Supreme Court Weekly Roundup, October 25 To October 31, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme CourtCase Title: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.5720 Of 2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 612The Supreme Court has observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. The Court reiterated change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was considering an appeal filed by Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ("Corporation") assailing the Karnataka High Court's order directing the Corporation to reconsider the decision of its employee with respect to change of date of birth in service records.The Top Court while allowing the appeal observed that, "application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."2. Mental Health Of A Person Can't Be Compressed Into A One Size Fits All Approach' : Supreme Court In Abetment To Suicide CaseCase Title: Mahendra KC v State of Karnataka and Others| Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 611Stressing that the "mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one-size fits all approach", the Supreme Court has criticized a High Court judgment for terming a person who died by suicide a "weakling".The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in which the Court had quashed an FIR registered against Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 on the ground that continuation of the prosecution "would [be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".3. Suit For Permanent Injunction In Respect Of Waqf Property Maintainable Before Wakf Tribunal And Not Civil Court: Supreme CourtCase name: Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari Citation: LL 2021 SC 604The Supreme Court held that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a waqf property has to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal and not the Civil Court."To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1)", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.4. SC/ST Act - Notice To Victim Under Section 15A In Court Proceedings Against Accused Is Mandatory : Supreme CourtCase name: Hariram Bhambhi vs Satyanarayan Citation: LL 2021 SC 607The Supreme Court observed that requirement under Section 15A of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent is mandatory.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that, as per this requirement, a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent.The court noted that Section 15A was introduced to protect the rights of the victims and witnesses whose rights as equal beneficiaries of the criminal justice system are often overlooked due to their weak social position. The bench referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India.5. National Security Act: Failure To Communicate Rejection Of Detenu's Representation In Time Bound Manner Will Vitiate Detention Order : Supreme CourtCase name : Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, JabalpurCitation: LL 2021 SC 608The Supreme Court observed that failure of Government to communicate rejection of a detenu's representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention passed under National Security Act.The three judges bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said that the detenu has right to have his representation considered expeditiously- failing which the detention order would be invalidated. This right would ring hollow without a corollary right of the detenu to receive a timely communication from the appropriate government on the status of its representation- be it an acceptance or a rejection, the bench also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna said.6. Appointment Of Special Teachers For Divyang Children: Supreme Court Issues Directives To Centre, StatesCase name: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India Citation: LL 2021 SC 602The Supreme Court issued directives in the matter of appointing special teachers to teach Children/Child with Special Needs.The bench was considering a writ petition alleging illegality being committed by authorities in employing such teachers in recognised schools on contract basis without any certainty of tenure . The court said that these directives will operate across the country (all States and...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup, October 25 To October 31, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags