Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

The Supreme Court has held that the Pharmacy Council of India shall alone have the Jurisdiction in the field of pharmacy and not the All India Council for Technical Education. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and MR Shah observed that in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail.

● Farmer Entering Into Buyback Transaction With Seed Company Is A 'Consumer' [M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. v. S.Ambika Devi & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has held that a farm is a 'consumer' for the purpose of filing complaints under the Consumer Protection Act even when he has entered into a buyback transaction. The bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the transaction cannot be termed as resale. It also rejected the contention that the tripartite agreement would amount to resale by virtue of containing a buyback clause, and would hence exclude the farmer from the ambit of the definition of "consumer".

● Sexual Harassment At Workplace Is An Affront to Women's Fundamental Rights [Punjab and Sindh Bank and Others v. Mrs Durgesh Kuwar]

Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman, the bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi remarked while upholding a High Court judgment that quashed a transfer of a woman bank employee. A woman employee of the Punjab and Sind Bank, who was holding the office of Chief Manager in the Scale IV in Indore branch was transferred to the branch at Sarsawa in the district of Jabalpur. She challenged the said transfer alleging that her reports about irregularities and corruption at her branch and her complaints against an officer who sexually harassed her met with an order of transfer. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Transfer order.

● Unreasoned Decisions Delivered On Technical Grounds Without Entering Into Merits Are Not Binding Precedents [Union of India & Ors. v. MV Mohanan Nair]

The Supreme Court has observed that the dismissal of a case by it on the ground of delay in filing/non-filing is not a binding precedent. The bench of Justices R. Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy made this observation while considering appeals filed by Union of India against High Courts judgments which upheld decisions rendered by different Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal granting financial up-gradation of grade pay in the next promotional hierarchy by placing reliance upon Union of India and others v. Raj Pal.

● High Court In Article 226 Proceedings Does Not Adjudicate Correctness Of Allegations In FIR [Padma Mishra v. State of Uttarkhand & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has observed that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR. The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Aniruddha Bose said that the intervention can only be in exceptional cases if the allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.

● Appointment Secured On The Basis Of A Fraudulent Caste Certificate Is Void Ab Initio [Vijay Krishnarao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has observed that an appointment secured on the basis of a fraudulent caste certificate is void ab initio and Government Resolutions and Circulars cannot protect such appointees. The bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjeev Khanna were considering an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court judgment.