The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal arising out of an accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the appellants just for over taking on the road when in fact the respondent's vehicle was coming from the wrong side.

"Merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record."

Power Of Attorney Impliedly Revoked When Principal Acts Independent Of Agency With Knowledge To Agent & Third Parties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 893

The Supreme Court observed that there would be an implied revocation of Power of Attorney (“POA”) granted to the agent if the act of Principal choosing to act for himself is known to an agent and third person.

"In a case where the principal chooses to act for himself, particularly to the agent's knowledge and a person to be affected, then it can be held that Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act is attracted," the Court observed. Section 207 provides for the revocation of agency.

The Court said that the conduct of the Principal and knowledge of the Principal's conduct to the Agent are the determinative factors while deciding the issue of whether the Principal has revoked the POA granted to the Agent.

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and SVN Bhatti stated that in an event when the Principal and Agent holds a joint property, wherein POA was granted to the Agent to execute sale deed of Principal's share in a property, then the conduct of the Principal in deciding an execution of sale deed of his share in property without adverting to the agent's opinion amounts to implied revocation of Power of Attorney executed in favor of the agent.

Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects Must Be Considered In Cases Of Self-Employed & Fixed Salaried Individuals: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kavita Nagar & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 894

The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's decision not to take into account the future prospects while determining motor accident compensation. The High Court had excluded fixed-salary and self-employed earners from such consideration, ignoring the impact of inflation and the natural progression of careers.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, stressed the importance of considering future income potential to ensure equitable compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court ruled that both fixed-salary and self-employed individuals possess income growth potential due to inflation and career advancement, and thus, they cannot be deprived of future prospects in their compensation.

'Consideration' Need Not Be Monetary: Supreme Court Upholds Settlement Deed Requiring Transferee To Care For Transferors & Do Charity

Case Details: Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2012

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 895

The Supreme Court upheld a property transfer based on a settlement deed requiring the transferee to care for the transferors and perform charitable work.

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol rejected the argument that the consideration can only be in money. Instead, it justified the consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work as a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.

“What flows from the above-cited judgments as also provisions of law, is that 'consideration' need not always be in monetary terms. It can be in other forms as well. In the present case, it is seen that the transfer of property in favour of Govindammal was in recognition of the fact that she had been taking care of the transferors and would continue to do so while also using the same to carry out charitable work.”, the court observed upon referring to precedents.

Recording Evidence Mandatory In Disciplinary Proceedings Proposing To Impose Major Penalties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 896

The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of a government employee whose termination was based on an inquiry report imposing a major penalty without adequately proving the charges. The court emphasized that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory.

"This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory," the Court reiterated.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when disciplinary proceedings involve allegations warranting a major penalty, it is the Inquiry Officer's duty to record substantive evidence to support the charges brought against the government employee. Without such evidence, the proceedings fail to meet the procedural standards required for imposing significant penalties.

Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary

Case Details: Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Sigh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi Ps National Institute of Communicable Diseases., Diary No.- 27751 – 2007

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 897

The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).

The Court disposed of a reference made against the decision, saying that it was unnecessary.

On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while holding that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha(which held that doctors are covered under the Consumer Protection Act) required reconsideration.

A 3-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.v. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned what was the necessity of making a reference in respect of another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis.

Labour Court's Factual Finding Shouldn't Be Normally Disturbed By Writ Court Without Compelling Reason: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Observing that the factual findings of a Labour Court should not be normally disturbed by a Writ Court without a compelling reason, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of an employee who had been terminated due to conflicts arising from his estranged marital relationship.

The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the appeal of the employee.

When Absent Employee Doesn't Inform Whereabouts, Employer Can Treat It As Abandonment Of Service & Take Action: Supreme Court

Case Details: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash, Civil Appeal No. 4393/2010

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899

The Supreme Court justified the termination of the service of an LIC employee who failed to communicate the whereabouts of his absence from duty under the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960.

The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the LIC's appeal against the High Court's decision directing reinstatement of the respondent employee who remained absent from the duties and didn't reply to the notices sent by the LIC on several occasions.

Also, the Court upheld the employer's right to terminate the employee for abandonment of service, provided the employer makes reasonable attempts to communicate with the employee about his absence from duty.

State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Over Property Of Private Citizens: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900

The Supreme Court reiterated that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens.

"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The observation was made in a judgment dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Haryana raising a claim of adverse possession against a property of private individuals.

Though revenue entries do not confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession, observed the Supreme Court.

No Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Initiated After Employee Retires Or After Extended Period Of Service: Supreme Court

Case Details: State Bank Of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 901

The Supreme Court invalidated the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a bank employee after the completion of his extended period of service. The disciplinary proceeding initiated after the superannuation or after the extended period of service cannot be sustained, the Court observed.

“As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.”, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.

During Divorce Proceedings, Wife Entitled To Enjoy Same Life Amenities She Was Enjoying In Matrimonial Home: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, C.A. No. 012546/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902

While awarding Rs.1.75 Lakhs as monthly interim maintenance to a wife during the divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage.

“The appellant (wife) was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.”, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also noted that the wife was not working as she had sacrified her employment after marriage. It restored the Family Court's order to the Husband to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) monthly maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.

Prima Facie Case Alone Insufficient to Appoint Court Receiver; Compelling Reasons Required: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hitesh Bhuralal Jain v. Rajpal Amarnath Yadav & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court observed that expressions like "prima facie case" or "conduct" alone are insufficient to justify the appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court emphasized that a compelling reason must be provided, demonstrating how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.

The appellant contested the High Court's decision to appoint a court receiver for the disputed property, a decision previously rejected by the City Civil Court, Borivali. The key issue was whether the mere recording of a prima facie case in favor of the respondent justified the appointment of a receiver.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the High Court's decision and invalidated the appointment of the Court Receiver, highlighting that the mere acknowledgment of a prima facie case was insufficient to warrant such an appointment.

Mere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court

Case Details: Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Observing that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.

“a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”, the bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said.

Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings Against Kerala MLA Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case, Directs To Conclude Trial In 1 Yr

Case Details: MR Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 4887/2024 (and connected case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905

The Supreme Court restored the criminal proceedings initiated against Kerala MLA and former Minister Antony Raju over alleged tampering of underwear evidence in a drugs case conducted by him as a junior lawyer in 1990.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held that the Kerala High Court erred in holding that the criminal proceedings were barred due to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the chargesheet against Raju. Considering the fact that the offence relates to an incident tracing back two decades ago, the Court ordered that the trial be concluded within one year. Raju has been asked to appear before the trial court on December 20.

The Court also held that the Kerala High Court was not in error in ordering that de novo investigation be initiated against Raju. It rejected the argument that appellant MR Ajayan(a third party) had no locus to file the appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the bar on taking of cognizance under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC was not attracted in the case, as the proceedings were initiated against Raju pursuant to a judicial order.

The judgment, authored by Justice Karol, quoted from CBI v. Sivamani (2017) as follows: "Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service".

Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906

The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, then she cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.

The property possessed by a Hindu woman will transform into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) only if it was based on any pre-existing right or in lieu of maintenance, the Court explained. However, when the deed itself gives a limited life interest in the property, it will not transform into absolute ownership. This aspect is clear from Section 14(2) of the Act, the Court noted.

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol dismissed an appeal by the defendants in an original suit, who claimed ownership of 3.55 acres of land, asserting that their mother, Smt. Veerabhadramma had bequeathed the property to them. The Court concluded that Smt. Veerabhadramma's restricted right in the property barred her from becoming its absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), rendering her ineligible to transfer the property through a Will.

'Sensitise Airport Staff': Supreme Court Endorses Centre's Guidelines On Airport Assistance For Persons With Disabilities

Case Details: Arushi Singh v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 907

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with benchmark disability, who had approached the Court about the humiliation she had to face at the Kolkata airport where she was allegedly asked to stand up by security personnel. The Court held that the guidelines suggested by the Union Government for the treatment of specially-abled persons with dignity at the airport shall be treated as mandatory onwards and shall also extend to elderly and injured passengers in need of wheelchair assistance.

Jail Superintendents Should Make Special Efforts To Identify Women Prisoners Eligible For Release U/s. 479 Of BNSS: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908

The Supreme Court directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

“Although the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS are gender neutral, it is also necessary for this Court to say that special efforts should be made to identify women prisoners who are entitled to release under the beneficial provision. The concerned Jail Superintendents where the women prisoners are lodged should therefore pay personal attention to the female prisoners, who might have become eligible for the release benefits, under Section 479 of the BNSS”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also directed the authorities to verify and update jail records as there may be cases where a person is accused of heinous crimes but later charges have been framed for a lesser offence, making him eligible for release.

Mobile Towers & Pre-Fabricated Buildings Moveable Properties, Qualify As 'Capital Goods' For CENVAT Credit: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune | Civil Appeal Nos. 10409-10410 of 2014

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 909

The Supreme Court in a decision held that mobile service providers (MSPs) could avail the benefit of Central Value Added Tax/CENVAT Credit over excise duties paid on items such as mobile towers and prefabricated buildings.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that since mobile towers and PFBs could be detached and relocated, they qualified as movable properties and accessories in enhancing the functionality of the mobile service antenna attached on top of the tower. Thus, the items qualified as 'capital goods' or 'inputs' which were indispensable to provide effective mobile services (output) and MSPs can get a credit set-off on these items.

The main issue considered by the Court was whether the Mobile Service Providers (MSP) could claim CENVAT Credits for the duties they paid on resources like tower part, shelter, prefabricated buildings (PFBs)

In considering so, the bench examined whether tower part, shelters etc come within the ambit of 'capital goods' or 'inputs' under the Central Value Added Tax/CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and whether 'capital goods' would encompass towers.

Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers: Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge

Case Details: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 910

While expunging from a judgment of the Delhi High Court certain adverse remarks made against a Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for restraint on the part of superior courts while commenting on judicial officers.

While the superior courts, in the exercise of their appellate/revisional powers, can set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, they should avoid personal comments against the judicial officers. Though strong language can be used to criticise erroneous orders, such criticism should be in the context of the impugned order and not on the personal conduct of the judge, the Supreme Court cautioned.

Appellate Court Can Examine Existence Of Jurisdictional Fact Despite Trial Court's Omission To Frame Issue On Maintainability Of Suit: Supreme Court

Case Details: R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. v. TRK Sarawathy & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court has clarified that a higher court is not barred from examining the existence of jurisdictional fact merely because the trial court did not frame an issue regarding maintainability, provided no new facts/evidence are required at the appellate stage.

To this end, the Court clarified the judgments in A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 and I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani (2013) 15 SCC 27.

Referring to the judgment in Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros (1992) 1 SCC 534, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:

“Should the trial court not satisfy itself that the jurisdictional fact for grant of relief does exist, nothing prevents the court higher in the hierarchy from so satisfying itself. It is true that the point of maintainability of a suit has to looked only through the prism of section 9, CPC, and the court can rule on such point either upon framing of an issue or even prior thereto if Order VII Rule 11 (d) thereof is applicable. In a fit and proper case, notwithstanding omission of the trial court to frame an issue touching jurisdictional fact, the higher court would be justified in pronouncing its verdict upon application of the test laid down in Shrisht Dhawan (supra)."

Litigant Has To Be Vigilant, Can't Throw Entire Blame On Advocate For Delay & Negligence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. v. Ved Prakash

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 912

The Supreme Court observed that litigants, who did not exercise due care and vigilance, cannot throw the entire blame on their advocates. The Court also flagged the rising tendency on the part of litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending court proceedings.

The Court made this pertinent observation while refusing to condone the delay of 534 days in filing an appeal. The petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed against the refusal of the High Court to condone the delay. The party blamed the delay on the part of the advocate.

Disapproving this approach, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed:

"It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief."

Marumakkathayam Law | Property Obtained By Hindu Woman Post-Partition Without Legal Heir Would Be Her Separate Property & Not Joint Property: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 913

The Supreme Court, in an appeal concerning property devolution under Kerala's traditional Marumakkathayam law, ruled that property acquired by a woman and her children post-partition does not become their separate property but remains part of the tharwad (joint property).

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held so while deciding a question of “whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong to her tharwad.”

Moreover, the Court in this regard also discussed a question of whether the property obtained by a female post-partition, without a legal heir, would still be considered as tharwad property or her separate property.

Confession Of Accused Can't Be Proved Under S.27 Evidence Act, Only Statements Relating To Discovery Of Facts Admissible: Supreme Court

Case Details: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State Of Haryana & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the specific portion of the statement of the accused which is directly linked to the discovery/recovery of evidence is admissible, and that the confession of the accused cannot be incorporated while proving a statement under Section 27. The Court held that inadmissible parts of such statements cannot be incorporated in the prosecution witness's chief examination.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih expressed concern about trial courts getting influenced if such inadmissible confessions are incorporated.

S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., SLP (C) No. 2272 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution).

"The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta.

Motor Accident Compensation - Supreme Court Awards Rs 15 Lakhs As Compensation For 'Pain & Suffering' To Claimant With 100% Disability

Case Details: K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, SLP (C) No. 18337/2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Dealing with the case of a motor accident injured, the Supreme Court analyzed the jurisprudence on "pain and suffering" (one of the heads under which compensation is awarded to motor accident victims) and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded - beyond what was prayed for.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, allowing the appeal of the injured-appellant, awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though the appellant had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs.

"Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

Orders

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Enquiry Into Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Death

Case Details: Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation initiated seeking inquiry into the death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to entertain the PIL saying that it was not a matter which the Court could decide.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose remains a "mystery" and there is no conclusive outcome on his disappearance, as different enquiry commissions gave different reports.

'11 DRTs Have No Presiding Officers': Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On PIL To Fill Up Vacancies

Case Details: Nischay Chaudhary v. Union of India WP(C) No. 740/2024

The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation seeking filling of pending appointments of Presiding Officers in the Debt Recovery Tribunals.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that so far appointments in 11 DRTs remain to be completed. The following order was passed:

"11 Debt Recovery Tribunals remain unmanned which is creating issues. In view of the grant of additional charges and also the complications, notice be served including datsi, counter affidavits be filed in 5 weeks. Rejoinder to be filed within 3 weeks of the response."

Supreme Court Criticises ICICI Bank For Not Defreezing Newsclick's Bank Accounts Despite Stay On Tax Recovery Steps

Case Details: PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Diary No. 48875-2024

The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application whereby, it allowed news portal Newclick's plea seeking direction against the ICICI bank, Saket, New Delhi, to comply with the August 9 order of the Court.

In the instant miscellaneous application, the petitioners raised the issue that after the Court's August 9 order, the de-freezing of their bank accounts has not begun as the bank is relying on December 15, 2023, communication of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1.

By an order dated August 9, the Court disposed of a plea filed by NewsClick for a stay on the income tax demand and directed that pending disposal of the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), there shall be a stay of further recovery of an outstanding amount. This order was passed taking into consideration that approximately 30 per cent of the demand has been recovered.

The division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the order in an SLP filed by the Newsclick against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting a stay on the income tax demand. On July 8, the Court issued a notice in the SLP.

Someday You Must Find Out How Many PMLA Complaints Ended In Trial & Conviction: Supreme Court Tells ED

Case Details: Veerendra Kumar Ram v. Union of India

The Supreme Court once again expressed concerns about the low rate of convictions in the complaints filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice Abhay S Oka, heading a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, orally told the counsel of the Enforcement Directorate, "Someday you must find out how many cases of a complaint under PMLA have ended with trial and how many have resulted in a conviction."

The observation was made while considering a bail application of a person accused of PMLA offences. The bench granted him bail considering the fact that he has been under custody since 23rd February 2023, and that there was no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. The bench followed the judgment passed in Senthil Balaji case in this regard.

Delhi Air Pollution | GRAP-IV Restrictions To Continue In NCR Even If AQI Falls Below 450: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

Addressing the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region, the Supreme Court directed that the implementation of the Graded Response Action Plan Statge IV (GRAP-IV) should continue even if the Air Quality Index (AQI) of Delhi improves and falls below 450 till further orders.

The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for waiting for the air quality index to breach the threshold to enforce the GRAP-3 and GRAP-4 protocols.

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to get data from stationary satellites regarding farm fires caused by stubble burning.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing Contempt Case Against DDA Over Tree Felling, Says Happened To Meet Delhi LG At NALSA Event

Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024

Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from hearing the contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the illegal felling of trees in Delhi Ridge.

Punjab Panchayat Elections| Supreme Court Directs Election Tribunal To Decide Election Petitions In 6 Months

Case Details: Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 25527/2024

The Supreme Court while refusing to interfere in pleas alleging irregularities in Punjab Gram Panchayat elections, directed the Election Tribunal to decide upon the election petitions within 6 months. The Court also allowed those petitioners whose nominations were rejected to file a review petition before the High Court to challenge the elections.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of petitions against the High Court order dismissing over 800 petitions which alleged arbitrary rejection of nomination papers filed by the candidates.

'AoRs Don't Directly Deal With Clients In Many Cases': Amicus S Muralidhar Says On Issue Of False Pleadings; Supreme Court Seeks SCBA Views

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association to seek its views regarding guidelines to ensure that Advocates-on-Record do not make false statements in petitions. The Court decided to address this issue in a case concerning the recurring issue of false statements by lawyers in court.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih accepted the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar that the views of the SCBA also ought to be considered.

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case

Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP (Crl) No.13463/2024

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to prominent Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.

A bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made the interim anticipatory bail, granted on September 30, absolute.

Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea After Adjournment Was Sought For 4th Time

Case Details: Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale v. State of Maharashtra., Diary No. 22040-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking bail after adjournment was sought on the fourth occasion.

The Court dismissed a bail plea filed by Nilesh Dhyaneshwar Desale against the order of the February 13 order of the Bombay High Court denying him bail. The plea was dismissed for non-prosecution after the Court noted that constant adjournments have been sought in this case and this was the fourth time, the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment.

When the Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment again, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma strongly objected to it.

Prima Facie Karnataka HC Division Bench Did Not Continue Single Judge Order Restraining Broadcast Of Power TV: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S. Power Smart Media Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court clarified that the division bench of the Karnataka high Court did not continue the interim order of the Single Judge restraining the broadcast of the Kannada news channel Power TV.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the division bench while disposing of the appeals against the interim order recorded that the petitioners had withdrawn their writ petitions in which the interim order against Power TV was originally passed.

“Prima facie, on a plain reading of the operative part of the order, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge was not continued while disposing of the appeals and, in fact, what is recorded is that the original writ petitioners withdrew the writ petitions”, the Court noted.

The Court also clarified that notwithstanding the stay previously granted to the HC orders restraining the broadcast of the channels, the competent authority can pass an order on the show-cause notice as outlined in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment.

Supreme Court Dismisses HPCL's Plea Against Bombay HC Order Quashing Pension Cuts For 269 Retired Employees

Case Details: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association

The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) against the Bombay High Court's decision to quash two notifications that reduced/discontinued pensionary benefits to 269 retired employees.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said that the notifications were issued without following the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court Directs Union To Frame Action Plan For Feeding & Childcare Spaces In Public Places & Buildings

Case Details: Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 950/2022

The Supreme Court gave one final chance to the Union Government to file an affidavit formulating an action plan for implementing feeding, and child care rooms in public spaces and buildings in a public interest litigation.

The writ petition filed by Maatr Sparsh NGO was listed for hearing before a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh. The bench was apprised by Advocate Animesh Rastogi (for Petitioner) that the petition sought exclusive and separate public spaces and buildings for feeding and taking care of children.

At the outset, the Court expressed its willingness to issue some directions in this case for the implementation, which the Union of India via the Union Ministry of Women & Child Development must coordinate with the States and Union Territories. However, the Court was informed that the States and Union Territories are not impleaded as parties.

Supreme Court To Explore Use Of E-Prison Portal To Identify Prisoners Who Continue In Jail Despite Grant Of Bail

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

The Supreme Court suggested that an e-prison portal can be used for collating data on those who remain inside prisons despite being granted bail because they are unable to furnish surety.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and AG Masih was hearing a suo moto case (In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) where it has passed orders to ensure that prisoners who get bail are released without delay. On the last occasion, the Court had passed directions to arrange a demonstration of how the e-prison portal works.

Constitute State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities In 6 Weeks If Absent: Supreme Court Directs States

Case Details: Union of India v. Rajiv Suri | Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019

The Supreme Court directed State Governments to constitute State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) within 6 weeks wherever they have not been formed.

The above direction was made when the Court was hearing a civil appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal which disapproved the grant of Environment Clearances in certain leases by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAA) instead of SEIAA.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge by the Union to the order of NGT, Delhi dated September 13, 2018 which directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to revise its 2016 notification which exempts regulatory clearances in mining leases for areas from 0 to 25 hectares.

'Serious Allegation': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Doctor Accused Of Illegal Kidney Transplants

Case Details: Jyoti Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13305/2024

The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to a doctor of the Fortis Hospital at Jaipur, who is accused of performing illegal kidney transplants in connection with an international racket.

Stating that this is a serious matter which needs to be investigated in accordance with the law, a bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

After Supreme Court's Nudge, Himachal Pradesh Govt Notifies Child Care Leave Rules

Case Details: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh., SLP(C) No. 16864/2021

The Supreme Court disposed of an SLP seeking child-care leave for working mothers with specially-abled children in Government jobs in the State of Himachal Pradesh after the Court was informed that the State Government has notified child-care leave pursuant to the central scheme.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh disposed of the SLP after it was informed by Advocate-on-Record Pragati Neekhra (for petitioner) that the State Government has issued a notification dated July 31, 2024, to notify Central Civil Services (Leave) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024.

Bonded Labour: Supreme Court Asks Union To Hold Meeting With States, NHRC On Inter-State Trafficking, Child Labour Issues

Case Details: Surendra Manjhi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 511/2022

Expressing dismay at the non-release of immediate financial assistance to rescued bonded laborers, the Supreme Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Labor and Employment to hold a meeting with States/UTs and come up with a proposal to address the issue of inter-state human trafficking as well as release of immediate financial assistance to rescued child laborers.

Taking specific note of the "alarming" situation in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ordered thus:

"As far as State of UP is concerned, the figures are alarming. Out of 5262 released bonded laborers, only 1101 have received immediate financial assistance...4167 are yet to receive...In order to address the issue of inter-state trafficking of children, the issue needs be addressed by the Union as well as all the states in a unified manner. We therefore direct Secretary, Ministry of Labor and Employment to have a meeting with his counterparts in all the states and UTs and come out with a proposal which will address this issue regarding inter-state human trafficking and grant of release certificate. We further direct that proposal should also contain a simplified procedure which will really affect the scheme of providing immediate financial assistance to the rescued child laborers. Union to also take on board the National Human Rights Commission in the finalization of the procedure."

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Jagannath Temple Priest In Money Laundering Case Under PMLA

Case Details: Rajkumar Daitapati Vs. Director Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 9517/2021

The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Jagannath Temple Priest, Rajkumar Daitapati in relation to PMLA proceedings initiated against him for alleged offence of money laundering.

The petitioner, stated to be a generational priest of the Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, Orrisa has been arrayed in proceedings under S. 3 and 4 of the Prevention for Money Laundering Act 2002 in connection with an FIR registered by a few foreign nationals. The FIR is against one Mr Kuldeep Sharma and his wife Ms Aparna Sharma for offences of cheating and fraud to the tune of USD 232,568 over the sale of a certain property.

The petitioner was given Power of Attorney by the foreign nationals(complainants) to oversee the case and act as an intermediary to conclude settlements and receive monies on behalf of the foreigners.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that as per the agreement between the parties, the appellant was to receive 92 Lakhs on behalf of the foreign nationals, but so far had only deposited 80 lakhs with the RBI(as alleged proceeds of crime).

Absence Of Specific Provisions No Reason To Forego Fundamental Requirements Of Election Of Any Society: Supreme Court

Case Details: Association For The Welfare Of The Handicapped & Ors. v. KP Mohammed & Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that the lack of specific statutory election procedures does not justify bypassing fundamental requirements for conducting elections such as a properly drawn voters list.

“Prima facie, we are of the view that absence of specific provisions regulating an election in the statute cannot be a reason for holding elections without the basic requirements for conducting an election to any society, which is supposed to be the democratic institution at grass root level. At any rate, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that sine qua non for conducting the election to such a body is a properly drawn voters list”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol said this while passing an interim order in a dispute concerning the administration of the Association for Welfare of Handicapped (AWH).

Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Allegations That TN Police Officials Violated POCSO Victim's Rights & Assaulted Parents

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Victims Mother and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15332-15333/2024

In a case relating to alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in Anna Nagar, Chennai, the Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team to conduct a probe into the allegations that Chennai police violated the victim's rights and assaulted her parents. The Court further directed that the probe be monitored by the Madras High Court and awarded a cost of Rs.75,000 in favor of the victim's family.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu police authorities, challenging order of the High Court whereby investigation was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Gyanvapi Case: Supreme Court Seeks Mosque Committee's Response On Plea For ASI Survey Of Sealed Area

Case Details: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9388/2022

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Gyanvapi Masjid Committee to an application filed by Hindu worshippers for an ASI survey of the sealed area of the mosque (where a shivlinga was claimed to have been found).

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezemia Masajid (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) on the application filed by the worshippers.

Supreme Court Rejects Punjab Govt's Request To Access Witness Statements Before Enquiry Committee On Security Lapses During PM's Visit

Case Details: Lawyers Voice v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13/2022

The Supreme Court rejected a request made by the Punjab Government for a copy of the statements made by witnesses before the Justice Indu Malhotra Committee which enquired into the security lapses which occurred during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's travel to Punjab in January 2022.

The State Government sought to access the statements to conduct enquiry against the officers who were liable for the security lapses. The Court observed that the State can conduct its enquiry independently without the aid of the witness statements before the enquiry committee.

"We see no ground to entertain the request made by Punjab govt. The state may conduct its enquiry against delinquent officers without the aid of the statements said to have been made by the witnesses before the enquiry committee," observed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Delhi Air Pollution: Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With Enforcement Of Ban On Trucks, Appoints 13 Lawyers To Inspect Entry Points

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

In the Delhi air pollution matter, the Supreme Court appointed 13 members of the Bar as court commissioners to visit the entry points to Delhi and verify whether entry of trucks is being stopped.

As per the GRAP-IV restrictions imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management, the entry of trucks is prohibited to Delhi-NCR to combat air pollution.

The Court however expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance. "So far as compliance is concerned, we are not satisfied. Government has not stated clearly as to at how many entry points there are officers present to comply with measures of STAGE IV," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & States On Plea To Establish Transgender Welfare Boards

Case Details: Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government and States and Union Territories, who have not entered appearance, to file an affidavit within 8 weeks on a Public Interest Litigation seeking the establishment of the Transgender Welfare Boards.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti was hearing a PIL filed by Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust seeking the establishment of the Transgender Welfare Board to address social welfare issues of a trans person and to appoint a Standing Committee in order to investigate reports of abuse against the trans person by the police.

Supreme Court Transfers Trial Pending Against Choreographer Remo D'Souza In 2016 Cheating Case From UP To Delhi

Case Details: Remo D Souza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15328/2024

The Supreme Court transferred the trial in a 2016 cheating case pending against choreographer and film director Remo D'Souza from Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh to Delhi.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, partly allowing the appeal filed by D'Souza against an Allahabad High Court order, whereby his plea to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Show If Every DRT Has 30 Staff Members: Supreme Court To Finance Ministry

Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Finance to submit an affidavit by January 2, 2025, detailing the available staff strength at each of the 39 Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with a case concerning the judicial staff of DRT Visakhapatnam having been diverted to fulfil certain data collection tasks mandated by the Ministry. This had affected the tribunal's functioning and led to delays in pending cases.

The Court questioned the Ministry's justification that DRT has enough staff to be able to undertake such a task.

After Supreme Court's Rap, Goa Notifies Pension Rules For Bombay HC Goa Bench Staff In Line With Principal Bench

Case Details: Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa

The Goa government informed the Supreme Court that it has brought the pension payment norms for employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench in line with those of the principal Bench at Mumbai and the Nagpur and Aurangabad benches.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih disposed of a suo moto case concerning the grievances of former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench over delayed pensionary benefits.

Sanatana Dharma Row| Supreme Court Extends Interim Order Exempting Udhayanidhi Stalin's Personal Appearance Before Trial Courts

Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP (Crl.) No. 104/2024

The Supreme Court extended the interim order granted to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for exemption for physically appearing before lower courts conducting proceedings against his 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For CAG Report On Complaints Regarding Award Of Arunachal Pradesh Contracts

Case Details: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the CAG to provide a status report on complaints that government contracts in Arunachal Pradesh were being awarded to family members of the then Chief Minister during 2007-2011 without tender process.

A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Kumar allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and pursue appropriate remedy in appropriate forum.

Other Developments

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Madras HC Judge D Krishnakumar As Manipur HC Chief Justice

The Supreme Court Collegium led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna recommended the appointment of Justice D Krishnakumar as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court.

Justice Krishnakumar is a judge of the Madras High Court. The recommendation has come in view of the nearing retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice of Manipur High Court Justice Siddharth Mridul on 21st November 2024.

Supreme Court Holds Order Which Set Deadline On Balwant Singh's Mercy Plea After Solicitor General's Request

Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) No. 414/2024

After an urgent mentioning made by the Solicitor General of India, the Supreme Court agreed to not upload the order which it passed as per which the President was requested to take a decision on the mercy plea of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana within two weeks.

A special bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan had dictated the order in the open court. SG Tushar Mehta was not present then.

DHCBA Women Reservation | Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Lawyer's Comment On Women Representation In Bench

Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi, SLP(C) 24485/2024

While hearing pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court expressed serious displeasure at a counsel's comment regarding women representation in the Court's Bench(es).

Justice Surya Kant, part of a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, called out the remark, saying that if it was meant for the media and to play to the gallery, the counsel was free to repeat it 10 more times. However, the bench would not entertain anything further and next hear arguments in the case.

Adjourning the matter to November 29, the bench expressed that it would hear arguments on the larger issue and thereafter pass orders.

Senior Designation Procedure Needs Relook: Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Supreme Court that the procedure of conferring senior designation to advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires a reconsideration.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a case in which it has noted recurring instances of false statements made in various remission pleas by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra.

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Advises Use Of Masks Amid 'Severe+' Air Quality In Delhi-NCR

The Supreme Court has issued a circular calling for strict adherence to preventive health measures, including wearing masks, as air quality in Delhi-NCR continues to deteriorate.

Referring to an order by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) dated November 17, 2024, the circular highlights the implementation of Stage-IV ('Severe+' Air Quality) measures under the revised Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP).

“Everyone is, therefore, advised to ensure wearing of mask and taking health measures mentioned in the aforesaid order”, the circular reads.

Supreme Court To Hear Challenge To Constitutional Validity Of Rule Allowing Registrar To Refuse Property Registration In Tamil Nadu

Case Details: K. Gopi v. Sub Registrar & Ors., SLP(C) No. 12167/2024

Pursuant to a petition filed assailing a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed, the Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, which gives power to a Registrar to refuse registration of an immoveable property.

As per Rule 55A, the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the person presenting produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation.

The matter is listed before a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, which has permitted the petitioner to amend his writ petition in order to challenge the vires of the subject rule.

Lawyers Can Appear Online, Says CJI Sanjiv Khanna Amidst Delhi's Severe Air Pollution

Amidst the alarmingly severe air quality in Delhi, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna said that the lawyers will have the option of appearing online.

CJI Khanna however refused to give a definite statement that the functioning of the Courts would be only online, despite the requests made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.

Supreme Court Asks Sukhbir Badal, Bikram Majithia To Consider Expressing Remorse For Remarks On Justice Ranjit Singh

Case Details: Justice (Retired) Ranjit Singh v. Sukhbir Singh Badal and Anr., Crl.A. No. 1982/2019

On hearing Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh's plea against ex-Shiromani Akali Dal chief Sukhbir Singh Badal and ex-Punjab MLA Bikram Singh Majithia, for allegedly bringing disrepute to the Commission headed by him to probe incidents of sacrilege in Punjab, the Supreme Court suggested that the parties attempt resolving the dispute amongst themselves.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar asked Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for respondents (Badal and Majithia), to take instructions as to whether they are inclined to express remorse to Justice Singh. Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Justice Singh, was asked on the other hand to find out if expression of such remorse/apology by the respondents is acceptable to the retired judge.

'Don't Think You're Interested': Supreme Court To ED After It Again Sought Adjournment Of Plea To Transfer Gold Smuggling Case From Kerala

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sarith PS and Others | TP (Crl) 449/2022

The Supreme Court adjourned by 6 weeks hearing of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking transfer of the Kerala Gold Smuggling case to Karnataka.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, upon a request for accommodation made by Advocate Vivek Gurnani, on behalf of ED.

Gurnani submitted that Additional Solicitor General SV Raju was not available and apologized to the Court for making the request, as a similar request had been made on earlier occasion as well.

Hearing him, Justice Roy remarked, "I don't think you are interested really...either Mr Raju is not available, or some other difficulty is coming...".

Why No Steps For Delimitation In Nagaland & Arunachal Despite President Rescinding Deferment In 2020? Supreme Court Asks ECI

Case Details: Delimitation Demand Committee for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur & Nagaland in North East India v. Union of India | Diary No. 12880 of 2022

The Supreme Court asked the Election Commission about the steps taken to carry out the delimitation exercise in the Northeastern states, particularly Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, after a Presidential order of 2020 rescinded the deferment of their delimitation.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition seeking delimitation in four north-eastern states of India, namely, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.

NTF Formed By Supreme Court Gives Suggestions On Safety & Better Working Conditions Of Medical Professionals

The National Task Force (NTF) constituted by the Supreme Court in the wake of safety concerns of medical professionals after the RG Kar Hospital Doctor's Rape-Murder, has given exhaustive recommendations for enhancing better work conditions of the professionals and preventing sexual harassment at medical workplaces.

The NTF is a 9-member committee headed by Surgeon Vice Admiral Arti Sarin AVSM, VSM, Director General Medical Services .

The NTF, in its recommendations also gave a slew of solutions relating to stricter security measures. These include the Short Term Measures (STM) that detail upon (a) Constitution of Security Committee in Healthcare Establishments; (b) Deployment of trained security personnel; (c) Coordination with local police; (d) augmentation of mobile networks for better coverage in low network areas; (e) CCTV surveillance in healthcare establishments (HCE); (f) Security Control rooms in HCE; (g) Distress Call System; (h) Quick Response Team; (i) Incident reporting system; (j) Centralised helplines; (k) Transportation facility to doctors and staff at nighttime.

SCBA Arranges Computer Facilities For Members To Access Virtual Hearing

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) announced the facility of access to computers in the Supreme Court Complex Library for easing virtual hearings for SCBA members.

In the circular, the SCBA stated that 16 computers were made available for the use by members for virtual hearings and the members were requested to the use the computer exclusively for the purpose of attending the virtual hearing and allow other members to use the same after one concludes his/her hearing.

NDPS Act | Should Sample Be Drawn On Spot Or In Magistrate's Presence As Per Sec. 52A? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif., SLP(Crl) No. 12120/2024

The Supreme Court concluded the two-day hearing on an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau against the May 18 order of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court observed that the seized samples of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances under the Narcotics Drugs and Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), should be forwarded to the laboratory within 72 hours. The High Court's judgment also held that the samples should be drawn under Section 52A in the presence of Magistrate.

This was challenged by the NCB before the Court which formulated the issue of law as: whether samples under the NDPS should be drawn on the spot of recovery or after an application under Section 52A has been moved and in the presence of a Magistrate.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on November 18 reserved the judgment. But they did not cancel the bail granted to the Respondent (original petitioner-Kashif) by Justice Jasmeet Singh of the High Court on grounds that there was a delay of 51 days in moving the Section 52A, which is mandatory.

Can CBI & SFIO Hold Simultaneous Investigations Into Offences Arising Out Of Same FIR? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijayraj Surana | SLP (Crl) No. 9381/2024

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the issue whether both Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Serious Fraud Investigating Officer (SFIO) can hold parallel investigations into offences arising out of the same FIR.

The issue arose before the bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar which was hearing the challenge by CBI against the order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed two cases registered against Vijayraj Surana, Promoter Director of Surana Power Limited, registered under S. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

'In Our Country, Even Ajmal Kasab Was Given Fair Trial': Supreme Court To CBI In Yasin Malik's Case

Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik SLP(Crl) No. 5526-5527/2023

Even terrorist Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial, orally observed the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal filed by the CBI against an order for the physical production of Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik to a Jammu court for the trial in the case related to the killing of 4 IAF personnel in 1989.

Citing security concerns, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has taken exception to the direction for the physical production of Malik. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that Malik could not be taken to Jammu for the trial. The safety of the witnesses was also a matter of concern, the law officer added.

Supreme Court Gives Time To Manipur Govt For Filing Response To Plea Challenging Inner Line Permit System

Case Details: Amra Bangalee v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000741 - / 2021

The Supreme Court granted time to the Manipur State Government to file its response in a plea challenging the constitutionality of Manipur's Inner Line Permit System which restricts movement of non-permanent residents in the state.

The petitioner, an organization named 'Amra Bangalee', said that due to the ILP system in the State of Manipur, no person who is not a resident of Manipur can enter or engage in business there without obtaining the 'Inner Line Permit'.

The bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti agreed to give 8 weeks' time to the State to file its response at the request of the Counsel for the state.

Sikh Women Targeted For Their Attire, Children Bullied In Schools: Lawyer Tells Supreme Court In Plea To Ban Jokes On Sikh Community

Case Details: Harvinder Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 160/2015

In a public interest litigation seeking a ban on websites which spread jokes portraying the 'sardar' community as “persons of low intellect, stupid and foolish”, the petitioners brought to the notice of the Supreme Court grievances of women and children in the Sikh community, saying that they are subjected to ridicule and bullying but their concerns remain unaddressed.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan posted the matter after 8 weeks, upon hearing petitioner and advocate-Harvinder Chowdhury, who sought time to consolidate her own suggestions and those of Sikh Gurudwara Management Committees.

To recap, the issue was first raised in March 2007 when on a complaint filed by Sikh businessman-Mohinder Nanksingh Kakar, Mumbai-based publisher Ranjit Parande was arrested for publishing a book on Santa-Banta, that allegedly carried "derogatory" jokes directed at the Sikh community.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Validity Of BNS & BNSS Provisions, Says 'Sedition' Reintroduced & Police Custody Powers Enhanced

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with effect from July 1,

Supreme Court To Hear Manish Sisodia's Plea To Relax Bail Conditions In CBI & ED Cases Over Delhi Liquor Policy

Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement., MA 2344/2024 in Crl.A. No. 3295/2024

The Supreme Court briefly heard two miscellaneous applications filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in relation to the liquor policy case seeking relaxation of bail conditions.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stated that they would issue notice and clarify on the next date regarding the bail conditions. The Court will hear after 2 weeks. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Sisodia.

Supreme Court Stays HC Direction To Initiate Disqualification Proceedings Against HP MLAs Appointed As Parliamentary Secretaries

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Kalpana Devi and Ors. SLP(C) No. 27211-27212/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a judgment of the Himachal High Court which nullified a 2006 State Law which permitted the state government to appoint Members of the State Legislative Assembly (MLAs) as parliamentary secretaries.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar also stayed the High Court's direction, till the next date of hearing, to initiate disqualification proceedings against the MLAs who were appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries. The High Court had held that such appointment would amount to Offices of Profit, rendering the legislators liable to be disqualified.

The bench granted two weeks' time to the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and two weeks' time thereafter for the State to file its rejoinder.

'Socialism In Indian Context Means Welfare State': Supreme Court Reserves Order On Challenge To Adding 'Socialist' & 'Secular' In Preamble

Case Details: Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020 and Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India, MA 835/2024

The Supreme Court reserved orders on a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, which heard the matter, refused the petitioners' plea to refer the matter to a larger bench. Though CJI Khanna was about to dictate the order, miffed with the interruptions from certain lawyers, he said that he would pronounce the order on Monday.

Supreme Court To Hear West Bengal Govt Plea To Stay HC Judgment Quashing OBC Classifications On December 9

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Amal Chandra Das Diary No. 27287/2024

The Supreme Court will consider the plea of the State of West Bengal to stay the judgment of the Calcutta High Court cancelling all Other Backward Classes (OBC) certificates issued after 2010 on December 9.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard a petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the May 22 judgment, which quashed the classification of 77 communities as Other Backward Classes (OBC) under the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012 and cancelled all Other Backward Classes (OBC) certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Asaram Bapu's Plea For Suspension Of Life Sentence In Rape Case In Gujarat

Case Details: Ashumal @ Asharam v. State of Gujarat., SLP(Crl) No. 15945/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Gujarat Government in a Special Leave Petition filed by self-styled godman Asaram Bapu for suspension of the life sentence granted by Gujarat's Gandhinagar District in a 2013 rape case.

On January 31, 2023, a sessions court found Asaram Bapu guilty of raping his female disciple multiple times at his Ahemdabad-based Ashram and convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was convicted under IPC Sections 376(rape), 377(unnatural offences), Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 357(Assault or criminal force in an attempt wrongfully to confine a person) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty).

Bapu had then approached the Gujarat High Court with an application seeking suspension of sentence but the same was rejected in August.

A division bench of Justices Ilesh J Vora and Vimal K Vyas through an impugned order dated August 29 refused to suspend the sentence and held that the trial Court's order was prima facie not erroneous.

Centre Opposes Amicus's Suggestion To Form Panel Of Former SC Judges To Deal With Stubble Burning Issue

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Central Government opposed a proposal made to constitute a committee comprising of former judges to monitor the implementation of measures to reduce stubble burning which contributes to air pollution in Delhi-NCR. The suggestion was made by Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta case.

Singh told a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih that there are Supreme Court judges who have dealt with the issues relating to stubble burning and vehicular pollution affecting Delhi's air quality in the past. Therefore, she proposed that a committee consisting of these judges be formed.

"My suggestion is that there are four judges who have vigorously monitored these matters. Make a committee of those judges because they know the issues and they know the problem and let them hear each and every individual, the farmers, the government," Singh submitted.

Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati stoutly opposed the suggestion saying that the Centre and the Commission for Air Quality Management(CAQM) were taking adequate steps.

Delhi Air Pollution | Parents Belonging To Underprivileged Sections Urge Supreme Court To Review Suspension Of Physical Classes

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985

The Supreme Court heard an application filed by parents of students belonging to the underprivileged communities raising concerns about the Delhi Government's order suspending physical classes for students up to Class 12 amidst the air pollution crisis.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing a batch of petitions regarding the worsening air pollution in Delhi-NCR.

Notably, the suspension orders came after the Court on November 18, directed all the NCR states to immediately take a call on suspending physical classes for students up to Class 12.

'When Organised Crimes Are On Rise, Should Legislature Think Of Safeguards For Accused?': Supreme Court In Plea Challenging BNS, BNSS Provisions

Case Details: Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 461/2024

While hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Supreme Court questioned as to whether there should in fact be protective safeguards in place insofar as persons accused of organized crimes are concerned.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter. It may be recalled that the BNSS and BNS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code with effect from July 1.

"Why Corporator's Wife Given 2 Licenses?": Supreme Court Questions Maharashtra Govt On Matheran E-Rickshaw Licenses

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

Dealing with issues arising out of a pilot e-rickshaw project in the pedestrian hill-town of Matheran (Maharashtra), the Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the state authorities for allegedly granting licenses to persons other than the original handcart pullers (as suggested in earlier orders to compensate them for their loss).

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was considering the application filed by three representative associations of horsemen, or ghodawala sangathans, seeking modification of an earlier order that permitted implementation of eco-friendly e-rickshaws in Matheran, on an experimental basis, to check their feasibility to replace hand-pulled rickshaws plying in the area.

Supreme Court Gives Union Final Opportunity To File Reply In PIL Alleging Exchange Of Currency Defaced By Kashmiri Separatists At RBI Branch

Case Details: Satish Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 249/2019

Expressing that the Union is not taking the matter seriously, the Supreme Court granted final opportunity to the Union of India to respond to a public interest litigation seeking CBI enquiry into the Jammu Regional Branch of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) where defaced Indian currencies worth Rs.30 crores were allegedly exchanged by a separatist group in 2013.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating,

"Learned counsel for Union of India seeks more time to file the counter-affidavit. Ample time has already been granted. However, in the interest of justice, one more but last opportunity is given to do the needful within 4 weeks. No further time shall be granted."

Supreme Court To Hear Challenge To Ex-Parte Foreigner Tribunal Orders Declaring Persons As Non-Citizens

Case Details: Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India and Ors., SLP (C) No. 9745/2017

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Special Leave Petition filed by two persons, who claim that they are Indian nationals but were declared as foreign nationals by the Foreigners Tribunal ex-parte despite having documents in their favour.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddhin Amanullah was hearing SLPs filed by one Abdul Subhan and Ajbahar Ali, who have been ex-parte declared as foreigners by The Foreigner Tribunal.

Kerala Women's Commission Supports Registration Of FIRs On Statements Before Justice Hema Committee, Files Affidavit In Supreme Court

Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors, SLP (C) No.25250-25251/2024

The Supreme Court is set to hear a petition challenging the Kerala High Court's direction to the police to register FIRs on statements made by women actors to the Justice Hema Committee regarding the abuses they faced in the Malayalam cinema industry on November 25, in which the Kerala Women's Commission (KWC) has filed a counter affidavit.

The Commission has filed the counter in a Special Leave Petition filed by film producer Sajiman Parayil against the Kerala High Court's direction dated October 14.

The KWC has stated that the present petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by distorting facts and making unsubstantiated statements against the proceedings before the High Court.

'US Indictment Of Adani Must Be Investigated By Indian Agencies': Petitioner In Adani-Hindenburg Matter Files Application In Supreme Court

An application has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to produce the indictment of the United States Department of Justice which raised bribery allegations against Gautam Adani and other executives of Adani group of companies.

The interlocutory application has been filed in the petition which was filed last year seeking an independent investigation into the allegations levelled by Hindenburg Research against the Adani group of companies.

The applicant, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, stated that the order of the US Department of Justice and the complaint of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission "unveiled the malpractices carried out by the Adani Conglomerate and the allegations are of such serious nature that they shall also be investigated by the Indian Agencies in the Interest of nation.”

The applicant also submitted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is yet to conclude its investigation against the Adani companies as per the Supreme Court's order of January 3, 2024.