IndexCitationsAbhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, Civil Appeal No. 2459...
Index
Citations
Abhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675
Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, WP (C) No 551 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 678
Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 679
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 680
Chalasani Udaya Shankar and Ors. v. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others Civil Appeal Nos. 5735-5736 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 681
Savita Rasiklal Mandan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 682
Anantdeep Singhv v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Principal Secretary & Ors v. Gaggal Airport Expansion Affected Social Welfare Committee SLP (C) No. 1676 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 684
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., C.A. No. 010440 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 2764 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 686
Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of UP and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 687
Vikash Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 11952/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 688
Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19097-19098 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689
Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 690
Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 691
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 692
Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 023320/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl) No. 296/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.20243/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 696
Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple v. The Idol of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 697
Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors., C.A. No. 010549 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 698
Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 699
S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., C.A. No. 010567 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700
Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and with connected cases 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 701
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 702
Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, Civil Appeal Nos.2809-2810 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The National Medical Commission v. The Principal KMCT Medical College 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 704
Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
Sunil Nayak @ Fundi v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl) No. 10648.
Ravi Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Diary No. - 38554/2024
In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 202/1995
Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2022
Sahil Bhargava v. State of Uttarakhand SLP(C) No. 019953/2024
Rajubala Das v. UOI & Anr, WP (Crl.) No. 234/2020
Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 12360/2024
Sumedh Singh Saini v. The State of Punjab and Ors, Diary No. 19730-2020
Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023
UP State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Prakash & Anr.
XXXX (Petitioner) v. XXXX & Anr.
Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Anr. v. Ahmed Buhari and Ors.| Diary No. 41691-2024
Yuva Vadya Pathak Trust v. Kalyani Mandke & Ors.
D.K. Sharma & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos.19941-19942/2024
Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 301/2022
Judgments
Supreme Court: PMLA Takes Precedence Over CrPC in Summoning Procedure
Case Details: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674
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.
Accused In Custody Can Seek Anticipatory Bail For Another Case : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675
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.
Arbitration | Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court
Case Details: Cox & Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 38 of 2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.
Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act shall restrict its inquiry on whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement or not, and it would be impermissible for the referral courts to led the detailed inquiry into contested questions involving complex facts.
When Reasons Aren't Recorded To Appoint Junior Officer As Judge Advocate, Court Martial Proceedings Stand Invalidated: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora, Civil Appeal No. 2459 of 2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 677
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.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Stop India's Military Exports To Isreal Amidst Gaza Conflict
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, WP (C) No 551 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel amidst the ongoing war against Gaza.
The Court said that it was beyond its jurisdiction to direct the Government of India to not export materials to any country, as it was a matter which was completely within the domain of foreign policy.
When Dowry Demand Isn't Established, Conviction For Dowry Death Under S.304B IPC Unsustainable : Supreme Court
Case Details: Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for dowry death (under Section 304-B of IPC) after noting that the prosecution was not able to prove that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.
The Supreme Court stated that unless it was proved that the alleged cruelty or harassment faced by the deceased wife from her husband and in-laws was in connection with the demand of dowry, then conviction under Section 304-B of IPC would not be sustainable.
'To Avoid Trial Process Itself Being The Punishment' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Undertrial; Reaffirms Right To Speedy Trial
Case Details: Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 680
The Supreme Court granted bail to an undertrial prisoner in custody for over four years, considering the delay in the trial.
"An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution," observed a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan.
Companies Act | When Can Courts Exercise Power of Rectification of Register of Members? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Chalasani Udaya Shankar and Ors. v. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others Civil Appeal Nos. 5735-5736 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 681
The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her..
The Court said that the husband cannot be benefitted from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship.
“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship”, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Don't Accept Black & White Photographs Without Permission of Court : Supreme Court Directs Registry
Case Details: Savita Rasiklal Mandan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to not accept black and white photographs produced by parties without the permission of the Court.
Supreme Court Criticises P&H High Court & Punjab Govt For Not Reinstating Judicial Officer Whose Dismissal Was Set Aside By SC
Case Details: Anantdeep Singhv v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 683
Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court.
In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence of those advocates would also not be marked who were though not present in the Court but associated with the Advocates office.
“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.
'Such Blanket Stay On Infrastructural Projects Inappropriate' : Supreme Court Vacates HC's Embargo On Gaggal Airport Expansion (livelaw.in)
Case Details: The Principal Secretary & Ors v. Gaggal Airport Expansion Affected Social Welfare Committee SLP (C) No. 1676 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court vacated the Himachal Pradesh High Court's direction for status quo on the ongoing Gaggal (Kangra) Airport expansion project.
In the order, passed on March 7 and uploaded on the Supreme Court's website yesterday, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud criticised the High Court for imposing a blanket stay.
"The interim direction of the High Court dated 9 January 2024 puts a complete embargo on the State following due process of law towards the proposed expansion of the Gaggal (Kangra) Airport. Bearing in mind the time and cost over runs resulting from such blanket orders of stay on infrastructural projects, such a direction was inappropriate and uncalled for," observed the bench comprising CJI ,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Improper To Discriminate Among Homogenous Group : Supreme Court
Case Details: Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., C.A. No. 010440 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class of the candidates based on their date of admission who secured admission to the same course through the same process in the same academic session while determining their eligibility for getting an appointment to a particular position.
Witness Who Made Self-Incriminating Statements Can Be Summoned As Additional Accused Based On Other Materials: Supreme Court
Case Details: Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., Criminal Appeal No(S). 2764 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 686
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)"
S.319 CrPC | Order To Summon Additional Accused Passed After Acquittal/Conviction of Co-Accused Is Unsustainable: Supreme Court
Case Details: Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of UP and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court refused to hold a car dealer liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of persons caused due to an accident which took place while the vehicle was taken for a test drive by the employees of the manufacturer.
In this case, an accident took place during a test drive in which the dealer (appellant) of the Lancer car, the driver of the car, and the manufacturer were held to pay compensation jointly and severally by a Tribunal. However, the dealer challenged the liability on the grounds that the deceased was an employee of the manufacturer Hindustan Motors and even though there was a dealership agreement to transfer the ownership of the vehicle, there was no sale at the time of the accident.
The court agreeing with the submissions of the dealer, held: "The appellant was neither the owner nor in control/ command of the vehicle at the time of accident, and the vehicle was being driven by an employee of M/s. Hindustan Motors, we are of the view that apart from the driver, M/s. Hindustan Motors alone was liable for the compensation awarded. Thus, the appellant should not have been burdened with liability to pay compensation."
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Condition That Accused Who Got Bail Can Furnish Bail Bonds Only After Spending 6 Months In Custody
Case Details: Vikash Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 11952/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 688
Reiterating that the pre-trial process itself shall not become punishment, the Supreme Court set aside a bail condition imposed by the Patna High Court to the effect that the bail bonds be furnished by the accused after completion of 6 months in custody from the date of the order. The condition in effect put on hold the implementation of the bail order for six months.
'Choking Docket of Court' : Supreme Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost On Man For Repeated Litigations To Change Birth Date In Service Records
Case Details: Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19097-19098 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court reiterated that an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be filed before the trial court even if the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate Court.
The Court further held that the Execution Court has the power to grant extension of time stipulated by the appellate court for a property buyer to pay the amount provided that the Execution Court is also the court which tried and decided the original specific performance suit.
Preventive Detention | Failure To Furnish Documents Relied On By Detaining Authority Violates Article 22(5) : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jaseela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 3083 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 690
The Supreme Court quashed the preventive detention of a person on account of a delay of 9 months by the jail authorities in communicating the representation of the detenu and also the non-supply of relevant materials. The Court has ordered his release from detention.
While quashing the prevention detention of a man for non-supply of relevant materials to challenge the detention order, the Supreme Court has held that failure to furnish copies of documents relied on by the Detaining Authority would deprive the detenu of making an effective representation.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan held that while it is not necessary to furnish copies of each and every document to which a casual or passing reference is made in the narration of facts and which are not relied upon in the detention order, "however, failure to furnish copies of such document/documents as is/are relied on by the Detaining Authority which would deprive the detenu to make an effective representation would certainly amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.”
Alleged Involvement In Crime No Ground To Demolish Legally Constructed Property, Such Demolitions Against Rule of Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 691
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.
Supreme Court Quashes NGT Order To Shut Down Garbage Plant In Pune; Directs PMC To Address Foul Odour Concerns
Case Details: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court quashed the National Green Tribunal's order to shut down a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Baner, Pune observing that shutting it down will be detrimental to public interest.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and operator of the plant to take measures to ensure that the residents of the nearby buildings do not suffer due to foul odour.
Arbitration | Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 023320/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal In CBI Case
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR registered in the Delhi liquor policy case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced verdict on two petitions filed by the Aam Aadmi party chief challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the CBI case. It had heard the matter and reserved orders on September 5.
Justice Kant held that Kejriwal's arrest was legal and did not suffer from any procedural irregularity. There is no merit in the contention that the CBI failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41/41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure while arresting him, the judge said.
At the same time, both the judges were unanimous in the decision to grant bail to Kejriwal considering the fact that the chargesheet has been filed in the case and that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Kejriwal's continued incarceration would infringe upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court said.
While Justice Kant upheld the arrest, Justice Bhuyan had a differing view regarding the necessity and timing of Kejriwal's arrest.
Remarking that CBI's arrest raised more questions than it sought to answer, Justice Bhuyan noted that CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for over 22 months and arrested him on the cusp of his release in the ED case.
However, both Justices Kant and Bhuyan dismissed Kejriwal's petition challenging the CBI arrest.
We Trust Members of Bar When We Hear Cases, But False Statements Shake Our Faith: Supreme Court
Case Details: Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl) No. 296/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 695
The Supreme Court dismissed two writ petitions where remission was sought by the advocate by pleading false statements in the writ petition as well as before the Court.
Taking an exception to the continuous false statements made in the petition for remission, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein a grievance is made about non grant of permanent remission. During the last three weeks, this is the 6th or 7th case which we have come across where blatantly false statements have been made in the pleadings."
NEET-UG 24 | Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Retest By Candidate Suffering From Hyper Sweating Who Wasn't Allowed Handkerchief In Exam
Case Details: Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.20243/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 696
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by NEET UG 2024 candidate suffering from condition of excessive sweating who sought a retest claiming that he was not allowed to carry his handkerchief into the exam hall.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the decision of the High Court and observed the following : (1) The petitioner received the full allotted exam time, unlike the candidates who were granted a re-exam; (2) exam required darkening circles on an OMR sheet, which involves less writing than other exams. The court agreed with the High Court's view that wiping hands on clothes could have sufficed. (3) the Court emphasized the need for caution in entertaining individual grievances about public exams, as it can delay results and affect the larger public interest.
Supreme Court Dismisses Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple Head's Claim Over Chennai's Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple Property
Case Details: Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple v. The Idol of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 697
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the spiritual head of Chennai's Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple, claiming a property adjacent to the Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple as his private property.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld the view of the division bench of the Madras High Court that the property was a trust property dedicated to the Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple.
Election Petition Should Not Be Rejected At Threshold Where There Is “Substantial Compliance” of RP Act Provisions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors., C.A. No. 010549 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 698
In a setback to Manipur BJP MLA Kimneo Haokip Hanghing, the Supreme Court refused to allow her petition seeking rejection of the Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) pending against her before the Manipur High Court.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that it cannot be said by the Appellant that a cause of action was not made in the Election Petition.
The Court observed that the petition could not be dismissed at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Grant of Land Acquisition Compensation Share To Persons Who Purchased Sites From Party Having No Title
Case Details: Lakshmesh M. v. P. Rajalakshmi (Dead By Lrs.) and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that awarded 30 percent of the compensation for land acquired for a Metro Rail Project to ten private individuals, despite the plaintiff being declared the lawful owner of the property.
The ten individuals had purchased sites on the land from a cooperative society and constructed property on it. The society claimed rights over the land but this claim was rejected by the courts. A portion of the land, including the sites purchased by these individuals, was acquired for a Metro Rail Project.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the ten persons made no claim before the HC or any competent authority for the grant of compensation, and neither did they the challenge the HC judgment affirming the ownership and title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff
Resignation Not Final Until Its Acceptance Is Communicated To Employee : Supreme Court
Case Details: S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., C.A. No. 010567 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 700
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision quashing the termination of an Assistant Professor who was unable to resume his duties after Leave Without Allowance (LWA) due to COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that the relevant disciplinary provision - Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, mandated that the relevant authority must record prima facie satisfaction that there is a case for taking action before holding a departmental inquiry, which was not done in this case.
Compensation For Surrendering Land For Public Purpose Once Determined Is Payable Without Formal Request, Failure Violates Article 300-A: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and with connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 701
The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of delay and laches does not apply to cases where compensation is being sought for land surrendered for public amenities like DP Roads and compensation must be granted, even if no formal request is made.
“When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed appeals by landowners whose writ petitions before the Bombay High Court seeking additional compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities were dismissed due to delay and laches.
Defiant Tenant Faces Supreme Court's Ire, Held Guilty For Contempt For Not Vacating Premises
Case Details: M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court convicted a tenant for contempt of court for violating the Court's directions to deliver vacant possession of the property to the landlord.
“Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold," the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed.
The bench explained that the power to punish for contempt is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system.
The failure to comply with judicial directions is not only disrespectful to the Court but also a challenge to the rule of law.
Flat Possession Offered Without Completion & Firefighting Certificates : Supreme Court Asks Developer To Compensate Buyer
Case Details: Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, Civil Appeal Nos.2809-2810 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The Supreme Court directed the Agra Development Authority(ADA) to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 Lakhs to a flat buyer over a deficiency in service caused by the developer in offering the possession of the flat without requisite completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate.
The absence of these documents unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by the ADA, the Court observed.
'National Medical Commission Expected To Act Fairly' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs.10 Lakh Cost On NMC For Challenge To Medical College's Approval (livelaw.in)
Case Details: The National Medical Commission v. The Principal KMCT Medical College
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court deprecated the National Medical Commission (NMC) for raising a frivolous challenge to the grant of approval for the expansion of a medical college. Reminding that the NMC should act reasonably and fairly, being an organ of the State, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakhs on it.
"Prima facie, we find that the attitude of the NMC is not of a model litigant. The NMC is an organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner," observed a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
Co-Owner Whose Share In Joint Property Remained Undetermined Cannot Transfer Entire Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4177 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds. The Court also observed that as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”), it is not mandatory for a third party, against whom a sale deed is void, to seek its cancellation.
Orders
RG Kar Case: Supreme Court Demands Postmortem 'Challan' From West Bengal Police
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 while hearing the Suo Motu case taken on the rape and murder of a doctor of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, asked the State of West Bengal to produce the challan which was sent along with the dead body for post-mortem. The challan would have entries regarding the articles and materials sent along with the body for autopsy, the Court noted.
Supreme Court Accepts Maharashtra IAS Officer's Apology for Court Affidavit Controversy
Case Details: In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notice issued to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department), Maharashtra government, taking exception to certain statements in an affidavit filed by him which suggested that the Court was not following the law.
On being apprised that the affidavit in question was finalized by various persons, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was of the view that guilt could not be fastened on the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department) alone. Accordingly, the contempt notice was discharged.
Supreme Court Fines Petitioner Rs. 10k for Suppressing Facts in Remission Plea
Case Details: Sunil Nayak @ Fundi v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl) No. 10648.
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a petitioner for seeking remission by suppressing facts.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih told the advocate that false statements have been pleaded in this case.
The accused in this case sought remission against his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. He had sought a grant of parole on the grounds that there was a medical emergency in the family. However, it was rejected on February 28.
In this, the SLP states that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief against conviction. However, the court perusing the SLP found that the M.A was not dismissed but withdrawn.
Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC's Order for Fresh Candidates List in 69K UP Assistant Teachers Recruitment
Case Details: Ravi Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. Diary No. - 38554/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Allahabad High Court directing the redrawing of recruitment list of candidates to fill up 69,000 vacancies to the post of Assistant Teacher in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while issuing notice in the matter, directed a stay on the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Supreme Court Grants Relief to Litigant Over Land Illegally Occupied by State 60 Years Ago
Case Details: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 202/1995
Pursuant to the intervention of the Supreme Court, a litigant whose land was illegally occupied by Maharashtra authorities 60 years ago got relief in the form of alternate land.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which directed the state authorities to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the alternate land (agreed to be accepted by the aggrieved applicant) as compensation.
Supreme Court Criticizes UP Officials for Blaming Lawyers in Remission Delay | Demands Chief Secretary's Affidavit
Case Details: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2022
The Supreme Court issued notice to the former Principal Secretary of the Prison Administration and Reforms Department of Uttar Pradesh asking him to show cause why proceedings for criminal contempt and perjury should not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit to explain the delay in considering a remission application.
The Court also asked the Chief Secretary of the State Government to file a personal affidavit to explain the conduct of the State and its officers for delaying the file. The Court also recorded its dissatisfaction that the officers attempted to shift the blame on the advocates appearing for the State.
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
The Supreme Court on Monday (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.
The petitioners have challenged the rise in the fees by the Respondent - Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences College for the MBBS Course. The college had increased its fees of 5 lac per student to 13.22 lacs for All India Quota, and 9.78 Lacs from 4 lacs for State Quota per annum. The decision was applied retrospectively in April 2018. (applying it to the 2018 batch of students)
Supreme Court Seeks Clarity on Deportation of 211 Foreign Nationals in Assam From Centre & Assam Govt
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. UOI & Anr, WP (Crl.) No. 234/2020
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Assam State Government in what manner the 211 declared foreign nationals detained in a transit camp in Matia, Goalpara district of Assam will be deported.
The Court has also sought a reply from the Assam Government on a report of the Assam District Legal Services Authority concerning 211 declared foreign nationals out of which 66 are from Bangladesh.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition pertaining to the conditions of the detention centres in Assam. On July 26, it flagged that the conditions of the detention centres are 'deplorable' and termed it a 'sorry state of affairs' because there is no adequate water supply, proper sanitation system toilets etc.
'Scorpion On Shivling' A Metaphor, Why Should Somebody Object?' : Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Tharoor For Remark On Modi
Case Details: Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 12360/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the criminal defamation complaint against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor over a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling" remark made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan was hearing Tharoor's challenge to a Delhi High Court order of August 29, whereby his plea for quashing the defamation case was rejected.
HC's Findings Against ED Arrest Insignificant In View of 'RK Arora' Judgment, Says Supreme Court While Upholding Bail of PMLA Accused
Case Details: Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement v. Dilip Kumar Ghosh@Dilip Ghosh, SLP(Crl) No. 275/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the order of the Jharkhand High Court granting bail to one Dilip Kumar Ghosh@Dilip Ghosh in an alleged money laundering case.
As per the brief allegations, a property was purchased from one Pradeep Bagchi by Dilip Ghosh on behalf of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., of which he is the Director. The property in question is alleged to be the subject matter in ongoing litigation with the Indian Army in terms of its possession. It was brought at a negotiated price of Rs.7.00 crore as against the prevailing value of over Rs.20 crores.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered that the charges against Dilip and other co-accused have been framed by the Special Court and that the respondent has complied with all the conditions imposed by the High Court.
Based on this, the court held: "Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinions on the merits of the case, rather clarifying that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall not be cited as a precedent in case of other coaccused, and any of the observations made therein, shall not influence the Trial Court/ Special Court during the course of trial, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the Special Court/ Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial."
Further, the Court stated that the observations of the High Court against the ED's arrest based on Pankaj Bansal's judgment "have paled into insignificance" in view of the Ram Kishor. Arora v. ED (2023). While in the Pankaj Bansal judgment, the Supreme Court held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing at the time of arrest, the latter judgment says the accused could be orally 'informed' of the grounds of arrest which may be furnished in writing within 24 hours of arrest. Ram Kishor also stated that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal won't apply retrospectively.
The Court's order states: "Further, it may be noted that in view of the subsequent judgment passed by this Court in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 (SCC Online SC 1682), the observations made in the paragraph nos. 14- 16 and 18 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, have failed to paled into insignificance."
Supreme Court Dismisses Ex-Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini's Plea To Quash FIR In Multani Murder Case
Case Details: Sumedh Singh Saini v. The State of Punjab and Ors, Diary No. 19730-2020
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by former Director General of Police, Punjab, Sumeth Singh Saini challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing to quash an F.I.R. lodged against him in the Multani murder case.
In 1991, during the Punjab militancy, one Balwant Singh Multani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was killed allegedly due to custodial torture.
Judgment On Govt Employees' Entitlement To Increment Earned A Day Before Retirement : Supreme Court Clarifies Date of Application
Case Details: Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj
The Supreme Court passed an interim order making certain important clarifications regarding the application of its judgment in the case The Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Others vs CP Mundinamani and others which held that government employees are entitled to the increment which they earned on the previous day of their retirement.
Rejection of Remission Must Be Immediately Conveyed To Prisoners To Enable Them To Seek Legal Aid : Supreme Court
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.
Haldwani Evictions | Supreme Court Gives 2 Months To Uttarakhand To Come Up With Rehabilitation Scheme For Persons To Be Evicted
Case Details: Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court gave 2 months' time to State of Uttarakhand to come up with a rehabilitation scheme for persons sought to be evicted by Railway authorities in Haldwani.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an application filed by the Union of India/Railways seeking modification of the order staying the eviction of nearly 50,000 people, who have allegedly encroached upon railway properties in Haldwani.
Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court To Examine Whether Victim Can Seek Compensation Under Both Sections 166 & 163A MV Act
Case Details: UP State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Jai Prakash & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether a victim can file for compensation under both Section 166 and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 166 permits the claimant to seek compensation based on proving fault or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, while Section 163A allows for no-fault liability, meaning the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the vehicle owner or driver. Compensation under Section 163A is determined based on a structured formula provided in the Second Schedule of the Act.
Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas | Supreme Court Warns States/High Courts Which Haven't Filed Compliance Affidavits
Case Details: National Federation of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019
In a public interest litigation seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a warning to states/UTs and High Courts which did not file affidavits (on the establishment and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas) pursuant to its last order.
"If the affidavits are not filed by the next date, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter", the Court said.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan also appointed Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and Advocate Suhasini to assist the Court in the matter.
Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Mother For Allegedly Making False Accusation of Father Sexually Abusing 3-Year-Old Child
Case Details: XXXX (Petitioner) v. XXXX & ANR.
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Kerala High Court, which led to the lodging of an FIR against the mother for allegedly making a false case against the father of the child under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences, 2012. The Supreme Court stayed the observations made by the High Court against the mother and stayed the proceedings in the FIR.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N.K. Singh was informed that pursuant to observations made by the single judge of Kerala High Court, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in para '16' of the impugned order, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner (wife) under Section 22 of the POCSO read with Section 117 of the Kerala Police Act.
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
In relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Coastal Energen Private Limited, the Supreme Court directed that the status quo which existed when the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) passed the order on September 6 will continue to operate till the NCLAT finally decided the appeal.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed this direction while disposing of the appeal filed by the Succesful Resolution Applicant(SRA) - a consortium of Dickey Alternative Investment Trust and Adani Power Ltd - challenging the NCLAT's order dated September 6, which effectively put on hold the Rs 3,335 crore resolution plan put forth by them for the revival of Coastal Energen Private Limited.
The Supreme Court clarified that its order will be subject to the condition that the SRA will not dismantle the plant, create any third-party rights, alienate the plant or create any financial obligations except in the ordinary course of business.
Supreme Court Stays NGT Order Restricting Number of Members In Dhol-Tasha-Zanj Troupes For Ganpati Visarjan In Pune
Case Details: Yuva Vadya Pathak Trust v. Kalyani Mandke & Ors.
The Supreme Court stayed the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench that the total number of Dhol+Tasha+Zanj members in each troupe during the Ganpati Visarjan Procession in Pune shall not exceed 30 in number.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the interim order while issuing notice on an appeal filed against the NGT direction.
Delhi Bar Elections : Supreme Court Clarifies Stay Order, Says HC's 'One Member, One Post' Direction Stayed
Case Details: D.K. Sharma & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. Special Leave To Appeal (C) Nos.19941-19942/2024
The Supreme Court clarified that its stay order passed in the matter regarding the elections of the Bar Associations in Delhi. The Court clarified that its stay order is applicable to the Delhi High Court's direction that a member can only contest for posts in only Bar Association.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan clarified its earlier order passed on September 9, which directed a blanket stay of the High Court's directions passed on March 19. This meant that the other directions issued by the High Court, such as the elections to all Bar Associations in Delhi must be held on one day, were also stayed. Following this, the matter was mentioned before the bench for clarifications.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Declare Agra As 'World Heritage Site'
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking to declare the city of Agra as a "World Heritage Site."
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that the Court cannot pass any direction to declare any place as a heritage site.
"There is nothing placed on record to show that by declaring Agra as World Heritage Site there will be any special advantage to the city. Moreover, we don't think that this Court can grant a declaration as prayed that Agra is heritage site. Application is rejected," the bench observed in the order.
Supreme Court Seeks Data From States From 2015 Onward On Appeals Against Acquittals Under Prohibition of Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques For Sex Determination Rules
Case Details: Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 301/2022
The Supreme Court has sought a reply from States long with data from January 1, 2015 to till date indicating as to in how many cases of acquittal, appeal, revision or other proceedings have been filed by the appropriate authorities in the higher courts in response to a PIL claiming that States are violating the mandate provisions of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1966 by not filing mandatory appeals against other of acquittal.
The Court has observed that in case of is non-compliance of the order by State, it will take appropriate adverse actions.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To YSRCP Leaders In Cases Over Alleged Attack of TDP Office & Naidu's Residence
Case Details: Devineni Avinash v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024 & Jogi Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh SLP(Crl) No. 12567/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim protection to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash after the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his anticipatory bail for allegedly ransacking the NTR Bhavan, the central office of ruling Telugu Desam Party, at Mangalagiri during YSRCP regime in October 2021.
The interim protection has also been granted to YSRCP members Lella Appi Reddy, Sri Talasila Raghuram and Oggu Gavaskar, who along with other members are accused of criminally trespassing into the office of TDP and attacking the members of the TDP.
The petitioners are accused under the offences 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506, 324 read with 149 and Sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has also granted interim protection to former minister and MLA Jogi Ramesh in connection with the allegedly vandalising Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's Undavalli residence along with other YSRCP members in 2021.
Other Developments
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Against Ram Rahim's Acquittal in 2002 Murder Case
Case Details: Jagseer Singh v. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors, Diary No. 33568-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting self-styled Godman and Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and four others sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in the 2002 murder of manager Ranjit Singh.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a challenge to the judgment in which as per the chargesheet filed by the CBI, Ranjit Singh was shot dead on July 10, 2002, because Ram Rahim suspected that the deceased was behind the circulation of an anonymous letter, highlighting the cases of sexual exploitation of his female followers.
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Forged SLP Filing in 2002 Nitish Katara Murder Case
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Up | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 18885/2024
The Supreme Court reserved orders in 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 heard the matter and reserved the verdict, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. While Justice Sharma called it "very unfortunate", Justice Trivedi came down heavily on Advocates-on-Record for their callous approach in practising before the Supreme Court (especially insofar as filing of vakalatnamas and appearing before the court was concerned).
Supreme Court Hearing: Tamil Nadu Govt Denies Savukku Shankar Solitary Confinement Allegation
Case Details: A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 352/2024
The Tamil Nadu Government told the Supreme Court that YouTuber Savukku Shankar was not kept in solitary confinement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar's mother Kamala challenging his detention under the Tamil Nadu 'Goondas' Act 1982.
Supreme Court Advocates Seek Change in Winter Vacation Schedule
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has requested the Supreme Court to revise the winter vacation schedule as starting from December 24, 2024, to January 13, 2025.
The present schedule is from December 23 to January 1.
The letter written by Mr. Nikhil Jain (Hony. Secretary of the Association) to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, stated that with climate change, the peak winter season has been starting in the first week of January over the last 3-5 years. Because of this, the schedule of vacation for schools and colleges have changed. Therefore, while advocates have their vacations in December, their children get the break only in January. This mismatch affects the ability of the advocates to spend quality family time.
Lawyer Apologizes For Sending Emails To Registry Saying Justice Oka Shouldn't Hear His Case
The Supreme Court accepted an unconditional apology from an advocate, who had sent an email to the court stating that he does not want Justice Abhay S. Oka to hear his case.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih questioned why the advocate has yet to withdraw the original email although he has tendered an apology.
The lawyer submitted that he would withdraw the email and therefore, the Court directed him to file an affidavit in this regard.
The counsel informed the court that the client had withdrawn all his cases from him on July 29 and he wants to pursue the case as petitioner-in-person. Justice Oka's bench has allowed the appellant to appear petitioner-in-person and has directed him to stop sending emails to the Court.
Centre Appoints Six New Additional Solicitor Generals In Supreme Court
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.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Making Justice Victoria Gowri & 4 Others Permanent Judges of Madras High Court
The Supreme court collegium has recommended making five additional judges of Madras High Court permanent.
Accused Losing Lives Like This Not Good For 'Rule of Law' : Supreme Court In Plea Against 'Fake' Encounters In Assam
Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. The State of Assam and Ors., Slp(Crl) No. 7929/2023
While hearing a special leave petition raising the issue of fake encounters in Assam, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court remarked that accused persons losing their lives in the alleged manner is "not good for the rule of law".
"...it is not a good thing for rule of law that so many accused are just losing their lives like that!", said the judge.
Justice Bhuyan, part of a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant as well, was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Gauhati High Court order, whereby the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue was dismissed. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that no separate probe into the alleged incidents was required, as state authorities were conducting investigation in each case.
Surrogate Mothers Likely To Be Paid Anyway, Better To Have A System To Regulate : Supreme Court In Challenge To Ban On Commercial Surrogacy
Case Details: Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India | W.P. (Civil) No. 756 of 2022 (and connected matters)
While hearing the pleas challenging certain surrogacy laws, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to safeguard the interests of surrogate mothers, even though commercial surrogacy is prohibited in India.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to the Surrogacy Regulation Act and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, when it observed that there is a need for a "system", so that no woman is exploited.
Madrasas Unsuitable For Proper Education, Have Arbitrary Mode of Working : NCPCR Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024 and connected matters.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has filed written submissions in the Supreme Court expressing concerns about the quality of education imparted through Madrasas.
The NCPCR filed its statement in the case challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004'. In April, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's judgment, saying that the High Court prima facie misconstrued the Act and that the decision would impact nearly 17 lakh students/
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea of 84-Year-Old Self-Styled Godman Seeking Review of Life Sentence For Wife's Murder
Case Details: Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition)
The Supreme Court issued notice on a review petition filed by Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra, seeking reconsideration of a judgment which imposed on him a life sentence (without remission) for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli (granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail).
The 84-yr-old self-styled godman has been in jail since about 30 years and claims that he is suffering from health issues. The trial Court and the High Court had sentenced him to death but the sentence was commuted by the Supreme Court in 2008 to one of imprisonment until death.
Whether Charitable Trust Is Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act? Supreme Court To Examine On September 18
Case Details: Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
The Supreme Court will hear on September 18 the issue of whether a charitable trust can maintain an action and claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as a 'consumer'.
AIBE : Supreme Court Seeks BCI's Response On Plea To Allow Final Year Law Students To Appear In All India Bar Exam
Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors V Bar Council of India| W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024
The Supreme Court sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a petition challenging the BCI's decision to prevent final-year law students from appearing in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
The Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a writ petition challenging the recent notification of Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding eligibility for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) which prohibits final year (final semester) law students from registering for and appearing in the upcoming AIBE-XIX scheduled for November 24, 2024.
The Bench asked the BCI's counsel to get instructions from the BCI and respond next week.
Litigant Punished For Contempt Claims He Has Sought Prosecution of Justice Oka; Supreme Court Responds, 'We Won't Be Deterred'
Case Details: Suraz India Trust v. Union of India| MA 1630/2020 in W.P.(C) No. 880/2016)
The Supreme Court will hold hearing on September 23 on the sentence to be imposed on the Chairman of Suraz India Trust, Rajiv Dahiya, who was found guilty in 2021 for contempt of court.
Curiously, the contemnor Dahiya, who was personally present before the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, stated that he has filed an application before the President seeking sanction to prosecute Justice Oka.
The bench said that his application to the President will not deter it from hearing on the sentence.
Can't Direct Enactment of Law To Enforce Fundamental Duties, Says Supreme Court During PIL Hearing
Case Details: Durga Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., Wp(C) No. 67/2022
While hearing a plea relating to fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court expressed that it cannot direct the legislature to enact a law for enforcement of the same.
"The cause that you (petitioner) are espousing is certainly relevant. Duties are very important. When you have rights, duties are also to be...there are number of judgments. But we can't direct legislature to enact a law. It's something which citizens or people of the country have to be conscious about", said Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
PM Narendra Modi Visits CJI DY Chandrachud's Residence For Ganesh Puja
Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the residence of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for Ganesh Chaturthi rituals.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Raise Concerns Regarding Filing & Listing Process, Online Appearances Etc
The Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) has raised concerns to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court regarding the Filing, Registration and Listing of matters, Online Appearances and Letter Circulations.
SCOARA Secretary Nikhil Jain forwarded to the Supreme Court Secretary General a representation signed by 137 AORs raising the following issues :
(1)Lack of timelines and delay in the defect notifying and curing process : this includes lags on the part of the Registry in curing the defects after the matter is filed online and diary number is generated. It also stresses on other procedural delays in verifying the matter which is filed.
(2) Lack of timelines and delay in updating scanned copies of paperbook : the AoRs point that scanned copies of the paperbooks are either uploaded on the e-portal which much delay or not uploaded at all with a message displayed-the scanned paperbook are not available.
(3) Deletion of matters notified for returnable dates/ matters shown in advance list: AoRs note that very often specifically directed matters are not listed on the date of their hearing or added under the supplementary list at the last hour.
After Contempt Notice, Vishakhapatnam Bar Association Undertakes Before Supreme Court Not To Abstain From Court Work In Future
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11029/2024
Pursuant to a contempt notice, the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court undertaking that it would not boycott and/or encourage lawyers to abstain from court work in future.
It may be recalled that a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih issued a contempt notice to the Association in July for abstaining from court work and thus preventing the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Vishakhapatnam from functioning.
Telangana Govt Moves Supreme Court Against HC Order Diluting Local Quota Criteria For MBBS/BDS Admissions
The State of Telangana moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident of the State was not required to study in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get admission in MBBS or BDS courses in the domicile quota seats.
Supreme Court To Hear Senior Advocate's PIL To Create Public Awareness About Anti-Rape Laws, Sex Education & Gender Equality
Case Details: Aabad Harshad Ponda v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 382/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition seeking directions to the Union and Ministry of Education to compulsorily incorporate sex education in the school syllabus and sensitizing the children about the anti-rape laws and POCSO Act in India.
Senior Advocate Aabad Harshad Ponda, who has filed the present petition appeared before the bench stressing for the need to increase awareness amongst masses about the laws relating to the crime of rape, the changed definition of rape after the Nirbhaya Case. Making reference to the ongoing RG Kar Case, he urged the need for concrete steps by the state agencies.
NEET-PG 2024| Supreme Court Seeks NBE's Response On Petition Seeking Disclosure of Answer Keys
Case Details: Ishika Jain and Ors. v. National Board of Examination and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 583/2024
The Supreme Court sought response from the National Board of Education (NBE) in a writ petition seeking disclosure of answer keys and question papers ofthe NEET-PG 2024 exam along with other measures to ensure increased transparency
Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija appearing for the petitioner stressed that the NBE has not released either the question papers or the answer keys. She added that without knowing the correct answers, the candidates will not be able to assess their performances in a transparent way. She submitted thatwhen the scorecard was released, it did not tally accurately for many candidates.
Supreme Court Objects To Litigant Making Submissions In Hindi, Emphasizes Court Proceedings Must Be In English
The Supreme Court objected to a litigant making submissions in Hindi, stating that the official language of the Court is English.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti was dealing with an SLP against Allahabad High Court order allowing plea by petitioner's wife to transfer a cruelty and dowry case against the petitioner from the Basti District to Prayagraj.
When the matter was called out, the petitioner began making his submissions in Hindi. After he finished telling the court about the issue involved and the HC order, Justice Roy reminded him about the court's language.
Supreme Court To Consider Petition Seeking Guidelines On Centralised Alert For Missing Women
The Supreme Court agreed to consider a petition seeking guidelines to mandate a centralized alert in case a woman is reported to be missing and cannot be located within a reasonable time-frame.
Notably, the Top Court had laid down guidelines in the decision of Hori Lal v Commissioner 2002 of steps to be taken in cases of kidnapping of minor girls.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to issue notice in the matter.
AG To Share 'Sensitive Information' With Supreme Court On Pending Collegium Resolutions
Case Details: Harsh Vibhore Singhal V Union of India Writ Petition(S) (Civil) No(S). 702/2023
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that he wanted to share certain 'sensitive information' regarding some of the recent collegium recommendations, which are pending with the Union Government.
The AG was appearing for the Union in a PIL seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Collegium Resolutions for judges' appointments.
Bulldozer Action | Personal Liability of Officers Violating Law, Ministers To Not Endorse Demolitions : Suggestions For Supreme Court's Guidelines
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | W.P. (Crl.) No.- 162/2022 (and connected matters)
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated September 2, 2024, Jamiat Ulama I Hind has filed its suggestions for the framing of pan-India guidelines to address the issue of demolition/bulldozer actions against houses of persons accused of crimes.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the "bulldozer actions" in various States. On September 2, it had asked the parties to submit draft suggestions which can be considered by the Court to frame pan-India guidelines.