IndexCitationsM/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., SLP (C) No. 2272 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, SLP (C) No. 18337/2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916Dr 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 2024 LiveLaw...
Index
M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., SLP (C) No. 2272 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, SLP (C) No. 18337/2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Dr 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 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 919
State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 920
Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921
Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 922
C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector and Others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923
Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Nanhe Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 925
State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha Criminal Appeal No.2646 Of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 926
Government Of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 Of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928
Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 930
Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 931
Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 934
Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 935
Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936
Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 937
Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 938
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 939
Directorate of Enforcement Etc. v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya Etc. Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Rashtrawadi Adarsh Mahasangh v. Union of India | Diary No. - 53278/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Dr. KA Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 718/2024
National Investigation Agency v. Md. Noor Hussain Tomba Nur Hasan., T.P.(Crl.) No. 502-509/2024
Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
State of Kerala v. KM Shaji with Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. KM Shaji
Sameed Ahmad v. State of Haryana, Diary No.48472/2024
Surya Kant v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) NO. 6469/2024 and connected cases
Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018
Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
Delhi Library Board v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Bombay Natural History Society v. Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 97/2024
Anurag Dubey Alias Dabban v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 46437/2024
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Pooja Thakur and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 990/2024
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Mohd. Jaheer @ Munne and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13948-13949/2024
Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
K. Shahul Hameed v. State of Kerala
Kuntal Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 13352/2024
O Panneerselvam v. State Rep By Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16221/2024
S. Venugopala Chary v. State of Telangana (Previously State of A.P.), SLP(Crl) No. 15149/2024
State of Chhattisgarh v. Anwar Dhebar
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Preeti Harihara Mahapatra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 780/2024
Reports/Judgments
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.”
Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Inclusion of 'Socialist' And 'Secular' In Constitution's Preamble
Case Details: Dr 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
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
The Supreme Court dismissed 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.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that there was no “legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years.”
The Court noted that the amendment power of the Parliament extends to the Preamble as well. The date of adoption of the Preamble does not restrict the power of the Parliament to amend the Preamble. On this ground, the argument of retrospectivity was rejected. The judgment also explained what 'socialism' and 'secularism' meant in the Indian context.
'Preferential Allotment To A Few Elites Promotes Inequality': Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment For MPs, MLAs, Judges Etc In Hyderabad
Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 918
The Supreme Court quashed the preferential allotment of lands to the housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, Judges, defence personnel, journalists etc. within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.
The Court held such a policy to be suffering from the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, and promoting inequality leading to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda (GoM) of 2005 classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIl India Service/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. The Court also quashed the subsequent GoMs issued in 2008 allotting the lands within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to these classes as bad in law, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
S.19(b) Specific Relief Act | To Claim 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Protection, Subsequent Purchaser Must Make Due Inquiries: Supreme Court
Case Details: Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 919
The Supreme Court observed that a 'subsequent purchaser' of immovable property cannot claim the benefit of a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Act”) if they fail to exercise due diligence regarding the status of the current possessor of the property they intend to purchase
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that a subsequent purchaser who fails to conduct proper inquiries about the title and interest in the immovable property they intend to purchase cannot be deemed a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Act.
Sale Certificate Issued After Court Auction Not Compulsorily Registrable; Auction Purchaser Need Not Deposit Stamp Duty To Get It: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 920
The Supreme Court observed that the successful auction purchaser doesn't need to deposit stamp duty for the issuance of a sale certificate pursuant to the auction done in a court proceedings. The Court clarified that the stamp duty would be payable only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose, but not when the certificate remains as it is.
“The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.”, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said.
'Worrying Trend': Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Using Criminal Law Against Men After Breakup Of Consensual Relationship
Case Details: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the “worrying trend” of invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a long consensual relationship turned sour.
While quashing an FIR in a rape case against a man, a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed :
“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
The Court added, “if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful”.
'Yamuna Expressway A Vital Heartline': Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition For Yamuna Expressway Invoking Urgency Clause
Case Details: Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 922
The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) project in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Court justified the State's act to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to bypass the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a batch of civil appeals filed by two sets of appellants. One set of appellants (landowners) assailed the correctness of Allahabad's High Court decision in the Kamal Sharma v. State of UP (2010) which upheld the acquisition under urgency provisions, citing the project's importance. Whereas, another set of appellants (YEIDA) challenged another Division Bench judgment of the same High Court passed in Shyoraj Singh v. State of UP (2010) where the High Court set aside the acquisition, holding that the urgency clause was improperly invoked.
Religious Conversion Only To Avail Reservation Benefits Without Actual Belief Impermissible, Fraud On Constitution: Supreme Court
Case Details: C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923
The Supreme Court upheld a Madras High Court decision denying a Scheduled Caste (“SC”) certificate to a woman born as a Christian who claimed to be Hindu while applying for an Upper Division Clerk job in Puducherry. The Court ruled that religious conversion undertaken solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermines the fundamental social objectives of the reservation policy.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that religious conversion for the sole purpose of availing benefits is seen as a fraud on the Constitution and contrary to the ethos of reservation policies.
The Supreme Court noted that an individual born as a Christian cannot invoke the doctrine of eclipse of caste, as the caste system is not recognized in Christianity.
The bench clarified that the doctrine of caste eclipse applies only when a person practising caste-based religion converts to caste-less religion. In such cases, their original caste is considered to remain eclipsed. However, if the such persons reconverts to their original religion during their lifetime, the eclipse is lifted, and the caste status is automatically restored. This however will not apply to a born Christian.
S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases: Supreme Court Cautions Courts
Case Details: Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 924
The Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of wife alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal made this observation while quashing the criminal proceedings against the cousin brother of the accused husband and the wife of the said cousin who were named as accused in the FIR lodged by the wife's father.
Hasn't Laid Down That Sentence Can Be Suspended Only If Half Term Is Undergone: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nanhe Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 925
The Supreme Court clarified that it has not laid down any proposition that post-conviction bail can be granted only if the convict has undergone half of the sentence.
While considering a petition challenging the refusal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to suspend sentence, the Court observed that the High Court has misunderstood its decision in Atul @ Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024). In that judgment, the Court had held that sentence should be normally suspended when the convict's appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future. Considering the fact that the appellant in that case had underwent half the sentence period, the Court granted him bail.
In the present case, the Court observed that the judgment in Atul@Ashutosh cannot be construed as holding that the convict should undergo half the sentence period to seek bail.
“We may also note here that the High Court has not correctly read the order of this Court in the case of Atul alias Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. In the facts of the case, the accused had undergone half of the sentence. However, this Court has not laid down that the case for bail can be considered only after undergoing half of the sentence,” the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed.
Not Necessary That Bribe Amount Should Be Substantial To Draw Presumption Under S.20 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha Criminal Appeal No.2646 Of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 926
While convicting a government servant for taking a bribe of Rs.2000, the Supreme Court observed that it was not necessary for the amount involved to be substantial to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As per Section 20(3), the Court has the discretion to refrain from drawing adverse presumption against the public servant if the amount involved is trivial. The Supreme Court observed that the value of gratification has to be considered in proportion to the service proposed to be done.
The Court also held that the presumption becomes irrelevant when the agreement to receive gratification is factually proved.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R Mahadevan was deciding an appeal against the High Court's order acquitting the respondent (accused) in a case for allegedly demanding Rs.2000 to clear a surrender leave salary cheque of a school teacher (complainant). The respondent was charged with offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Retired Employee Not Entitled To Retrospective Promotion Or Benefits Of Promotional Post After Retirement: Supreme Court
Case Details: Government Of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927
The Supreme Court held that an employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits attached to the promotion.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that “promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.”
S.164 CrPC Statement Recorded By Judicial Magistrate Can't Be Retracted By Witness On Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 Of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928
The Supreme Court observed that the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be easily retracted as greater amount of credibility is associated with such statements because they are recorded by a judicial magistrate.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused who challenged their conviction based on the retracted version of the two prosecution witnesses who initially in their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements supported the prosecution's case. After the recording of the statements before the judicial magistrate, the prosecution witnesses claimed that the statements they gave were under threat and coercion from the Investigating Officer.
Distressing To Witness Discrimination Against Women In Governance When Country Aspires To Be Economic Powerhouse: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 929
While granting relief to a woman Sarpanch in Chattisgarh against her removal from office, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the growing trend of bureaucratic harassment against female elected representatives.
The Court observed that such recurring instances of bureaucratic officers exacting vendetta against female sarpanches by causing their removal from offices highlight a “systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination.”
The Court said that it was distressing to witness such instances of discrimination against women in governance when the country was aspiring to become an economic powerhouse.
“It is disheartening that despite our nation's aspirations to become an economic powerhouse, these incidents of discrimination against women in governance continue unabated, bearing striking similarities across geographically distant regions. Such practices normalise regressive attitudes and must be met with serious introspection and reform,” observed the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
While Deciding Application Under S.319 CrPC, Court Must Consider Cross-examination As Well: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 930
The Supreme Court observed that the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be only based on the examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses. The Court said that due credence must be also given to the prosecution witness cross-examination, if exists, before the filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih heard an appeal filed by the accused who was aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the complainant's summoning application which was based on the prosecution's witness chief examination without considering their cross-examination.
Highest Bidder In Tender Process Has No Vested Right To Contract: Supreme Court
Case Details: Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 931
The Supreme Court observed that the highest bidder in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) cannot have a vested right to have the auction concluded in his favor. The Court added that for the contract to be executed, a letter of allotment must be issued in favor of the successful bidder.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a civil appeal filed by Indore Development Authority (“Appellant”) challenging the High Court's Division Bench order directing the Appellant to award a contract in favor of the respondent no.1 because it made the highest bid in NIT auction process.
S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Based On Statement By Accused Before Recording Of S.27 Disclosure Not Admissible: Supreme Court
Case Details: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 932
The Supreme Court held that an alleged recovery of incriminating materials based on a statement given by the accused en route the police station before the recording of the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the police station is not admissible.
The Court set aside the conviction of an accused in a murder case after noting that the discovery of the incriminating circumstances against the accused was not based on the disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (“Act”), but based on the statement recorded by the police when he was en route to the police station.
The Court cautioned against making a simple case of chance recovery as a disclosure under Section 27, as the provision would be prone to misuse providing “a chance to the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” [Refer to Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka (2007)]
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard the criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction on the ground that the discovery of the incriminating evidence against him was done before the recording of his disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Act.
S. 306 IPC | Simple Refusal To Marry Not Abetment To Suicide: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 933
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who was charged with the offence of abetment to suicide (Section 306 IPC) because his lover committed suicide upon his refusal to marry her.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that simple refusal to marry someone would not amount to instigation to commit suicide. Instead, it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
Experience Marks Can't Be Denied To Outsourced Employee Performing Regular Duties Though Not In Sanctioned Post: Supreme Court
Case Details: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 934
The Supreme Court held that experience marks cannot be denied solely because a candidate worked as an outsourced manpower. If the candidate performed duties aligned with the sanctioned post, they are eligible for marks, even if the candidate was not appointed on the sanctioned post, the court said.
“The first respondent, thus, cannot be denied the benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post.”, the Court held.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the appeal preferred by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (“Appellant”) against the High Court's direction to consider the experience marks of the respondent (appointed on the outsourcing basis) for the appointment to the direct recruitment to various Group-C (non-teaching) posts, as she performed same duties as required for the sanctioned post.
Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 935
The Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make.
The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to “prevent the growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State.”
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the PIL considering that the Court in the case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. was already seized of the issue of hate speech.
'Bail Is The Rule, Jail The Exception': Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Denying Bail In Routine Manner By Fixing Deadline For Trials
Case Details: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936
The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting currency who had been incarcerated for two years and six months invoking the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
“Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of two and a half years. The counter filed by the state shows that there are no antecedents reported. Therefore, in the facts of the case appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well settled rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that High Courts should not impose time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials when rejecting bail applications.
For Discharge Application, Only Documents Forming Part Of Chargesheet Can Be Considered: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 937
The Supreme Court observed that while considering the application for discharge, only that document is to be considered which forms part of the charge sheet, and not the ones which were never part of the charge sheet.
“In the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not part of the charge-sheet..”, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih said.
No Nexus Between Company's Revenue & Amount Of Penalty For Environmental Damages: Supreme Court Disapproves NGT's Approach
Case Details: Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 938
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of an order passed by the National Green Tribunal(NGT) which imposed penalty for environmental damages on a company based on its revenue.
The Court observed that there was no nexus between the revenue generation of the company and the ascertainment of penalty for violation of environmental laws.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a company against the NGT order which imposed a penalty of Rs.25 crores on it. The NGT passed this order on the reasoning that the revenue of the company ranged from 100 Crores to 500 Crores.
While setting aside this order, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan flagged three main shortcomings in the NGT's approach. Firstly, there is a vast difference between Rs. 100 crores and Rs. 500 crores. Secondly, the NGT said that it took this information from the public domain and even then, there was no exact figure found out. Thirdly, the Court said that the revenue of the company was not a relevant consideration to fix penalty. Furthermore, the penalty was imposed without notice to the company.
Interlocutory Order Passed By Trial Court Can't Be Vacated By Appellate Court Unless Shown To Be Perverse, Arbitrary: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 939
The Supreme Court cautioned the Appellate Courts against casually interfering with well-reasoned interlocutory orders passed by the trial courts, stating that the Appellate Court's discretion in vacating the interlocutory order should only be exercised if it is shown that the interlocutory order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to established legal principles.
“The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander (supra) case.”, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed.
S. 197 CrPC Applies To PMLA: Supreme Court Holds Prior Sanction Mandatory To Prosecute Public Servants For Money Laundering Offence
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement Etc. v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya Etc. Etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940
The Supreme Court held that section 197(1) of CrPC, which provides that prior sanction from the government is required to prosecute public servants and judges for offences alleged while discharge of public duties, will apply to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by the Directorate of Enforcement challenging Telangana High Court's order that set aside cognizance orders against two IAS officers on the ground of lack of prior sanction.
Orders
'Senior WB Police Officers Competent, No Need For CBI': Supreme Court Constitutes SIT To Probe Custodial Torture Allegations By RG Kar Protestors
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024
The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations of custodial torture of 2 women arrested amid protests that took place in West Bengal after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder incident.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with State of West Bengal's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order which directed CBI probe into the matter. Earlier, while issuing notice, the Court had stayed this direction of the High Court. It asked the state government to submit a list of IPS officers (including women officers), who could be included in an SIT to investigate the custodial torture case instead of CBI.
Taking into account a list of officers furnished by the state, the Court constituted an SIT - of officers not belonging to the State of West Bengal but serving therein.
Delhi Air Pollution - Supreme Court Directs CAQM To Consider Allowing Physical Classes In Schools/Colleges
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider relaxing the restrictions on physical classes of schools, colleges and educational institutions in Delhi-NCR, which were imposed due to severe air pollution.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the CAQM to consider relaxation of action in terms of clause 5 and clause 8 (only in relation to educational institutions) of GRAP-IV as well as clause 11 of GRAP III measures.
The Court came down heavily on authorities for not enforcing the ban on entry of trucks and light commercial vehicles to Delhi, a measure which was imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) as part of its GRAP-IV measures to address severe air pollution.
The Court directed the CAQM to initiate prosecution in terms of Section 14 of the CAQM Act against the officials who failed to enforce the directives.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Deletion Of Duplicate Voter Names In Electoral Rolls
Case Details: Rashtrawadi Adarsh Mahasangh v. Union of India | Diary No. - 53278/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking the deletion of duplicate voter names appearing on electoral rolls.
The PIL addresses the issue of duplicity of voter names on electoral rolls. The petitioner sought the direction to the Union of India and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to delete the multiplicity of names appearing in the registered voter list.
Supreme Court Calls For Tree Census And Vigil Mechanism To Prevent Illegal Tree Felling In Taj Trapezium Zone
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a tree census and a mechanism to prevent unauthorized tree felling in the environmentally sensitive Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
'If You Win, EVMs Aren't Tampered': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Use Paper Ballots For Voting
Case Details: Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 718/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul seeking physical ballot voting in India. Other prayers included issuing directions to the Election Commission to disqualify candidates for at least 5 years if found guilty of distributing money liquor and other inducements during elections.
Supreme Court Allows NIA's Plea To Transfer 8 Criminal Cases From Manipur To Assam
Case Details: National Investigation Agency v. Md. Noor Hussain Tomba Nur Hasan., T.P.(Crl.) No. 502-509/2024
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for the transfer of 8 criminal cases pending before the NIA, Special Court in the district Imphal, State of Manipur, to the NIA Special Court, Guwahati, Assam.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the NIA's transfer petition taking into consideration prayer made by the NIA that the situation in the State of Manipur was not conducive for conducting a free and fair trial.
Supreme Court Allows Scribe For 100 Percent Blind Law Graduate To Attend CLAT-PG Exam
Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
The Supreme Court allowed a 100 percent blind law student to avail the assistance of a scribe, as appointed by the Consortium of the National Law Universities, to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25 scheduled on December 1.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a writ petition filed by three petitioners advocating for necessary accommodation in legal examinations, including the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and CLAT.
'If We Allow This, Any Politician Can Be Roped In': Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas To Revive Bribery & PMLA Cases Against Ex-MLA KM Shaji
Case Details: State of Kerala v. KM Shaji with Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. KM Shaji
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's judgments quashing bribery and money laundering cases against Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader and former MLA KM Shaji.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the special leave petitions filed against the High Court orders by the State of Kerala and the Directorate of Enforcement respectively.
Supreme Court Stays Trial In Rabia Saifi Murder Case, Seeks Authorities' Response On Father's Plea For CBI Probe Into Conspiracy
Case Details: Sameed Ahmad v. State of Haryana, Diary No.48472/2024
On hearing her father's plea to transfer the case to CBI, the Supreme Court stayed the trial in the murder case of Rabia Saifi, a 21-year-old Civil Defense volunteer with the Delhi government, who was stabbed to death in August, 2021.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale passed the order, while issuing notice to the Haryana Police, on a petition filed by Rabia's father-Sameed Ahmad, against an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court declining to transfer the case to CBI (or any other independent agency).
Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of 2 Convicts In 2003 Murder Case Of Chhattisgarh NCP Leader Ram Avatar Jaggi
Case Details: Surya Kant v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) NO. 6469/2024 and connected cases
The Supreme Court suspended the life imprisonment of two persons who were convicted for the murder of Nationalist Congress party leader Ram Avatar Jaggi in Chhattisgarh in 2003.
The Court suspended the sentence of convicts Feroz Sidhique and Abhay Goel and ordered that they be released on bail during the pendency of the appeals on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court.
The Court however refused to suspend the sentence of another convict named Yahya Dhebar. The applications filed by other convicts seeking suspension of their sentence will be heard on December 9. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the matter. Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Agarwal, S Nagamuthu etc appeared for some of the applicants.
After RTI Activist Flags Vacancies In Information Commissions, Supreme Court Seeks Data From Centre & States On CIC/SICs
Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018
The Supreme Court called on the Centre and states to furnish data regarding vacancies in Central/State Information Commissions as well as the proposed timelines for appointment of Information Commissioners thereto.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a PIL raising the issue of large number of vacancies in information commissions set up under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Supreme Court Allows SDF Functionaries To Withdraw Pleas Challenging Reduction In Sikkim CM's Disqualification Period
Case Details: Bimal Dawari Sharma, General Secretary, Sikkim Democratic Front Party v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 792/2019
Considering applications for withdrawal filed on behalf of the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed two petitions challenging the appointment of Prem Singh Tamang as Chief Minister of Sikkim and the Election Commission's reduction of his disqualification period (upon conviction) from 6 years to 1 year.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the petitioners' claims that they never authorized anyone to file the subject petitions. Although it was suggested that the petitioners - Sikkim Democratic Front Party functionaries - were acting under pressure to withdraw the petitions, the Court said that it cannot force anyone to continue pursuing a matter.
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Supreme Court Seeks Ashish Mishra's Response On Allegations Of Threatening Witnesses
Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court sought the response of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, on allegations of threatening witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case related to killing of 5 persons in October 2021, when vehicles of his convoy allegedly ran over a group of farmers who were protesting against the farm laws.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, considering an application filed alleging that Mishra threatened witnesses in the case.
'Strange Facts': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Municipal Corporation Over Demolition Of Delhi Public Library In Karol Bagh
Case Details: Delhi Library Board v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued show-cause notice to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the owner of a building that housed the Delhi Public Library in Karol Bagh, New Delhi, regarding the demolition of the building in 2018.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concern over the circumstances surrounding the demolition, which occurred shortly after the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL against the demolition, without giving time to the affected parties.
Are Medical College HoD Appointments Governed By NMC Regulations? Supreme Court Seeks National Medical Commission's View
Case Details: Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
In a plea concerning the law regarding the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges, the Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a necessary party to the case.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was dealing with a plea against Karnataka High Court's decision holding that HoD is not an administrative post and is not governed by NMC regulation on administrative posts.
Supreme Court To Balance Competing Claims For Hospital & Open Prison; Appoints Registrar To Inspect Rajasthan Correctional Home
Case Details: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on November 25 appointed a Registrar as the “Court Commissioner” for the site inspection of the Sanganer open-air prison in Rajasthan after a contempt petition was filed, alleging that the part of the area allotted to the prison has been taken away by the Rajasthan Government for constructing a 300-bed hospital.
The order adds: “We are also of the considered view that there has to be a balance between the needs of having the Open Correctional Home and also a Hospital, which shall cater to the needs of the citizens residing in the vicinity.”
UAPA | Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Man Booked Over Alleged ISIS Links, Expunges Madras HC's Remarks
Case Details: State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Asif Musthaheen, SLP(Crl) No. 015582 / 2024
The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to one Asif Musthaheen, booked over alleged ISIS links, Al-Qaeda ideology and plans to kill members of Hindu organisations.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. Although the grant of bail, primarily on account of long incarceration, was not interfered with, the Court expunged certain remarks made by the Madras High Court in the impugned order. These related to:
(i) the evidentiary value of text messages;
(ii) prima facie no offence under Section 38 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Act being made out; and
(iii) whether there was any illegality/irregularity on the issue of sanction.
“Such observations by the High Court while deciding a bail application are apparently out of context, and the same are thus expunged, and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other matter” said the bench.
Supreme Court Asks Animal Welfare Board To Get Approval For Rules On Birth Control Of Feral & Free-Ranging Dogs In Wildlife Areas
Case Details: Bombay Natural History Society v. Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 97/2024
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to get approval “quickly” from the concerned Ministry of the Government of India in regard to the rules concerning birth control of feral, free-ranging and domestic dogs attacking or hunting wildlife in protected areas and forests which is arrived in consonance with the present petitioner and the Animal Welfare Board of India.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanuallah in its order stated that “it is hoped that a decision on this will be taken within 4 weeks.”
UP Police Enjoying Power, Needs To Be Sensitised: Supreme Court
Case Details: Anurag Dubey Alias Dabban v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 46437/2024
Expressing strong disapproval of the Uttar Pradesh police's dealing of a case, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court remarked that the police in UP is “enjoying power” and “needs to be sensitized”. The judge further commented that the state police seemed to be “entering a dangerous area” and warned that a drastic order would be passed if the petitioner before the Court is touched.
A bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and noted that the petitioner, against whom multiple FIRs were registered, was seemingly under the fear that a new case would be registered against him if he appeared for investigation.
As such, it was directed that the petitioner abide by any notice served by the Investigating Officer on his mobile phone. However, he will not be taken into police custody, without prior permission from the court.
'This Is Your Way Of Encouraging Sportspersons?': Supreme Court Criticises Himachal Govt For Opposing Appointment Of Asian Games Medallist
Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Pooja Thakur and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 990/2024
The Supreme Court criticized the Himachal Pradesh Government for denying appointment to an Asian gold medallist in the sports quota.
“This is your way of encouraging sportspersons? Somebody won a gold medal in the Asian games of 2014, your CM should have adopted a pragmatic approach,” the Court asked.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the case concerning the appointment of Kabaddi player Pooja Thakur.
The Court refused to interfere with the 2023 High Court order which upheld a single judge's order directing Thakur's appointment to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer effective from the date of her application to the Chief Minister in July 2015.
Delhi Air Pollution - Court Commissioners Report 'Abject Failure' In Implementing GRAP-IV Measures; Supreme Court Seeks NCR States' Response
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Court Commissioners' reports indicated “abject failure” on the part of the authorities in implementing the GRAP-IV measures to address the severe problem of air pollution in Delhi.
The Court called for a response from the National Capital Region (NCR) states by Monday (December 2) on the measures they propose to take against the breaches which have been specifically pointed out by the Court Commissioners.
“The immediate issue which needs to be addressed is that the trucks are allowed to enter the limits of Delhi and then after travelling some distance they are taking a u-turn back to from where they have arrived. This issue also needs to be addressed,” the Court observed in its order.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the directions while hearing the MC Mehta case to deal with the air quality crisis in the national capital.
The Court emphasized the need for a mechanism to monitor instances of stubble burning throughout the day, emphasising that the current satellite monitoring for only a few hours of the day is not sufficient.
The Court said that it will take a call on imposing a year-round ban on firecrackers in Delhi NCR on Monday after hearing the Delhi government and NCR states.
'You've Slaughtered 6 People & CJM Is Granting You Bail! Never Heard Of': Supreme Court Denies Relief To Convicts
Case Details: Mohd. Jaheer @ Munne and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 13948-13949/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed SLPs filed by four persons, challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court whereby their post-conviction bail was cancelled.
They were convicted of murdering six persons but were subsequently granted interim bail by a Chief Judicial Magistrate.
In a peculiar set of facts, the convicts were released on bail on March 11 based on compliance with the directions passed by the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh on January 10.
The matter came before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
'Classic Case Of How System Operates & Delays Trial': Supreme Court While Allowing Accused To Recall Witness After Over 3 Years
Case Details: Nadeem v. State of UP
The Supreme Court lamented systematic delays in trial after noting that the trial court illegally recorded the complainant's evidence in a POCSO case in the absence of the accused and his advocate and then both the trial court and the High Court rejected a recall application to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant.
“This is a classic case that indicates how the system operates and trial is delayed…The trial court could not have recorded evidence of PW1 in the absence of the appellant and his advocate. After noting this illegality in the order dated 30.05.2023 the trial court rejected the application…This was a case where there was a clear prejudice to the appellant and therefore the trial court itself should have allowed the application”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further criticised the public prosecutor and the government lawyer for opposing the recall application before the trial court and the High Court respectively.
Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | Authorities Not Acknowledging Problem Of Religious Discrimination: PIL Petitioner Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat told the Supreme Court that while Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 exists to protect children against religious discrimination in school, the authorities are not acknowledging the problem and addressing it.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case and the implementation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The case involves allegations of religious discrimination and physical punishment of a minor student by a teacher in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court directed Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad of Uttar Pradesh to appear on the next date and ensure the release of travel reimbursements to the child's father before the next hearing.
Supreme Court Seeks Undertaking From School Employee Not To Protest While Being Part Of Institution
Case Details: K. Shahul Hameed v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court while hearing a former school employee's plea against dismissal for protesting alleged corruption in the school, orally remarked that employees cannot protest against their employer while remaining part of the institution.
Justice Abhay Oka observed, “See the misconduct. You are agitating against your employer. See if you want to protest against corruption etc. you must get out of the institution and then protest. You are employee. You are sitting on Satyagraha in front of the school gate. Students have to follow discipline teachers have to also follow discipline.”
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih sought an undertaking from the employee that he would not indulge in such activities in the future. The court also clarified that even if the penalty is modified, the issue of back wages would not arise.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Suspended Trinamool Congress Leader Kuntal Ghosh In CBI Case Over Cash-for-Jobs Scam
Case Details: Kuntal Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 13352/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to suspended Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case registered by CBI.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted the relief considering the unlikelihood of the trial completing soon. Although a chargesheet was filed in January 2024, the Special Court did not take cognisance as no documents were appended to it. Also, the CBI is proposing to file supplementary chargesheets.
Sambhal Masjid: Supreme Court Asks Trial Court To Defer Proceedings Till Survey Order Is Challenged, Keep Commissioner Report Sealed
Case Details: Committee of Management, Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. | SLP(C) No.28500/2024
The Supreme Court asked the Sambhal Trial Court not to proceed in the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi, till the petition filed by the Masjid Committee against the survey order is listed in the Allahabad High Court.
The Court also directed that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who conducted the survey of the mosque, should be kept in a sealed cover and should not be opened in the meantime.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the petition filed by the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee challenging the trial court's order passed on November 19 directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the mosque was built after destroying a temple.
The CJI expressed concerns over the need to maintain peace amongst the communities in the Sambhal District and told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appearing for Uttar Pradesh Administration that: “Peace and harmony have to be maintained. We don't want anything to happen...we have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure nothing wrong is done.”
The Court has not disposed of the Special Leave Petition filed by the mosque committee and chose to keep it pending. The petition filed by the Mosque Committee before the High Court should be listed within three working days, the Court ordered.
Supreme Court Stays Revival Of Disproportionate Assets Case Against Ex-TN CM O Paneerselvam
Case Details: O Panneerselvam v. State Rep By Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16221/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice against the Madras High Court's order setting aside the discharge of O Panneerselvam, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and his family members in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act over alleged disproporation assets. In the meanwhile, the Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order.
A bench of Justices Hrishkesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti briefly heard senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohagti, Siddharth Luthra and S. Nagamuthu appearing for various accused persons
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Ex-MP S Venugopal Chary's Challenge To Conviction, Sentence For Allegedly Hurting Police Official; Exempted From Surrender
Case Details: S. Venugopala Chary v. State of Telangana (Previously State of A.P.), SLP(Crl) No. 15149/2024
While issuing notice on S Venugopala Chary's plea challenging his conviction and sentence (6 months) in a case involving allegations of hitting a police official, the Supreme Court extended the exemption from surrender granted earlier to the former MP.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Anwar Dhebar On Medical Grounds In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case
Case Details: State of Chhattisgarh v. Anwar Dhebar
The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Anwar Dhebar, the elder brother of Raipur Mayor and Congress leader Aijaz Dhebar, in a corruption and cheating case related to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The bail had been granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court on medical grounds.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, in plea by state of Chhattisgarh against the HC order, noted the medical board's opinion that Dhebar was stable and had no serious medical ailments.
The Court said that the Chhattisgarh High Court should have had Dhebar's medical condition examined by a medical board before considering medical bail.
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice Over Illegal Tree Felling In Mathura-Vrindavan, Asks UP Govt To Consider Amending Tree Preservation Act
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued contempt notice to owners of Dalmia Farm, a private land in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) for felling 454 trees in the area without prior permission of the Court.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning illegal tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
Additionally, the Court ordered that tree-felling activities for which permission is granted must not take place between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the TTZ area.
The court also requested the Uttar Pradesh government to consider amending the Uttar Pradesh Tree preservation Act to enhance the penalties and the amount permissible for compounding of offenses of violation of the Act.
'Disgusted That This Court Is Repeatedly Taken On A Ride': Supreme Court On Suppression Of Facts In Yet Another Remission Plea
Case Details: Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Supreme Court expressed disgust over repeated instances of material suppression in remission petitions after discovering that a convict seeking remission had suppressed material facts by simultaneously having approached the Delhi High Court for similar relief without disclosing this to the Supreme Court.
“In one sentence, we feel disgusted that this court is taken on a ride in such matters, not in one matter, but several matters”, Justice Abhay Oka said.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the petitioner to explain her actions and observed that stringent measures, including contempt proceedings might be required for suppressing facts.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL For Checks On Prasad, Food Items Distributed In Religious Places; Asks Litigant To Approach FSSAI
Case Details: Preeti Harihara Mahapatra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 780/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking quality regulation of prasad/food items distributed at religious places across the country.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for petitioner) who contended that there should be pan-India regulations to address the issue, which can be enforced.
Other Developments
'Sensitive Matter': Union Seeks More Time On Balwant Singh's Mercy Petition; Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing By 4 Weeks
Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UoI & Ors, WP (Crl.) No. 414/2024
The Supreme Court adjourned by four weeks the petition filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana, Babbar Khalsa terrorist, seeking commutation of the death sentence awarded to him in the Punjab CM Beant Singh assassination case. He is seeking commutation on the ground of delay in considering the mercy petition filed by him.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan granted the adjournment after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union long with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, requested time, saying that the matter is “sensitive” and more inputs from other agencies are required.
DUSU Elections: Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Disqualify Candidates Who Violated Lyngdoh Committee's Recommendations
Case Details: Akhilesh Kumar Mishra & Ors v. University of Delhi & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27994/2024
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a Special Leave Petition (C) against the Delhi High Court's order dated November 11 which refused to disqualify candidates who allegedly violated the Lyngdoh committee recommendations in the Delhi University Students' Union Elections
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Include Legal Education & Self-Defense Training In School Curriculum
Case Details: Geeta Rani v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 744/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking integration of legal education and self-defense training in school curriculum.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order. The matter is next tentatively listed on January 1.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna Rules Out Going Back To Old System Of Adjournment Letters' Circulation
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that the old system of seeking adjournments by circulation of letters will not be reinstated.
Speaking at the Constitution Day Function organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, CJI Khanna highlighted that at one point, there were nearly one thousand adjournment letters which were circulated on daily basis. However, as per the new system, the numbers have come down to nearly 150 adjournment letters per month. Therefore, the CJI said that going back to the previous system was “counter-productive.”
Pennaiyar River Dispute | 'Mediation Process Has Failed': Tamil Nadu And Karnataka Govts Tell Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Anr., Original Suit No. 1/2018
The Supreme Court was informed that mediation process between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in relation to the dispute over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources has failed.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, which granted 2 weeks' time to the Union (which facilitated the mediation) to produce the Negotiation Committee's report.
Sheena Bora Murder Case: Indrani Mukerjea Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Permission To Travel Abroad
Indrani Mukerjea, the prime accused in the high-profile murder case of Sheena Bora, has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to travel to Spain and the United Kingdom (UK).
She filed a Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court's order which denied her permission to travel abroad. Mukerjea submitted that she was a British Citizen seeking permission to visit Spain and her home country to take care of some pending works which cannot be transacted without her presence. The pending works were detailed as the need to activate certain bank accounts for which biometrics are necessary, the appointment of a real estate agent, repairs and maintenance of properties etc. She also mentioned the need to update her Will by removing the name of her ex-husband.
'Sad That Supreme Court Has To Get Involved': SC Reserves Judgment On PIL Seeking Sanitised Toilets In Courts
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. WP (C) No. 538/2023
The Supreme Court reserved the judgment in a Public Interest Litigation seeking sanitised toilets in Courts and Tribunals across the country after the petitioner provided suggestions on the issue.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved the judgment not before adding that the Court needs to do something about this issue. When it was suggested that a permanent committee may be established to monitor the issue, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked: “It is so sad that the Supreme Court has to involve itself into all this. It is so sad. What has been pointed out by Mr. Konwar is truth and hard reality. That is the problem in the country-maintenance. Maintenance is the key problem. You may invest 100 crores in any project but when it comes to maintenance, then its the problem.”
'How Do You Check Passengers Who Get Intoxicated In-Flight?' Supreme Court Asks Union In PIL By Air India Urination Case Victim
Case Details: Hema Rajaraman v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 509/2023
During the hearing of the Air India urination case, the Supreme Court queried the Union as to how it checks passengers who get intoxicated in-flight and asked that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) examine the petitioner's suggestions to see if existing guidelines to regulate unruly flight behavior can be made more comprehensive.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was dealing with the plea filed by 73-year-old Hema Rajaraman, victim of the Air India urination incident, who approached the Court seeking directions to the DGCA and airline companies for Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and regulations to deal with incidents of passenger misconduct.
Send Advance Letters To Withdraw Cases, Will Help Bench Save Time: CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna suggested that lawyers send letters in advance with requests for withdrawal of cases instead of making oral submissions when the matter is taken up.
'ED Conviction Rate Is Poor, How Long Accused Can Be Kept Undertrial?': Supreme Court Asks In Ex-WB Minister Partha Chatterjee's Bail Plea
Case Details: Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate Of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 13870/2024
While hearing the bail petition of former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in a money laundering case, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about keeping an accused under custody for a long period without trial.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the petition filed by Chatterjee seeking bail in the money laundering case arising out of the bribery allegations in the recruitment of Assistant Primary Teachers in West Bengal.
'Sanction Not Required For Investigation,' Jharkhand To Supreme Court In Deoghar Airport Case Against MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Nishkant Dubey
The Supreme Court heard State of Jharkhand's plea against Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash the FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and others in the Deoghar Airport case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih asked the state to produce judgements to support its contention that investigation can go on without taking prior sanction.
National Wildlife Board Not Holding Annual Sittings, Powers Delegated To Standing Committee: Centre Tells Supreme Courti
Case Details: Chandrabhal Singh v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1284/2020
The Supreme Court admitted and fixed for final hearing a public interest litigation assailing the non-sitting of National Board for Wildlife atleast once every year in terms of Rule 4(1) of the National Board for Wildlife Rules, 2003. The hearing is scheduled to take place after 6 months.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, upon hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for the Union), who informed, pursuant to an earlier Court query, that though the Board has not assembled for some time, a Standing Committee delegated with its powers has been carrying out the works. As such, non-sitting of the Board is not adversely impacting the working of the statutory body in terms of the Act.
Can't Provide Ration Cards To Migrant Workers Beyond Ceiling Limit Provided In Food Security Act: Union To Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020
The Supreme Court heard the matter pertaining to giving free ration cards to migrant workers and unskilled labourers found eligible under the e-Shram portal.
During the hearing, the Union Government submitted that they have an obligation to provide ration cards only under the mandated regime of the National Food Security Act, 2013(NFSA) which provides a coverage limit on the number of people who could be provided with free rations. Therefore, they cannot provide ration cards breaching the upper ceiling as provided in the legislation.
CBI Files Application In Supreme Court To Transfer Trial Against Yasin Malik From Jammu To Court In Tihar Jail
Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik
The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the trial of the case involving Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik from Jammu to a court facility within Tihar jail, where he is currently lodged.
Malik need not be physically produced before the court in Jammu for trial as Tihar jail has a functional court with video-conferencing facilities, the Solicitor General of India informed the Court.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the appeal filed by the CBI against an order passed by the Jammu trial court to physically produce Yasin Malik in the trial pertaining to the killing of four Indian Air Force personnel in 1989
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Delhi HC Chief Justice Manmohan As Supreme Court Judge
The Supreme Court Collegium passed a resolution recommending the name of the incumbent Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Manmohan for elevation to the Apex Court.
Will Ask PMLA Accused Seeking Bail On Ground Of Delay In Trial To File Undertaking Against Seeking Adjournments: Supreme Court
Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court expressed that it will require persons accused of money laundering to file undertaking that they will not seek adjournments and delay trial before granting bail on the ground that trial is delayed.
“So this is the course we want to adopt now if we are granting bail on the ground that the matter is not progressing. Interests will be balanced. Unless we find that something is really there on merits. That is a different case, we will grant bail on merits”, Justice Abhay Oka said.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed Zeeshan Haider, an accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case who has sought bail on ground of delay, to file an undertaking in order for the court to consider his prayer.
FIR Registered Against 8 Advocates For Cheating & Forgery In Fake SLP Case: CBI Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP | MA 2413-2414/2024
In the case where the Supreme Court directed CBI probe into the filing of a fake petition before it, the agency informed that an FIR has been registered against 10 known persons (and those unknown). Out of the 10, 3 are advocates practising before the Supreme Court and 5 are practising before the Allahabad High Court.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, which delivered judgment in the matter on September 20, passing directions for the CBI probe.
'Went Before Hema Committee For Academic Purpose': Malayalam Actress Approaches Supreme Court Against HC Direction To Register FIR
A Malayalam film actress, who deposed before the Justice Hema Committee - which was constituted to inquire into the exploitation of women in Malayalam cinema- has approached the Supreme Court against the direction issued by the Kerala High Court to register FIRs based on the statements recorded by the Committee.
The actress, in her Special Leave Petition, said that she gave statements to the Hema Committee “purely for academic purposes” and not to initiate any criminal proceedings. She said that she voluntarily provided the statement with the understanding that it was intended solely for the Committee's academic or advisory purposes and not for triggering any legal or criminal action.
Can Advocates Work As Journalists? Supreme Court To Decide, Hearing On Dec 16
Case Details: Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
The Supreme Court said that it will decide whether advocates can simultaneously work as journalists.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with a petition filed by an advocate who also worked as a free-lance journalist.
Supreme Court To Hear Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Cases On December 9
Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023
The Supreme Court posted a batch of petitions relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute to December 9, at 2 PM.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Repatriation Of Delhi HC Judge Justice Chandra Dhari Singh To Allahabad High Court
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended repatriation of Delhi High Court judge, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, to Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.
The recommendation has been made in the Collegium meeting which happened on November 28 and 29.
There Are Other Ways to Agitate, Don't Hold Litigants to Ransom: Supreme Court On Lawyers' Strike, Raps P&H HC Bar Association
Case Details: M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on orally remarked that lawyers' abstaining from court work unfairly harm litigants and there are other powerful methods for lawyers to agitate. The Court was hearing a case concerning members of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association having abstained from court work in July 2024. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pulled up the acting Vice President of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Jasdev Singh Brar over his reluctance to provide an undertaking to refrain from strikes.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Provisions Of UP Gangsters Act, Rules
Case Details: Siraj Ahmad Khan and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., WP (Crl.) No. 452/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate R Basant (for the petitioners) who assailed the discretionary powers granted to the police and argued that the police itself is complainant, prosecutor and adjudicator under the Gangsters Act and Rules.
'Some Courts Declining Passovers, Hearing Sequence Be Published In Causelists': SCAORA Writes To CJI
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has written to the Chief Justice of India requesting that the hearing sequence be published in the supplementary causelist itself the previous day instead of digitally displaying on the hearing day.
The Association has also raised concerns about certain benches denying the requests for passovers in the first round, which was said to be “a matter of great concern and causing great difficulty to the members of the Bar.”
Supreme Court Allows Interim Release Of 103-Year-Old Convict Serving Life Sentence In 1988 Murder Case
Case Details: Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 313/2020
The Supreme Court granted interim release to a 103-year-old convict serving life sentence for the offence of murder.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea filed by the convict seeking interim release.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Guidelines Against Manufacturing And Selling Of Fake Pharma Drugs
Case Details: Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance v. Union of India | WP (C) No. 746/2024
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue of lack of procedural guidelines in initiating criminal proceedings against the offence of manufacturing, storing and selling of counterfeited drugs.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice in the petition.
'For Peace & Harmony': Plea In Supreme Court To Stop Surveying Of Religious Structures, Enforce Places Of Worship Act
In the wake of the recent controversies relating to Sambhal Jama Masjid and Ajmer Dargah, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to stop the execution of survey orders issued by Courts against religious structures in contravention of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The petitioners, Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra, seek a direction to restrain States from executing orders issued by Courts to survey religious structures to purportedly ascertain claims that they were built over structures belonging to other religions.
The petitioners seek a direction to the States, High Courts and Trial Courts to follow the Places of Worship Act. They also seek a stay of the survey orders issued by the Courts in such cases.