Justice Dhulia explained on Thursday while giving a conspectus of his dissenting opinion –
"The main thrust of my judgement is that this entire concept of essential religious practices, in my opinion, was not essential for the disposal of this dispute. The High Court took the wrong path there…This was simply a question of Article 19(1)(a), its applicability, and Article 25(1) primarily. And it's ultimately a matter of choice. Nothing more, nothing less."
The Supreme Court observed that 'just compensation' exceeding claimed amount can be awarded in motor accident compensation claim cases.
The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari observed.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for alleged murder of his wife and his four kids.Without any hesitation and with disappointment, we state that the case on hand is one of most perfunctory investigation, the CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala remarked.
Project 39A of the National Law University Delhi gave legal assistance to the appellant in the matter and briefed Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy who appeared for the appellant.
The Supreme Court observed that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, the bench of Justices S.Abdul Nazeer and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh observed that, where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs.
In this case, the Trial Court decreed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal solely on the ground that one of the plaintiffs having died and as her legal representatives were not brought on record, the suit qua her stood abated and since it was a joint claim, the decree is a nullity. The High Court also dismissed the second appeal on the same ground.
The Supreme Court has directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC).
The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that after due verification, the amount of central sales tax paid by Tata Motors with respect to the transaction be transferred to Jharkhand immediately on verification. The State of Jharkhand was directed to adjust it towards the central sales tax liability of Tata Motors on sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, which were found to be in the nature of inter-state sales.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli held that no offence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out if the cheque is presented for the full amount without endorsing the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the cheque.
The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally enforceable debt" as per Section 138 NI Act, when it has been presented for encashment without endorsing the part-payment. Part-payments must be endorsed on the cheque as per Section 56 of the NI Act. If such endorsement is made, the cheque can be presented for the balance amount, and the offence under Section 138 NI Act will be attracted if such a cheque with endorsement of the part-payment gets dishonoured, explained the Court.
Early Conclusion Of Trial Would Enhance People's Faith In Justice Delivery System : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that early conclusion of criminal trials would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed thus while disposing an application filed by former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy seeking modification of bail condition to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
NEWS THIS WEEK
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list tomorrow the petition filed by Delhi Government Minister Satyender Jain challenging the Delhi High Court order which upheld the transfer of his bail plea to another court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India UU Lalit for urgent listing tomorrow. The CJI agreed to list the matter tomorrow as the first item.
Amidst the speculations about the Supreme Court collegium meeting held on September 30, a joint statement has been released by the collegium members stating that the said meeting has been discharged in view of the Union Law Minister's letter to the Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on October 7 asking him to name his successor.
The statement released by the Supreme Court collegium today has revealed an interesting fact - that the collegium has introduced a procedure for scrutinising the judgments authored by High Court judges who are under consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court. The collegium has also introduced a procedure to assess the relative merit of candidates on an objective criteria. However, the exact parameters of the objective criteria is not known.
In a contempt plea alleging blatant and disobedience by the DGP, Uttarakhand Police and DGP, Delhi Police to take action with respect to hate speeches made by prominent persons in Dharma Sansad in the State of Uttarakhand and an event organised by Hindu Yuva Vahini in NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli directed the Uttarakhand Government and the Government of NCT of Delhi to file affidavits explaining the factual position and the action taken by them.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking to declare cows as the National Animal of India. The petition also sought to protect cows within the country.
A Bench of Justices S K Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka allowed the petitioners to withdraw the plea after a request to that effect was made at the end of the hearing today.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Tomorrow ED's Petition Challenging Bail Granted To Anil Deshmukh
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list tomorrow the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to NCP leader and former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a PMLA case.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the ED's petition before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The bench led by CJI directed that the matter be listed before a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court on Monday posted to October 20 the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to transfer the trial in the gold smuggling case from Kerala.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat allowed the application filed by the State of Kerala seeking impleadment in the ED's petition and issued notice to the State. State has been allowed to file its reply by this Friday. The bench said that it will dispose of the matter on the next hearing date.
Supreme Court Seeks Transcripts Of Yati Narsinghanand's Statements In Contempt Case
While considering a petition seeking criminal contempt action against Yati Narsinghanand, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three weeks' time to the petitioner to produce the transcripts of his interview in which derogatory remarks were made against the Court.
A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi was considering a petition filed by activist Shachi Nelli. She filed the petition based on the sanction granted by former Attorney General for India KK Venugopal in January 2022 for initiating contempt action against Yati Narsinghanand for his remarks on judiciary.
Plea To Transfer Cases Challenging Waqf Act : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To File Proper Affidavit
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the petitioner seeking transfer of petitions challenging the Waqf Act to the Top Court from High Courts to file a "proper affidavit" detailing the other pending cases.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the transfer petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya. On the last hearing date, Justice Joseph had said that he was pained to note the petitioner linking the case to religion. The petitioner is challenging Waqf Act on the ground that it is violating the secular fabric of the country by conferring special powers to deal with properties dedicated as per Muslim law.
The Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar Association has strongly condemned the letter circulated by one Mr Rashid Khan Pathan, "vilifying" Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India.
The hearing of the petition filed by St.Stephen's College in the Supreme Court challenging the admission criteria laid down by the Delhi University got adjourned on Monday after Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the presiding judge of the bench, recused on the ground that he was an alumnus of the college.
The Supreme Court heard a Public Interest Litigation filed against rising hate speech against minority communities in the country. While noting that the atmosphere of the nation was being sullied by hate speeches and that they need to be curbed, the bench bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat asked the petitioner to file specific instances of hate speech instead of giving a vague overview of the problem.
Supreme Court Agrees To Take Up Plea To Improve Judicial Infrastructure Of Trial Courts
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition concerning infrastructure of all trial courts in the country. The matter was heard by a bench comprising of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.
At the outset, the CJI remarked that the issue had been engaging the attention of the Chief justices and Chief Ministers conference and it had been seriously given a thought. Therefore, the issue could not be entertained as an Article 32 petition.
While considering BJP MP Manoj Tiwari's plea challenging the ban on firecrackers in Delhi, the Supreme Court expressed concerns regarding the pollution in Delhi.
"You're a permanent resident of NCR right? Why do you want to increase the pollution?", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari asked the petitioner's counsel Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed writ petition seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register political parties which fail to publish details regarding criminal cases of its candidates.
While dismissing the petition, a Division Bench of Justices SK Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka observed the petition is "misconceived" as the petitioner did not file any representation before the ECI as is required by law before filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking To Allow Parental Observation Of Students In Schools
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat heard a petition concerning parental observation in schools to ensure safety on Monday. The Public Interest Litigation was filed by Advocate M. Purushothaman who sought guidelines for parents to observe students in all schools across the country on a turn-by-turn basis.
At the outset, while referring to school safety as a burning issue, the petitioner stated that there were three universal suggestions which were made to deal with school safety issues. He stated that the solutions included CCTV installation in schools, parental observation or to deploy police forces.
Supreme Court Pulls Up Rajasthan Govt Over Unsatisfactory Affidavit On COVID-19 Death Compensation
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Rajasthan Government over an "unsatisfactory" affidavit filed regarding the steps on ex-gratia payment to the family members of people who had died due to CoVID-19. The bench observed that, "Affidavit filed by the Rajasthan Government is not satisfactory at all."
"State is not doing any charity. There is a direction issued by this court and persons affected by COVID-19 should be treated with sympathy", the bench comprising of Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari observed. The counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan apprised the Court that all necessary steps are being taken. Accordingly, the matter has been posted to Friday.
In a PIL seeking life-time ban on convicted politicians, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli directed all the High Courts to file an affidavit before it, indicating the number of criminal cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs pending for a period in excess of 5 years and explaining the steps taken to ensure expeditious conclusion of these trials. The affidavits were directed to be filed within 4 weeks.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Unilateral Extra Judicial Talaqs
Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J. B. Pardiwala issued notice on a plea filed seeking to declare all forms of unilateral extra judicial Talaqs including Talaq-e-Kinaya and Talaq-e-Bain as void and unconstitutional for being arbitrary irrational and contrary to Article 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari has refused to completely lift the bail condition imposed on former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy that he should not enter Bellary district while the trial in the multi-crore illegal mining case is going on.
However, the Court has granted the mining baron a temporary relief by permitting him to visit and stay at Bellary district till November 6 on account of his daughter having delivered a child recently.
The Supreme Court noted that its former Judge, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, appointed to take over the process of amending the sports body's constitution, preparing its electoral rolls, and conducting elections to the executive body of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), is at liberty to take a holistic perspective while amending the Constitution of the Indian Olympic Association. However, while doing so the requirements of the Charter of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are to be taken into consideration to avoid any future complication in this regard.
The Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the incumbent judicial members of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to continue in office till further order, subject to their agreeing to the same.
Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Mahale appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at present there is one vacancy at the Tribunal and by 15th October, 2022 there would be two vacancies, leaving behind only one judicial member to shoulder the entire workload. Noting that the said vacancies would bring the Tribunal to a grinding halt, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli extended the tenure of the judicial members until further orders of the Apex Court.
A Division Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph of the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition seeking a declaration that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution were "ultra vires the Constitution and void ab initio". The case of the petitioner appearing in person was that the impugned Part was "contradictory to the true spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution" and "against the law of nature". The Bench, also comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, noted the irony in invoking Article 32 which is also a Fundamental Right, to pray for the deletion of Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court observed that the State of West Bengal usurped the powers of the Chancellor (WB Governor) while re-appointing Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University.
Holding so, the Court dismissed the petitions filed by the State of West Bengal and Banerjee assailing the order of the Calcutta High Court, whereby the decision of the State to re-appoint Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University was set aside.
CJI UU Lalit Recommends Justice DY Chandrachud As The Next Chief Justice Of India
Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit has written to the Union Government recommending the name of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, the second senior judge of the Supreme Court, as the next Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to prevent undertrial prisoners from being produced in court to ensure safety of judges, prisoners and others inside the courtroom. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. While advising the petitioner to withdraw the petition, the bench underlined that an accused being produced in the court room was a fundamental part of the criminal justice system.
Palghar Lynching- No Objection To Transfer Of Probe To CBI, Maharashtra Govt Tells Supreme Court
The Maharashtra Government has told the Supreme Court that it has no objection to handing over the 2020 Palghar lynching case to the CBI. Two Hindu seers namely, Maharaj Kalpavriksha Giri @ Chikna Baba and Shri Sushil Giri Maharaj were lynched to death by a frenzied mob in April 2020 in Palghar.
The two seers were travelling from Mumbai to Surat when their car was stopped by a mob of over 200 people. This mob then proceeded to upturn the car and pelt stones, eventually resulting in the death of both seers as well as the driver of the car.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on a plea filed by Delhi Minister Satyendra Jain assailing the order of the Delhi High Court which upheld the transfer of his bail plea to another court.
A bench comprising of Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari sought response from the Enforcement Directorate to be filed by 19th October and listed the matter for further consideration on 31st October. The bench also added that, "we are not on merits of the case at all, we are only on the case of transfer."
The Attorney-General for India, R. Venkataramani informed a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the Central Government was "keen" to pursue the curative petition filed against Union Carbide Corporation (now Dow Chemicals) seeking additional compensation to the victims of the Bhopal Gas tragedy.
In 2010, the Government of India had filed a curative petition praying for, inter alia, Rs 7,844 crores in excess of the settlement amount already disbursed by Union Carbide (now owned by Dow Chemicals), contending that the settlement was based on incorrect assumptions about the quantum of deaths, injuries, and losses.
Supreme Court To Consider Plea Seeking Shelters For Homeless Citizens On November 29
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi heard a Public Interest Litigation seeking a mechanism to ensure shelters for homeless citizens.
At the outset, the CJI remarked that there had been considerable improvement in the issue since 2003 and night shelters had been put up at different places across the country. However, petitioner-in-person Advocate ER Kumar insisted that much was left to be desired as there was a vast population of the country which remained homeless and did not have any shelter to live in. To this, the CJI highlighted that at the central level, policies were made and it was the implementation of the schemes which were an issue.
Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea Challenging Bail Granted To Anil Deshmukh
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to NCP leader and former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a PMLA case.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli however clarified that the observations made by the High Court will not influence the trial and are only confined to the issue of bail.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its order on whether to refer to larger bench a petition pending from 1986 challenging the validity of the practice of excommunication among the Dawoodi Bohras.
The 5-judge bench will decide on whether to refer the issue to the 9-judge bench in the Sabarimala review case which is considering the larger issues relating to essential religious practices.
The Supreme Court expressed that let there be a meeting between the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and the members of the infrastructure committee of the High Court and the recruitment committee of the High Court with the Chief secretary, Finance Secretary, Law Secretary and Revenue Secretary of the State of UP within a period of one week to discuss the issues with respect to the infrastructure and other budgetary provisions for the lower judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India orally opined that the Maharashtra State Board Of Wakfs's concern should be about protecting the Waqfs and not dealing with other public trusts.
"The Wakf Board will not have jurisdiction over a public trust", a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy further remarked orally while considering a batch of 57 SLPs including the Maharashtra State Board Of Wakfs.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Ajay Rastogi listed a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 on 14th November 2022. The court also directed the Union of India to file its response by 31st October 2022. The petitions have been filed against the Act inasmuch as it bars remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947.
Challenge To Demonetisation Not Academic : Supreme Court Seeks Affidavits Of Union & RBI
Persuaded by the petitioners to change its preliminary view that the challenge to demonetisation has become an academic issue, the Supreme Court commenced hearing the legal arguments raised by petitioners on merits.
After the arguments of the day, the Court asked the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India to file a comprehensive affidavit in response to the petitioners' arguments, especialy the one that Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act does not authorize the Union to completely cancel currency notes of particular denominations. The petitioners argue that Section 26(2) empower the Centre to cancel currency notes of a particular series and not the entire currency notes.
The Supreme Court directed that no one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case.
The Court issued a slew of directions to the Director Generals of Police and Home Secretaries of all States to ensure that reference to Section 66A is removed from all pending cases. The Court also directed that the bareacts of the IT Act published should adequately inform the readers that Section 66A has been invalidated.
Rape Allegations Against BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain Bogus : Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi To Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard plea filed by BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in connection with an alleged 2018 rape case. Hussain has approached the top court challenging an order of the Delhi High Court directing registration of FIR against him. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed all proceedings against him in the matter. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S Ravindra Bhat, on Wednesday, stated that the matter may be heard again on 18th October but not necessarily by the same combination of the bench.
Nearly six years after the controversial demonetisation of high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the November 8 circular issued by the Ministry of Finance that set the ball rolling. The five-judge Bench, comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, had earlier wondered if anything survived in the issue after all these years and whether the exercise had become merely "academic".
The Supreme Court of India clarified that that there is no bar on the High Courts to hear matters pertaining to the issue of stray dogs in the country.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari clarified that an earlier order of the Supreme Court on November 18, 2015 did not intend for all proceedings before High Courts to come to a standstill, in cases pertaining to stray dogs.
The Supreme Court urged the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, to take adequate measures to ensure the personal safety of an investigative journalist who was allegedly being stalked and attacked in connection with a corporate fraud he had been investigating. The matter was heard by bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Ajay Rastogi.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided to examine the legal arguments raised by the petitioners against the 2016 demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, refusing to accept the arguments of the Centre that the issue is now merely "academic".
The five-judge Bench - comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna- changed its initial view that the issue has become academic and allowed the petitioners to commence arguments.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the issue as to whether every charitable trust established by someone professing Islam is necessarily a waqf, on the contours of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and Waqf Act, 1995.
The bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy heard Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for 3 respondent-trusts.
The Supreme Court refused to grant urgent listing for a matter pertaining to the bursting of green crackers on Diwali. The bench stated that the matter shall be dealt with by the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner in question had earlier approached the Delhi High Court challenging the direction issued by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on September 14 for a complete ban on manufacturing, storage, sale and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers till January 1, 2023 in the national capital. The plea was moved by two entities, engaged in storing and selling of green crackers, claiming that there was no reason to include green crackers in the ban.
Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea Challenging Exclusion From Delhi HC Senior Designations
The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of an Advocate challenging the procedure adopted by Delhi High Court while designating 55 advocates as Senior Advocates out of total of 237 applicants. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The petitioner-in-person, Advocate Harvinder Chowdhury submitted that she was aggrieved by the not being appointed as a Senior Advocate despite being fit for the role.
Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Ban On Movie "Thank God", Alleges Insult To God Chitragupta
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the upcoming Bollywood movie "Thank God".
The petition filed by Shri Chitragupta Welfare Trust seeks directions that the trailers and posters of the said movie should be removed from Youtube and other electronic platforms. The petitioner further seeks a direction to stop the release of the said movie in theatres or on the OTT platforms.
Supreme Court granted two weeks to the Centre to look into the matter pertaining to the issuance of Aadhaar cards to nearly 27 lakh persons who were added in the supplementary list of Assam National Register of Citizens published in August 2019. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli today directed the Centre to file a counter affidavit to the petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr.Subramanian Swamy seeking the status of National Heritage for Ram Setu.
The Tamil Nadu government has filed its reply in the special leave petitions filed by Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts Nalini Srihar and R.P. Ravichandran seeking premature release.
The reply affidavit filed by the State government submitted that it is the competent authority to take decision of the petitioner's pleas under Article 161 of the Constitution. It further stated that the decision of the cabinet dated September 9, 2018 pertaining to recommending the remission of life sentence to the Governor is final.
The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to file an updated affidavit in a plea seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against officials, agencies, contractors or any other person involved in engaging or employing manual scavengers resulting in their death at work, within a period of 3 weeks.
Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Madhavi Divan apprised the Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that substantive developments have taken place on ground, since the filing of the previous affidavit in the matter.
Supreme Court To Hear Challenge Against Jammu & Kashmir Delimitation Orders On November 16
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear the petitions challenging the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the notifications of 2020, 2021 and 2022, on November 16.
Before a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, the advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that he's challenging the number of seats and division and readjustment in Jammu & Kashmir.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed a writ petition praying to stop/ban the release of web series Mirzapur 2 whose launching was proposed on 23.10.2020. The petition had further prayed for directing the government to set up a pre-screening committee for web series, films or other programs which were directly released on online platforms.
A transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to save her marriage before the Top Court took a very dramatic turn before the Supreme Court.
Not only did the hearing witness certain pertinent remarks passed by a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka on marriage and how one shouldn't expect the impossible from their partners but also saw a wide range of tall allegations made by the estranged husband-wife duo.
The Supreme Court resumed hearing on the issue as to whether every charitable trust established by someone professing Islam is necessarily a waqf, on the contours of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and Waqf Act, 1995
The bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy orally suggested to the parties an alternative route for resolving the present controversy.
While setting aside the Gujarat High Court order in a case of dispute between Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZL) and Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), the Supreme Court observed that it is surprised with the observations made by the High Court.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar said that the approach of the High Court ought to have been a balanced one and that the settlement could not have been thrust upon a statutory Corporation to its detriment and to the advantage of a private entity.
Chief Justice UU Lalit, on Friday, recused himself from hearing petition filed by Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and former State Industries Minister Murugesh Nirani, against a Karnataka High Court order allowing restoration of a criminal case against them in the alleged illegal land de-notification case. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta.
YouTuber and activist Savukku Shankar has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court order which sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment for criminal contempt of court.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed for framing of guidelines and/or directions against malicious, wrongful prosecution and incarceration of innocent persons. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta refused to grant urgent listing for a plea praying for a nationwide ban on firecrackers.
When the matter was mentioned for urgent listing, CJI Lalit noted that since the festival of Diwali was already around the corner, many people must have already invested in the firecracker business. Therefore, he remarked that an injunction on firecrackers this close to Diwali would lead to severe losses.
Supreme Court Posts Electoral Bonds Case To December 6
The Supreme Court posted a batch of petitions challenging the anonymous electoral bonds scheme to December 6.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna was considering a batch of petitions filed by Association for Democratic Reforms, Communist Party of India (Marxist) etc, challenging the electoral bonds scheme.
Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Of WhatsApp-Meta Against CCI Probe Into Privacy Policy
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by Whatsapp and its parent company Meta (Facebook) seeking to stay the investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) into their privacy policy.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia rejected the petitions filed by WhatsApp and Meta challenging the order of the Delhi High Court division bench which refused to stay the CCI probe.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court pulled up the Hindu Dharma Parishad for knocking at the Court's door with a "bizarre" request. The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, expressed its shock and disbelief and proceeded to read out the prayer in open court – "He said no one should be permitted to raise an issue about the CAA."
The Supreme Court granted permission to Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra to move an application before the Supreme Court Registry for early listing of plea challenging acquittal of former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba in alleged Maoist links case.
"The SLP has been mentioned before this court because Hon'ble CJI has risen for the day. Mr Mehta, SG states that he would be moving an application before Registry for seeking administrative directions of the Hon'ble CJI for earlier listing tomorrow."
The Supreme Court of India adjourned two special leave petitions filed by Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts Nalini Srihar and R.P. Ravichandran seeking premature release, to October 17.
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna passed the order after stating that there wasn't sufficient time today to take up the matter.
Justice K.M. Joseph recused himself from examining whether St. Stephen's College in Delhi was permitted to conduct interviews for non-Christian students notwithstanding the revised admission policy of the University of Delhi requiring constituent colleges to admit students to undergraduate courses on the basis of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores alone. This comes on the heels of the recusal of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul earlier this week. Justice Kaul refused to sit in judgement over this issue on the ground that he was an alumnus of St. Stephen's College.
"We Judges Also Got It At Midnight" : Justice Gavai On Late Uploading Of Supplementary List
A casual exchange which happened during a hearing in the Supreme Court indicated the difficulties which lawyers and judges face due to the late uploading of the supplementary cause-list of the Supreme Court
Since the supplementary cause-list of the Supreme Court comes late at night, the central agencies are finding it difficult to circulate the files, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna.
The State of Maharashtra has approached the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay, which was pronounced today, whereby the High Court had set aside the conviction of former Delhi University professor G. N. Saibaba and five others in alleged Maoist links case.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli directed the disbursal of Rs. One crore that has been deposited by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Supertech Ltd with the Apex Court's Registry pursuant to the order dated 26.08.2022. The amount has been directed to be distributed to the 15 applicants on a pro rata basis.
The Supreme Court suspended the Bombay High Court's order discharging former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others in alleged Maoist links case.
After a nearly two-hour long hearing in a special sitting held on Saturday, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Bela M. Trivedi passed the order while issuing notice on the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra.
During the hearing of the petitions challenging the discharge of Professor GN Saibaba and four others in a UAPA case, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the requests for house arrest are frequently coming from "urban naxals".
The SG was responding to a request made by Senior Advocate R Basant on behalf of Saibaba - who is 90% physically disabled and wheel-chair bound- that he be allowed to remain under house arrest at least.
The State of Kerala and M. Sivasankar, former Principal Secretary to the Kerala Chief Minister, have filed separate Counter affidavits in the Supreme Court in the Transfer Petition filed by Enforcement Directorate seeking transfer of the trial in the Kerala Gold Smuggling Case to the neighbouring state of Karnataka.
