IndexCitationsBeena and Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 706Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707Sandeep Kumar v. Vinod & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 708Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and...
Index
Beena and Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 706
Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707
Sandeep Kumar v. Vinod & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and Ors.| Diary No. 41691-2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 709
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 710
Sandeep TS v. Union of India | Writ Petition(Civil) No.564/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 711
Sahil Bhargava v. State of Uttarakhand SLP(C) No. 019953/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 712
Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 713
Hans Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 714
Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715
Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 716
Arockiasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Ramesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 718
Custodian of Enemy Property for India v. Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Ansari & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 719
Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 720
Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 721
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Up | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18885/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722
Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 723
M/s Ultra Tech Cement LTd v.Mast Ram and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725
Shoor Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726
Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors., Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Bar Council of India and Ors. Diary No. 24405-2024
Jamshed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No.12644/2024
M/S Sab Industries Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20675/2024
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
Anarul Sk v. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl) No. 12621/2024
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW (Crl) No. 4/2021
Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No. 9/2024]
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023
Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024
Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India| WP (C) No. 577 of 2024
Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
Coaching Federation of India v. Government of Nct of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024
State Rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID v. Kesava Vinayagam SLP (Crl.) 8674/24
Spicejet Limited v. Team France 01 S.A.S SLP(C) No. 21345-21346/2024
Ajit Vishnu Ranade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 500/2024
Zahid Showkat Alias Mir V Joint Secretary, Prime Minister's Office & Ors.
State of Punjab v UOI Civil Appeal No.10602/2024
Judgments
'No Transfer of Title In Absence of Registered Document' : Supreme Court Rejects Tenant's Claim For Ownership Based On Settlement With Landlord
Case Details: Beena and Ors. v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 706
The provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in relation to the summoning of a person, held the Supreme Court in the judgment dismissing the appeals of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate for their appearance in Delhi in connection with a coal scam case.
Nagaland Civilian Killings: Supreme Court Closes FIR Against 30 Indian Army Personnel For Lack of Sanctions Under AFSPA
Case Details: Rabina Ghale & Anr v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 265 of 2022 & Anjali Gupta v. UOI & Ors, WP (Crl) No. 250 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court held that an accused already in custody in connection with one case can apply for anticipatory bail in connection with another case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a case which raised the legal issue whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is arrested in another case.
Candidate Duly Elected In Democratic Process Can't Be Stopped From Assuming Office: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sandeep Kumar v. Vinod & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Holding that a candidate who has been duly elected in a democratic process cannot be stopped from assuming the elected office, the Supreme Court directed the District Election Officer of Jhajjar (Haryana) to give the charge of the Sarpanch to the elected candidate who was restrained from assuming the charge of the Office despite having won the election.
Coastal Energen Insolvency : Supreme Court Allows Dickey Trust-Adani Power Resolution Plan To Operate Till NCLAT Final Decision
Case Details: Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and Ors.| Diary No. 41691-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court observed that non-recording of the reasons in the convening order to appoint a Junior Officer as Presiding Officer of the Martial Court would invalidate the proceedings recorded before such Junior Officer.
Drawing reference from the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit Singh Gill (2000) the Court, in essence, said that it would be impermissible for the Junior Officer to act as the Presiding Officer to decide the plea against the superior officer/accused unless the reasons were not recorded in the convening order that due to the exigencies of public service, an officer of equal or superior rank to the accused is not available to act as Judge Advocate.
PCPNDT Act | Search of Clinic Illegal If Not Authorized By All Three Members of District Authority: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 710
The Supreme Court held that a search and seizure operation under Section 30 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) must be authorised by all three members of the District Appropriate Authority under the Act collectively, and any decision by a single member is illegal.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed a complaint and FIR filed against a doctor accused of performing sex determination tests and participating in an illegal medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) racket.
Atomic Energy Act's Ban On Licence To Private Entities For Nuclear Energy Purposes Not Arbitrary : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sandeep TS v. Union of India | Writ Petition(Civil) No.564/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 which prohibit private entities from obtaining licence for working on nuclear energy.
The Court observed that these provisions serve a "salutary public purpose" by ensuring that nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes under stringent government control.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the provisions of the Act are not arbitrary and no fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated.
Supreme Court Directs MBBS Students to Pay College Fee Arrears To Get Original Certificates
Case Details: Sahil Bhargava v. State of Uttarakhand SLP(C) No. 019953/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court on September 9 passed an interim order in a petition filed by medical students challenging the withholding of original documents by a medical college for non-payment of arrears of fees. The Court directed the release of the documents upon the condition that 7.5 lacs will be deposited towards the pending fee arrears with an undertaking to pay the remaining balance amount.
Head of Department Guilty If Government Dept Fails To Comply With NGT Order : Supreme Court
Case Details: Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court observed that if a Government Department fails to comply with an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Head of the Department shall be deemed liable for such failure as per section 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside an NGT order deleting 15 government officers from an execution application that alleged non-compliance with NGT direction to prevent unauthorized activities in the Wild Ass Sanctuary in Gujarat's Rann of Kutch.
Motor Accident Claims| Guidelines of State Legal Services Authority On Disability Compensation Not Binding On HC/MACT : Supreme Court
Case Details: Hans Raj v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 714
The Supreme Court observed that the guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority for deciding the disability compensation in motor accident claims ought not to be made applicable for determining just and reasonable compensation in the cases where the proof of earning has been brought on record.
The Court said that the guidelines issued by the Legal Services Authority would be made applicable where the proof of earning is not available and to settle such disputes in Lok Adalat. Even in the absence of evidence regarding earning, the guidelines of the Legal Services Authority are not binding on the High Court and the Supreme Court and can be used only for guidance, the Supreme Court added.
Travesty of Justice If Prisoner Can't Get Benefit of Bail Order Due To Inability To Furnish Local Surety: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715
The Supreme Court September 18 directed the release of a POCSO convict who continued to remain in custody despite a bail order passed in May 2024. The petitioner had been unable to secure release due to his inability to furnish local surety.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that continuing to keep him in custody despite a bail order would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
'Unbelievable That Eyewitness Identified Attackers Despite Power Outage' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction In 2006 Case
Case Details: Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 313-314 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 716
The Supreme Court acquitted two persons who were convicted for the offence of murder holding that their convictions were solely based on the testimony of the deceased's wife, who claimed she eye-witnessed the incident despite a power outage but failed to identify the assaulter and the weapon used for attack.
Declaring the deposition of the wife as having no credence, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar opined that the widow tried to embroider her testimony. It observed: “Picturing a scenario where twenty-two persons entered into the premises armed with axes and sticks on a dark night, even if dimly lit by moonlight, it is difficult to believe that, in the melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, as to who was assaulting whom and with what weapon.”
S.195 CrPC Bar Not Applicable When Forgery Was Committed On Document Before It Was Given As Evidence In Court : Supreme Court
Case Details: Arockiasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No.5805/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Dealing with a case involving allegations of forgery, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC to examine an allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production.
As per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court can take cognizance of an offence of forgery in relation to a document submitted in evidence in a Court proceeding only on a written complaint of an officer authorized by that Court (where the forged document was produced).
Brusque Approach of High Court In Reversing Acquittal Can't Be Sustained: Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction
Case Details: Ramesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 718
The Supreme Court held that a witness who gives an incriminating statement cannot take a shield under proviso of Section 132 of the Evidence Act (“IEA”) to claim immunity from prosecution if there exists other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement in the crime.
The Court stated : "We hold that the qualified privilege under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)"
Supreme Court Directs West Bengal To Form Municipal Building Tribunal Within 2 Weeks, Asks HC To Initiate Contempt Proceedings On Default
Case Details: Custodian of Enemy Property for India v. Md. Yakub @ Md. Yakub Ansari & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 719
The Supreme Court directed the State of West Bengal to complete the formation of the Municipal Building Tribunal within two weeks, warning that failure to comply could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, any party aggrieved by a demolition order for unauthorised construction can appeal to the Municipal Building Tribunal within 30 days.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the State of West Bengal has appointed a chairperson for the tribunal but has not yet appointed judicial and technical members, rendering it non-functional.
Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence of Driver Can't Be Vicariously Attached To Passengers of Vehicle: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 720
The Supreme Court observed that the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the road accident can't be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car contributed to the accident.
Referring to a precedent, the Court observed, "the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be."
Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and MACT, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that it would not be justifiable to reduce the compensation based on the fact that the driver contributed to the accident
Where Language Is Clear and Unambiguous, Document Should Be Interpreted Literally : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 721
Dealing with a property dispute, the Supreme Court held that where the language used in an instrument/document is clear and unambiguous, only that clear expression of words is to be considered for the interpretation of the instrument, not the surrounding circumstances.
"It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that where the language employed in the instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference...In short, literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into the intention behind what is said in the instrument/document if the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous", said a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan.
'Fraud Committed On Court' : Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into 'Fake' Petition Filed Without Petitioner's Knowledge
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Up | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18885/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722
The Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out a probe into a case where the petitioner denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him.
Notably, the order impugned in the SLP had put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, as informed by respondents during court proceedings, the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had heard the matter and reserved verdict on September 9, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. Today, the judgment was pronounced, which is authored by Justice Trivedi.
The Supreme Court observed that no professional, much less a legal professional, is immune from prosecution for their criminal misdeed.
The Court observed that Advocates-on-Record can mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day of hearing.
"Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice(Officer Circular dated 30.12.2022). If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly", said the bench.
The Court observed that an act or omission on part of a Notary in violation of Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules 1956 would amount to misconduct, and such Notary would be unfit to be a Notary. Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules stipulates how a Notary shall conduct his business. As per Rule 11(2), every notary shall maintain a Notarial Register in the prescribed Form.
In the present case, the concerned Notary did not make an entry regarding attestation of the petitioner's affidavit in the Notarial Register.
Insufficiently Stamped Document Not Admissible Merely Because It Was Exhibited Unless Deficiency Is Cured : Supreme Court
Case Details: Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10509-10510 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 723
The Supreme Court observed that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolishing a legally constructed property, and the Court cannot ignore such demolition threats in a nation governed by the rule of law.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”, the Court observed.
State Must Ensure Timely Payment of Land Acquisition Compensation Even If Private Company Is Ultimately Liable, Delay Violates Art 300A: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/s Ultra Tech Cement LTd v.Mast Ram and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 724
The Supreme Court on September 20 criticised the State of Himachal Pradesh for failing to ensure the timely payment of additional compensation of Rs. 3,05,31,095 awarded to landowners for land acquired in 2008 for a cement project run by JAL(M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited).
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said that the state government should have ensured compensation was paid, even if it meant recovering it from JAL, instead of making the landowners go after corporate houses for payment.
Temporary Workers Engaged In Maharashtra Public Works Dept Entitled To Holidays On 2nd & 4th Saturdays : Supreme Court
Case Details: The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 2016
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725
The Supreme Court granted relief to the temporary workers engaged in the Public Works Department of Maharashtra observing that they are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month.
The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan observed that the respondent employees are entitled to all the holiday benefits and other emoluments stipulated under the Kalelkar Award.
S. 304-B IPC | Factum of Dowry Demand Not Proved : Supreme Court Acquits Parents-In-Law
Case Details: Shoor Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726
The Supreme Court acquitted the parents-in-law of a deceased wife who were charged with committing dowry death since the factum of a dowry demand was not proved.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reiterated that for convicting an accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in relation to the alleged demand of dowry in connection with marriage.
Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct and Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors., Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which shall decide the same based on evidence.
"The mutual intent of the parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory, commonality of the subject matter, composite nature of the transactions and performance of the contract are all factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the arbitration agreement. An important factor to be considered by the Courts and Tribunals is the participation of the non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract", said a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
Orders
'Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon In Actress Sexual Assault Case', Says Supreme Court Granting Bail To Main Accused Pulsar Suni
Case Details: Sunil NS v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court on September 17 granted bail to Sunil NS, also known as Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the 2017 actress sexual assault case, after considering his long period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
Suni, who has been in custody for more than seven and a half years, is accused of conspiring with Malayalam actor Dileep and others in the abduction and sexual assault of the actress in a moving vehicle near Kochi in February 2017.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that as 268 prosecution witnesses have been examined and there are nine accused in the case, completing the trial, including the recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, would take considerable time.
Supreme Court Asks Wikipedia To Remove Name of Victim In RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder Case
Case Details: In Re : Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 directed Wikipedia to remove from its pages the name of the victim in the RG Kar Medical College Hospital rape-murder case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court over the crime.
Supreme Court Pauses 'Bulldozer Actions', Orders That No Demolition Should Take Place Without Its Permission,
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court passed an interim order that no demolition should take place in the country without its permission.
The Court however clarified that this order won't be applicable to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed this direction in a batch of petitions accusing various state governments of demolishing the buildings of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The Court posted the matters for next hearing on October 1.
Supreme Court Surprised Over DRT Adjourning Case Saying Its Officers Are Busy With Preparing Statements For Finance Ministry
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on September 17 expressed surprise over Vishakhapatnam Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) staff being occupied with preparing statements for the Finance Ministry.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was informed that the DRT on September 12, 2024 adjourned a securitization application which has been reserved for orders stating that all the staff is busy in preparing a statement called by the Finance Ministry.
The Court directed the Presiding Officer of the DRT Vishakhapatnam to file a report in a sealed cover by September 30, 2024 detailing the Finance Ministry's requirements and the type of work the tribunal's staff had been carrying out in response.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Seeking Relaxations For Advocates' Dress Code In Summers
Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Bar Council of India and Ors. Diary No. 24405-2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 while refusing to entertain a petition seeking exemption for advocates from wearing black coats during summer months, emphasized the importance of maintaining dress code decorum in the courts.
The counsel for the petitioner sought exemption the coat and gown requirement while keeping the band, in the light of the extreme summer heat that advocates face especially at trial courts and High Courts.
However, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that advocates must wear appropriate attire, ruling out casual clothing like shorts and t-shirts in court.
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Trial of UAPA Case Over Alleged ISIS Links
Case Details: Jamshed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No.12644/2024
While hearing the bail plea of a 25-year-old Kashmiri man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged ISIS links, the Supreme Court on September 17 observed that steps must be taken to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing petitioner/accused-Jamshed Zahoor Paul's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment of April 24, 2024, whereby he was denied regular bail. Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in 2018.
Justice Kant further conveyed that the court would abstain from monitoring trial, as it can have adverse impact, but it won't shut its eyes and see if the trial can be expedited. Three weeks' time was given to the prosecution to file an affidavit as to:
- How many witnesses does the prosecution propose to examine,
- How many of those witnesses are public servants,
- How many witnesses are domain experts,
- Total pendency of trials before the Presiding Officer of the Court (Patiala House), etc.
Before parting, the Court also asked Advocate Zoheb Hossain to come with instructions on proportionate distribution of trials across Delhi.
Arbitration | View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Sab Industries Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
The Supreme Court observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration.
The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a challenge to an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which condoned the delay of 166 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
Lawyers' Strikes | Supreme Court Seeks Information On Abstention From Work By All District Bar Associations In UP
Case Details: Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 19804-19805/2024
Pursuant to Supreme Court's rap, office bearers of the Faizabad Bar Association, Uttar Pradesh recently filed an undertaking that they will not pass any resolution, or become party to any resolution, for abstention of work. Taking into account the same, the Court expressed an inclination to expand the scope of the proceedings and called for data on abstention by all district Bar Associations across the state (atleast during 2023-24).
The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which was dealing with Faizabad Bar Association's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment, whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs and ensure that the elections to its Governing Council were held by December 2024.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Regulate Laser Beams & Loudspeakers During Festivals
Case Details: Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20675/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to regulate the use of light laser beams and loudspeakers in public spaces, gatherings and events during festivals.
The petition was filed against the Bombay High Court's April 20 order which disposed of the PIL against the usage of laser beams and loud sound systems during religious processions and other ceremonies. The High Court refused to pass substantive directions, saying that the aggrieved persons can file complaints before the authorities.
Challenging the High Court's verdict, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there has been no statute regulating the use of laser beam lights. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
MBBS : Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Speech & Language Disability To Pursue Medical Education
Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
The Supreme Court on September 18 allowed a candidate with nearly 45% speech and language disability to be admitted to the MBBS course after a medical board constituted by the Court opined that he could pursue medical education.
The Court directed that the candidate be admitted to the seat, which was earlier directed to be kept vacant.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge against the order of the Bombay High Court which denied interim relief against the cancellation of the admission to the MBBS Course.
'Unheard Of' : Supreme Court Surprised By Grant of Anticipatory Bail In NDPS Matter
Case Details: Anarul Sk v. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl) No. 12621/2024
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the grant of anticipatory bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 and asked the State of West Bengal to consider filing applications seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the accused..
The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan directed: "Grant of anticipatory bail in an NDPS matter is a very serious issue. We therefore direct the State to consider if it proposes to apply for the cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the accused.”
Supreme Court Dismisses Telecom Companies' Curative Petitions Against Ruling On AGR Dues
Case Details: Vodafone Idea Limited v. Union of India, Curative Petition (Civil) Nos. 231-337/2023 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court dismissed curative petitions filed by telecom companies (including Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Teleservices) against a 2019 ruling of the Court regarding payment of adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai rendered the decision, holding that no ground was made out to exercise curative jurisdiction in terms of the Court's decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra.
Can DRI Officers Exercise Powers Under Customs Act? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Customs Dept's Review Petition
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW (Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court heard the suo moto plea instituted to issue a comprehensive policy strategy for the grant of bail to prisoners. The Court while taking notice of the list of States that were asked for compliance reports, issued further directions for States that are yet to comply with the orders. It also noted that the rejection of the remission application must be immediately informed to the prisoner.
Supreme Court Directs Centre To Pay Interest On Arrears of Disability Pension To 1971 Indo-Pak War Veteran Who Lost His Right Leg
Case Details: Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court on September 19 directed the Union of India to pay interest on the arrears of disability pension to a retired army officer who lost his right leg below the knee during the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Pankaj Mihal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah partly allowed an appeal by the veteran seeking interest on arrears of his disability pension after it was enhanced by the Armed Forced Tribunal.
“Learned ASG appearing for the respondent submits that though the appellant was not entitled to get the relief prior to 01.01.2016, it is only because the appellant has sustained injuries in the Indo-Pak war that the respondent did not challenge the impugned judgement. The fact remains that the entitlement of the appellant as granted by the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent. It is true that the Original Application was belatedly filed on 16th March 2022. In our view, appellant ought to have been granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the differential amount as directed to be paid in terms of paragraph 8 of the judgement for a period of 3 years starting from 17th March 2019 till the date of payment of arrears in terms of paragraph 8 of the impugned judgement. We grant time of 3 months to the respondent to pay the interest amount. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms”, the Court observed.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Controversial Remarks of Karnataka HC Judge, Seeks Report
Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No. 9/2024]
The Supreme Court on September 20 took suo motu cognizance of the video clips containing the controversial comments made by a judge of Karnataka High Court during hearings.
A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy passed an order seeking a report from the Karnataka High Court.
Recently, two video clips of Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the High Court surfaced on social media, in which he was seen making objectionable remarks. In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore as "Pakistan". In another video, he was seen making objectionable remarks to a woman advocate.
'Unfortunate' : Supreme Court Slams CBI For Making 'Scandalous Allegations' Against All Courts In West Bengal
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023
The Supreme Court on September 20 castigated the Central Bureau of Investigation for making "scandalous allegations" against the Courts in West Bengal while seeking transfer of the trial of the post-poll violence cases out of the State.
Following the strong criticism by the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju chose to withdraw the transfer petition.
'Be Careful While Commenting On Court Orders' : Supreme Court Cautions While Accepting Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Apology
Case Details: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024
While accepting the apology expressed by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for his comments about the order granting bail to K Kavitha, the Supreme Court on September 20 cautioned that care should be exercised while making comments on Court's orders, even though fair criticism is welcomed.
The Court cautioned that all Constitutional functionaries should act within their respective wings, be it the legislature, executive or judiciary. Unnecessary comments will give rise to friction between the Constitutional authorities, the Court warned.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by BRS leader Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy seeking transfer of the trial of the case against Revanth Reddy over the 2015 cash-for-votes scam
Supreme Court Allows All Final Year Law Students To Appear In All India Bar Exam 2024
Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India| WP (C) No. 577 of 2024
The Supreme Court allowed final-year law students to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) which is scheduled to take place on November 24.
The Court passed this interim order while hearing a petition challenging the decision to the Bar Council of India to exclude final year law students from registering for AIBE. The petitioners submitted that the BCI's decision was contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors as per which final year law students should be allowed to appear in the AIBE.
During the hearing today before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra, the Bar Council of India submitted that they required time to frame rules regarding final year law students. The bench said that they can take time to frame rules, but should ensure that final year law students do not lose a year.
'Somebody Goes To Registry & Manipulates, We Won't Tolerate' : Supreme Court After Bail Plea Was Listed Before Posting Date
Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court September 20 sought an explanation from its Registry for listing a bail plea in a money laundering case today even though it was supposed to be listed on October 14, according to a previous court order.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal raised concerns over manipulation in the listing process.
UPSC Aspirants' Death | Examine Coaching Centres' Issues On Pan India Basis, Delhi Mishap Can Happen Anywhere : Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details: Coaching Federation of India v. Government of Nct of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024
While hearing the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court today suggested that the Union of India look at the issue from a pan-India perspective.
The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which made the suggestion to Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, taking into account the latter's submission that a Committee has been constituted by the Home Ministry, Govt. of India to look into the Delhi incident.
Telangana MBBS/BDS Admissions : Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Which Removed '4 Year Consecutive Study' Criteria For Local Quota
Case Details: The State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
The Supreme Court on September 20 issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Telangana challenging the Telangana High Court's judgment which removed the '4 years' continuous study or residence requirement in the State' for permanent residents to secure admission in local quota seats in MBBS or BDS courses.
The State however agreed before the Supreme Court to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court.
The led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.
Supreme Court Allows TN Police To Summon BJP Leader Kesava Vinayagam Without Seeking Madras HC's Permission
Case Details: State Rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID v. Kesava Vinayagam SLP (Crl.) 8674/24
The Supreme Court on September 20 set aside the Madras High Court's direction that the police must obtain the High Court's prior permission to serve summons to Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) Organising Secretary Kesava Vinayagam in connection with a case over the seizure of Rs.3.99 crore for alleged bribing of voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the High Court's condition, directed that the investigating officer must serve advance notice to Vinayagam through WhatsApp or physical delivery to him or his family members at his residence asking him to join the investigation. The bench added that Vinayagam would be at liberty to challenge the notice in accordance with law. The bench also ordered that the interim protection from arrest granted to him by the High Court will continue.
Supreme Court Dismisses SpiceJet's Plea Against HC Order To Handover Aircraft Engines To Lessors
Case Details: Spicejet Limited v. Team France 01 S.A.S SLP(C) No. 21345-21346/2024
The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Delhi High court which directed the cash-strapped airlines SpiceJet to return three aircraft engines for defaulting on payments to engine lessors.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an SLP by SpiceJet against the September 11 Order of the High Court's division bench upholding the grounding and handing over of the engines due to non-payment to its France based lessor companies.
'Dogs Won't Wait For Your Deliberations To Bite' : Supreme Court Raps Union & Kerala For Not Responding To Plea On Anti-Rabies Vaccines
Case Details: Kerala Pravasi Association through its President v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022., Diary No.- 31222 – 2022
The Supreme Court directed the Secretary, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Chief Secretary for the State of Kerala to file counter affidavits in a petition seeking to constitute an independent expert committee to study the efficacy of the Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines (IDRV) currently being administered to Humans and Rabies Veterinary Vaccine, administered to dogs in India. A bench of Justices Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol is hearing the matter.
Private Citizens Free To Change Party Loyalties; 10th Schedule Can't Be Challenged For Exempting Non-Elected Persons: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ajit Vishnu Ranade v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 500/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the validity cannot be challenged on the ground that anti-defection laws do not apply to private individuals changing their political loyalties.
The 10th Schedule was introduced by 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985 which laid down anti-defection laws for members of the house of legislatures at center and states. The aim of the amendment was to prevent MPs to switch from one party to another after being elected to the Parliament / state legislature.
The petitioner in person argued that while the constitution is applicable to all citizens, the insertion of Schedule 10 is only limited to the members of the legislature, leaving behind the aspect changing political allegiance of a non-member. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
Strange Approach By HC : Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Dismissing FIR Quashing Petition As 'Infructuous' Due To Petitioner's Arrest
Case Details: Vidhu Gupta v. State of UP
The Supreme Court criticized a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which declared a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR as “infructuous” solely because the petitioner had been arrested.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside the High Court's order that dismissed the petition without considering its merits.
In its order, the Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has adopted a very strange approach, to say the least. The prayer was for quashing of the First Information Report. It was the duty of the High Court to decide the petition on merits.”
Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Google Employee's Petition Alleging Religious Discrimination At Workplace
Case Details: Zahid Showkat Alias Mir V Joint Secretary, Prime Minister's Office & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition file by a terminated Google employee who wrote complaints to the Prime Minister about alleged religious discrimination he faced at the workplace.
The petitioner in person, Zahid Showka,t filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that he was aggrieved by his termination and subsequent non-action on his written complaints to the Prime Minister's Office.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
At the outset, the CJI noted that the matter was related to proceedings before the labour court where the petitioner had challenged his termination. The CJI explained to the Petitioner that executive functionaries like the Prime Minister's Office cannot take action over a termination arising out of a private contract as in the present case
Supreme Court Stays NGT Order Directing Punjab Government To Pay 1,026 Crores For Failure To Treat Sewage Waste
Case Details: State of Punjab v UOI Civil Appeal No.10602/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which directed the state of Punjab to pay 1,026 Crores to the Central Pollution Control Board as environment compensation for failure to manage legacy waste and untreated sewage.
The bench CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an appeal by Punjab Government against the NGT order dated July 25, 2024.
Other Developments
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Ex-Chhattisgarh Civil Servant Saumya Chaurasia's Plea For Bail In PMLA Case
Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on a petition filed by Chhattisgarh's suspended civil servant Saumya Chaurasia challenging denial of bail in a money laundering case.
Chaurasia, former Deputy Secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, is accused in a money laundering case relating to coal scam. She has been in jail for over 1.5 years now.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with Chaurasia's challenge to Chhattisgarh High Court's order dated August 28, 2024, whereby her third bail application was dismissed.
Siddique Kappan Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Relaxation of Bail Conditions
Case Details: Sidhique Kappan v. State of Uttar Pradesh MA 1929/2024 In Crl.A. No. 1534/2022
The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea by Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who was granted bail after two years of incarceration in connection with the Hathras Conspiracy case, for the relaxation of bail conditions.
He has sought the relaxation of the bail condition that he shall record his presence at the police station in Uttar Pradesh every Monday.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On BJP MLA's Plea Challenging Withdrawal of Consent For CBI Probe Against Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar
Case Details: Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12282/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal assailing withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, listing the matter in November. The petitioner challenged the Karnataka High Court's judgment which dismissed his petition questioning the withdrawal of consent for the CBI.
PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Proportional Representation of Women, Queer Community, Disabled Persons, SC/ST/OBCs In Bar Councils
Case Details: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and Ors. WP (C) No. 581/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking proportional representation of women, queer community, differently abled and reserved category persons in the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the matter and issued notice.
The CJI also noted that the nature of proportional representation sought in the present petition is similar to the way proportional representation is mandated in Rajya Sabha elections.
Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Response On Businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall's Bail Plea In Delhi Liquor Policy Case
Case Details: Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 012036/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea of Amandeep Singh Dhall, businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, in the corruption case arising out of the alleged Delhi liquor policy 'scam'.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan on Dhall's petition assailing Delhi High Court's judgment dated June 4, 2024. Vide this judgment, a Single Judge dismissed his plea for regular bail in the CBI case
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Travancore Devaswom Board's Plea Challenging HC Order Appointing TDB Commissioner
Case Details: Travancore Devaswom Board v. State of Kerala and Ors, SLP(C) No. 21044-21045/2024
The Union Government on September 9 notified the appointment of six senior advocates to the post of Additional Solicitor General for India (ASG) in the Supreme Court.
Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Mosque Committee Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Upholding Maintainability of Suits
Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | SLP(C) No. 20074-20088/2024
In the latest development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Mosque Committee has approached the Supreme Court with pleas challenging Allahabad High Court's upholding of the maintainability of suits filed by the Hindu side.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar heard the matter today, taking note of the Mosque Committee's grievance against the High Court judgment dated August 1, whereby its plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC challenging the maintainability of 18 suits preferred by the deity (Lord Krishna) and Hindu worshippers was dismissed.
Jharkhand Files Contempt Petition In Supreme Court Against Central Government For Not Appointing High Court Chief Justice
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Rajiv Mani, Secretary (Ministry of Law and Justice) & Anr.
The State of Jharkhand filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Central Government over delay in the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.
“the Chief Justice performs important administrative functions and is the head of the Judicial family in the state. Regularly Appointed Chief Justice is essential for efficient administration of Justice and functioning of the Judiciary. It is further submitted that the unreasonable delays in the matters of appointment, after recommendations have been made by the Collegium headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, are detrimental to the administration of Justice in the state”, the petition states.
The petition has been filed against Rajiv Mani, Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice, and other respondents for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.
Supreme Court Collegium Changes 3 Earlier Recommendations For High Court Chief Justice Appointments
The Supreme Court Collegium has passed a new resolution making changes to its earlier recommendations for the appointment of Chief Justices of the High Courts.
Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Challenges to New Criminal Laws, Permits Future Petition | Criminal Law in India
Case Details: Anjale Patel and Another v. Union of India and Another, W.P.(Crl.) No.307/2024 Vinod Kumar Boinpally v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 306/2024
The Supreme Court disposed of two petitions challenging the three new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, while reserving liberty for filing of more comprehensive, fresh petitions.
In passing the order, the Court emphasized on the need for the issue to be addressed by the petitioners more appropriately and with extreme caution.
The two petitions - first, filed by Anjale Patel and Chhaya, and second, filed by BRS leader Vinod Kumar Boinapally - were listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Supreme Court Lists Review Petitions Against Judgment Upholding PMLA Provisions On Oct 16-17
Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement | RP(Crl) 219/2022 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the review petitions pending against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to October 16-17.
In the morning session, the matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who requested for time saying that out of 9 review petitions, the Union had copy of only 1.
Supreme Court Notice on PIL for Virtual Hearing Access in CIC via Direct Links | Public Interest Litigation in India
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Central Information Commission & Anr. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 580/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 sought response from the Union in a PIL seeking directions to Central Information Commission to give access to virtual hearings by issuing direct court links.
The Petitioner in Person, Advocate Kishan Chand Jain in his plea stressed that the Central Information Commission (CIC), has nationwide jurisdiction but has been conducting hybrid hearings through NIC studios instead of providing direct links to online hearings. This causes much inconvenience to appellants who are required to travel to the studios to partake in online hearings.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the PIL with liberty to serve the Respondents through online means.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union & States On Plea Seeking Virtual Hearings Before Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Authorities
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors WP (C) No. 510/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 issued notice to the Union and all State Governments in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking virtual hearings for land acquisition compensation claims by Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Authorities (LARRAs). The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the matter.
Supreme Court Examines Consumer Rights of Charitable Trust Under Consumer Protection Act | Consumer Law India
Case Details: Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
The Supreme Court sought the assistance of Union of India through the Ministry of Consumer Affairs as a respondent in a case involving the issue whether a charitable trust can be considered a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah permitted the amendment of the cause title to include the Union of India through Ministry of Consumer Affairs as a respondent and posted the case on October 16, 2023.
The issue was referred to the larger bench in 2019 by a division bench, which observed that the definition of “person” under the Act is inclusive and could potentially include charitable trusts.
Justice BV Nagarathna Appointed As Chairperson of Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation & Internal Complaints Committee
Justice BV Nagarathna has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee following the retirement of Justice Hima Kohli, who was earlier heading the Committee.
Jharkhand Has Filed Contempt Against Union For Not Appointing HC Chief Justice : CJI Tells Attorney General
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday (September 19) informed the Attorney General for India about the contempt petition filed by the State of Jharkhand against the Centre for the delay in appointing the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. AG said that he was not aware of the petition.
Can DRI Officers Exercise Powers Under Customs Act? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Customs Dept's Review Petition
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Canon India Pvt Ltd. | RP (C) No. 400/2021
The Supreme Court today (September 19) reserved its judgement on the issue whether the powers under the Customs Act, 1962 can be conferred upon the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
The Court heard the review petition filed by the Customs Department against the 2021 Supreme Court Judgment in Canon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which had held that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence do not have powers under the Customs Act ,1962.
CJI DY Chandrachud Urges Lawyers To Use SCR
The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on September 19 urged lawyers to refer to the revised digital Supreme Court Reporter (SCR) for case citations and reference to judgements.
The CJI during a hearing of a matter relating to airport tariffs, encouraged the advocates appearing to use the updated online SCR portal. He stressed that while for a long time the SCR was lagging but has now been adequately updated to ensure that reports with headnotes are published as soon as a judgment is uploaded.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Rule Fixing Rates of Medical Services & Procedures
Case Details: Association of Healthcare Providers (India) v. Union of India | WP(C) No. 573/2024
The Supreme Court on September 17 issued notice in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the rule regarding the fixation of rates for procedures and services by clinical establishments.
The plea has been filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) challenging the constitutionality of Rule 9(ii) of Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012 as ultra vires the parent Act - The Clinical Establishment Act, 2010.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the matter.
Mandate To Scrap Vehicles In Delhi-NCR After 10/15 Years Despite Their Fitness Arbitrary : Plea In Supreme Court
Case Details: Nagalakshmi Laxmi Narayanan v. Union of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India
An application has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the “Guidelines for Handling End of Life Vehicles in Public Places of Delhi, 2024” providing that diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years are not allowed to ply in Delhi NCR.
The applicant has challenged the vehicle scrappage policy stating that it mandates the scrapping of vehicles regardless of their fitness or compliance with emission norms. The application has been filed through advocate Charu Mathur in the long-running MC Mehta v. Union of India case regarding pollution in Delhi NCR.
The application claims that the guidelines violate Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law
Contempt Plea In Supreme Court Against RBI Over Banks Allegedly Charging Interest-on-Interest For COVID Moratorium Period
Case Details: Saravana Kodandapani v. Shaktikanta Das, Governor Reserve Bank of India
A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India in relation to the RBI's circular on the refund of the interest on interest charged by the Banks during the COVID loan moratorium period.
The petitioners contend that the RBI's circular issued on April 7, 2021 is not fully in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment delivered on March 23, 2021, in Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association(Regd) v Union of India, which directed that "there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium."
Can Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Determine Tariffs For Ground & Cargo Handling Services At Airports? Supreme Court To Decide
Case Details: Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.| C.A. No. 003098 - 003099 / 2023 and connected matters
The Supreme Court on September 19 heard the challenge to the decision of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal which ruled that Ground Handling Services and Cargo Handling Services would not be considered as 'Aeronautical Services' and cannot be subject to the tariff determined by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA).
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the decision of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal which held that Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) does not have powers to impose tariffs on Ground Handling Services (GHS) and Cargo Handling Services (CHS) conducted by Specific City Airport handling companies (like Delhi / Mumbai International Airport Limited) or their contractors.
Tell Us Why Candidates Reiterated By Collegium Aren't Appointed As Judges : Supreme Court Asks Attorney General
Case Details: Harsh Vibhore Singhal V Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702/2023, The State of Jharkhand v. Rajiv Mani Diary No. 42846-2024
The Supreme Court on September 20 asked the Attorney General for India to give a tabulated chart of the candidates whose names have been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as judges and give the reasons for not clearing those appointments.
As per the judgment in the Second Judges Case, Collegium reiterations are binding on the Union Government. However, several reiterated names have been pending with the Centre for months.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a PIL seeking directions to the Centre to clear the collegium resolutions in a time-bound manner. A contempt petition filed by the State of Jharkhand against the Centre over the delay in appointing the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court was also listed today. AG R Venkataramani, appearing virtually, requested for adjournment.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that appointments of Chief Justices of High Courts as per the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendations are likely to happen very soon. Saying so, the bench adjourned the hearing of petitions seeking directions to the Union Government to act expeditiously on Collegium recommendations.
Supreme Court's Official YouTube Channel Hacked
The official YouTube channel of the Supreme Court, which is used to live-stream the Court proceedings, was hacked.
Krishna Janmabhoomi Case : HC Order To Treat Mosque Committee As Ex-Parte In 2 Suits Recalled, Supreme Court Told
Case Details: Management Committee, Shahi Eidgah Masjid Trust v. Lord Shri Krishna Lalla Seated, Birthplace, SLP (C) No. 21359-21360/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed as infructuous a petition challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque case, whereby in two suits preferred by the Hindu worshippers, the Mosque Committee was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order, upon being informed that recall applications in respect of the impugned order have been allowed by the HC.
NEET-PG 2024| Unusual To Change Exam Pattern Three Days Before Exam; Students Will Have Meltdown : Supreme Court To NBE
Case Details: Ishika Jain and Ors. v. National Board of Examination and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 583/2024
The Supreme Court on September 20 issuing notice in a writ petition seeking measures to ensure increased transparency in NEET-PG Exams, expressed displeasure over the last-minute changes in the exam pattern by the National Board of Education.
BJP Leader Maneka Gandhi Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Section 81 of Representation of The People Act
Case Details: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad, CA No. 10644/ 2024, Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 588/2024
Upon hearing senior BJP leader Maneka Gandhi's plea challenging Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (appearing for Gandhi) to do a comparative analysis of the limitation provisions in the context of about 30 special statutes.
The case was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which posted it to September 30, to enable Luthra to place on record the comparative chart.
Notably, another petition filed by Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency was also listed before the bench.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Former PFI Chairman E Abubacker's Plea For Bail In UAPA Case
Case Details: Abubacker E. D. Kumanan v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
The Supreme Court today issued a notice in a special leave petition filed by E Abubacker, former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI), against the May 28 order of the Delhi High Court dismissing the bail application in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.
The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, which considered the matter, orally observed that the allegations were serious and that they would only consider the question of bail on medical grounds.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Parents' Plea For Independent Probe Into Death of Children Belonging To Scheduled Castes At IIT Delhi
Case Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 40105/2024
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by parents of two students belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, who died at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi this year. The parents have sought registration of FIR and independent investigation into the deaths by a centralized agency.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Supreme Court Hears AG's Arguments In Religious Conversion Case Against SHUATS University VC & Officials
Case Details: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matter)
The Supreme Court today heard an SLP filed against an order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash an FIR lodged against the Vice-Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal Director Vinod Bihari Lal and five other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) over alleged illegal religious conversions.
The Court had granted interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the SHUATS in December last year. In January 2024, they extended the interim protection.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is hearing the SLP.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas For 33% Women Reservation In Delhi Bar Bodies, Voices Concerns About Expensive Campaign
Case Details: Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42644-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on two petitions seeking 33% reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's lawyer bodies viz. Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all District Bar Associations.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order and listed the matter on September 25, refusing to stay the Bar elections in the meanwhile.
Tirupati Temple Laddu Row : PIL In Supreme Court Seeks SIT Probe Into Alleged Use of Adulterated Ghee
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged use of adulterated ghee in laddus served as prasadam at the Tirupati temple.
The Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, President of the Hindu Sena, who alleged that animal fat was used to prepare the laddus, which resulted in hurting the sentiments of the Hindu devotees of Tirupati Balaji.