Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: September 23, 2024 To September 29, 2024

Nominal Index

Citations

Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish Diary No.- 8562 - 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Yogarani v. State By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731

Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Nilay Rai & Ors V Bar Council of India| W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Vidhu Gupta v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Gagan Banga and another v. The State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Ranjit Singh & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737

OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738

Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., C.A. No. 010812 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Modh. Enamul Haque v.Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No.11129/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 740

Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Union of India v. Doly Loyi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742

HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 744

S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745

Vijay Singh@Vijay Kr. Sharma v. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Manik and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 747

Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Others v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 1511-1513/2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749

V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Sunil Bakht v. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 751

Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. v. M/S Sanman Rice Mills & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr., C.A. No. 010893/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors., SLP (C) NO. 15482 of 2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Orders

Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 698/2022

Anuj Nakade v. Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Diary No. 36812-2024

C.P. Mohammed v. The State of Kerala | SLP(Crl) No. 10308/2019

High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024

State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024

Prithvansh Malhotra v. State of Punjab W.P.(C) No. 000587 / 2024

Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022

In Re: Heritage Building of The Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands For The High Court

Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024

Anurag Rawal v. Lalit Sharma and Ors.

A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024; Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42644-2024

Rahul Jhansla v. Delhi University & Ors., SLP(C) No. 22598/2024

State of Gujarat v. Bilkis Yakub Rasool and Ors.

Ram Kumar Itoriya v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Pyare Lal Meena and Ors. SLP(C) No. 10560/2024

Airports Authority of India v. GMR Airports Limited & Anr. | Curative Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2022

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

T.D. Rajegowda v. D.N. Jeevaraja and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20354/2024

State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd

Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta

Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 523/2024

Kailash v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (CrL) 11258/2024

State of Haryana v. SD Anand Diary No. - 20661/2024

Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.

Other Developments

Judgments

Storage of Child Pornography Without Deletion Or Reporting Indicates Intention To Transmit, Constitutes POCSO Act Offence :Supreme Courtt

Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish Diary No.- 8562 - 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Setting aside a Madras High Court judgment which held that mere storage of child pornographic material without any intention to transmit the same was not an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the Supreme Court on September 23 held that the storage of such material, without deleting or without reporting the same, would indicate an intention to transmit.

Observing that the High Court committed an "egregious error" in quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the decision set it aside and restored the criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court held that watching child pornography over the internet without downloading would also amount to "possession" of such material in terms of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

The Supreme Court held that neither unawareness of the law nor ignorance of law cannot be claimed as an excuse for storing or possessing child pornography in a plea taken by the accused that he was not aware of the fact that storing child pornography was a punishable offence under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court stated that a plea of unawareness of law can be a valid defence if it "consequently gives rise to a legitimate and bonafide mistake of fact as to the existence or non-existence of a particular right to claim".

UAPA | Timelines For Sanction Mandatory, Have To Be Strictly Followed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729

"In matters of strict construction, when a timeline is provided, along with the use of the word 'shall' and particularly when the same is in the context of a law such as the UAPA, it cannot be considered a mere technicality or formality," the Supreme Court observed.

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol made these observations in the context of the grant of sanctions under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 where divergent views have been found in the judgments of the High Courts.

The Supreme Court held that a sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) can be challenged on grounds such as the authority has not applied its mind or that the materials were not sufficient. However, such challenge by the accused must ideally be raised at the earliest opportunity.

The Court also noted that the UAPA does not have any provision like the CrPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act to save an invalid sanction/

Convict's Age During Crime, Family's Social & Criminal Background Relevant While Commuting Death Sentence : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730

The Supreme Court observed that the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would be of relevance along with other mitigating circumstances while commuting the sentence of the death penalty.

Upon noting that the convict was of the age of 22 years at the time of the commission of the offence and came from a socio-economic backward stratum of the society, where he along with his family members does not have a criminal background, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan provided relief to him by commuting his death sentence to that of fixed life imprisonment of 20 years.

Can't Convict One Accused & Acquit Another When Similar Evidence Was Pitted Against Them : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yogarani v. State By Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731

The Supreme Court held that the court cannot convict one accused and acquit another when similar or identical evidence is pitted against two accused persons.

While holding so, the Court acquitted the accused/appellant after finding that other co-accused who were charged for similar offences had been acquitted of all the charges and no appeal had been filed challenging their acquittal.

Referring to Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782, the Court observed, "The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons."

Supreme Court Condemns CBI's 'Scandalous' Allegations Against West Bengal Courts

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 732

The Supreme Court 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.

"Mr. Raju what kind of grounds are taken in this? That all courts in West Bengal have hostile environment? Blanket averment that courts are illegally granting bail?. This is casting aspersions that the entire judiciary is under hostile environment," Justice Oka told ASG as soon as the matter was taken.

Supreme Court Warns Against Commenting on Court Orders 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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733

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 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 Take All India Bar Exam 2024

Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors V Bar Council of India| W.P.(C)No 577 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 734

The Supreme Court has 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 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.

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 735

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.”

'This Court Won't Shy Away From Acknowledging Its Mistakes' : Supreme Court Allows ED's Application To Recall Order

Case Details: Gagan Banga and another v. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 736

The Supreme Court allowed an application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to recall an earlier order which granted protection from coercive action to certain accused in a money laundering case till their petitions challenging the proceedings were finally disposed of by the High Court.

The ED sought the recall of the order, which was passed on July 4, 2023, on the ground that it was not heard before the same was passed. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar noted that the ED was not actually heard when the order was passed as the application to implead the ED was allowed only on that day. As per the order passed on July 4, 2023, while disposing of the writ petitions asking the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts for relief, the Court also granted them protection from coercive action till the matter was finally disposed of by the High Court.

Courts Cannot Prepone Date of Hearing Without Giving Notice To Other Party: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranjit Singh & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 737

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of preponing the date of hearing without giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendant.

It was a case where the trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant on April 22, 2002, and fixed a date for ex-parte hearing on 30th May 2002. However, an application was made by the plaintiff to strike out the defence of the defendants on May 03, and on the same day, the court passed an order in favor of the plaintiff for striking out the defendants' defence without giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendant.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih observed that an error was committed to not providing an opportunity of hearing to the defendants while deciding an application for striking out their defence.

The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the defendant to file a written submission would not foreclose its right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.

“Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex parte against him, the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. A defendant can always cross-examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case.”, the court said.

S. 34 Arbitration Act |Mere Violation of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court

Case Details: OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law is not enough to interfere with an award, but it must conflict with the most fundamental aspects of public policy, justice.

“The expression “in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law” by use of the word 'fundamental' before the phrase 'policy of Indian law' makes the expression narrower in its application than the phrase “in contravention with the policy of Indian law”, which means mere contravention of law is not enough to make an award vulnerable. To bring the contravention within the fold of fundamental policy of Indian law, the award must contravene all or any of such fundamental principles that provide a basis for administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country.”

Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment of Plaint: Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., C.A. No. 010812 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 739

The Supreme Court observed that by way of an amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the plaintiff can introduce certain aspects that are necessary to determine the issues between the parties.

The bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard a matter where the defendant objected to the plaintiff's application seeking an amendment to the plaint. The dispute pertains to the succession of the property by way of a 'Will'.

Long Custody Will Enure To Benefit of Accused For Bail When Delay In Trial Isn't His Fault : Supreme Court Grants Bail In PMLA Case

Case Details: Modh. Enamul Haque v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No.11129/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 740

Observing that continued incarceration will enure to the benefit of the accused who is not responsible for the delay in trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case related to cattle smuggling across India-Bangladesh border.

"..a continued incarceration where the appellant is not entirely at fault for the completion of trial due to a prolonged delay, would enure to his benefit for the purpose of granting bail," observed the Court granting bail to one Mohd. Enamul Haque under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar considered parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail, the period of incarceration underwent and the unlikelihood of the trial in the alleged cattle smuggling case.

Agreement For Sale Conveying Possession Must Be Stamped As 'Conveyance' Under Maharashtra Stampt Act : Supreme Court

Case Details: Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 741

The Supreme Court has observed that when an agreement for sale consists a clause to hand over possession of the property, then it has to be treated as "conveyance" for the purpose of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Therefore, the liability to pay stamp duty will arise at the time of the execution of such an agreement for sale.

The fact that a sale deed was ultimately executed in pursuance of the agreement for sale and that stamp duty was paid on such sale deed will not absolve the primary liability of paying the appropriate stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale agreement. Because, in such a case, the agreement for sale is the principal document, the Court stated, referring to Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

"The above Explanation I makes it lucid that an agreement for sale is to be treated as a “conveyance” if either possession is handed over immediately or if it is agreed to be handed over within a particular time. A reading of the above Explanation I along with Section 4 makes it clear that the duty is levied only on the instrument and not on the transaction," the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan decided the matter.

Mere Grant of Prosecution Sanction Against Central Govt Employee Not Reason To Put DPC Recommendations In Sealed Cover : Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. Doly Loyi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 742

The Supreme Court held that the mere grant of prosecution sanction against a Central Government employee is not a reason to put the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a sealed cover.

The Court stated that by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it cannot be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge so as to adopt the sealed cover procedure regarding DPC recommendations.

A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan held so while dismissing the Union of India's appeal against the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that there was no justification to keep the DPC recommendations against the respondent in a sealed cover.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment That Directed HMT & Union To Return Land Acquired By Them In Bengaluru

Case Details: HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 743

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which directed HMT Ltd. and Union of India to either return land in Bangalore's Jarakabande Kaval village to heirs of a previous owner from whom it was requisitioned in 1941 or to compensate them by paying the present market value.

The Court noted that the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court in 2006 was barred by delay and laches. The Court also noted that the petitioner had suppressed several crucial facts.

“A plea of delay and laches would not be merely technical when facts are in dispute as, over time, evidence may dissipate and materials, including Government files, may become increasingly difficult to trace. Further, individuals with knowledge of the case may move on or become unavailable. The situation is exacerbated for Government servants, as they face transfers and superannuation. Further, such deserving dismissals on delay and laches serve a larger purpose, as time would not be spent unnecessarily on stale and nebulous disputes, enabling Courts/Tribunals to deal with and decide active pressing cases”, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held.

Consumer Protection | Right To File Written Statement Couldn't Be Foreclosed If Complaint's Copy Wasn't Supplied To Opposite Party : Supreme Court

Case Details: Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kuckian & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9958 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 744

In a consumer case, the Supreme Court permitted the opposite party to file a written statement in the consumer complaint after the expiry of the statutory time limit because a copy of the complaint was not served to him.

It was a case where the appellant was denied the right to file a written statement in response to the consumer complaint. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) foreclosed the appellant's right to file a written statement on the ground that it failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The appellant preferred an instant appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the NCDRC's order.

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that the right to file a written statement was wrongly foreclosed by the NCDRC. It added that since no copy of the complaint was furnished by the complainant's counsel to the appellant's counsel therefore it would not be possible to file a written statement.

Accepting the appellant's contention, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal set aside the NCDRC's order and observed that along with recording the acceptance of the notice by the defendant's counsel and the time granted to file a written statement, the order should also record that copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainants to the counsel for the opposite party.

Domestic Violence Act | S. 25(2) Can Be Invoked Only Based On Change In Circumstances Which Occurred After S.12 Order Was Passed : Supreme Court

Case Details: S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745

The Supreme Court held that alteration/modification/revocation of an order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be sought through Section 25(2) only on the basis of change of circumstances which took place subsequent to the passing of the order.

"..for the invocation of Section 25(2) of the Act, there must be a change in the circumstances after the order being passed under the Act," the Court stated.

"Any alteration, modification or revocation of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act owing to a change in circumstances could only be for a period ex post facto, i.e., post the period of an order being made in a petition under Section 12 of the Act and not to a period prior thereto. Thus, such an application for alteration, modification or revocation filed under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act cannot relate to any period prior to the order being passed, inter alia, under Section 12 of the Act,” observed a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh.

The Supreme Court observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation.

"The Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship," observed the Court.

The Supreme Court explained when Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be invoked to seek the alteration, modification or revocation of an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act.

The bench observed that the scope of Section 25(2) of the Act is broad enough to deal with all nature of orders passed under the Act, which may include orders of maintenance, residence, protection, etc.

The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act has to be satisfied that a change in the circumstances has occurred, requiring to pass an order of alteration, modification or revocation.

'Highly Objectionable': Supreme Court Criticises Patna HC Remark That Widow Has No Use of Make-up

Case Details: Vijay Singh@Vijay Kr. Sharma v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 746

The Supreme Court held that the sweeping remarks made by the Patna High Court that a widow does not need to wear make-up are highly questionable.

In this case, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by seven accused persons convicted by the Trial Court and then by the Patna High Court in the abduction and murder of a woman over a dispute for property. The Court acquitted all seven persons on grounds that the prosecution's version of the story was highly untenable.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence of seven accused persons for the offence of the abduction and murder of a lady to forcefully obtain possession of the house belonging to her father which was a matter of pending litigation.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the prosecution is full of glaring about the offence of abduction. Whereas, for the offence of murder which was entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence, it cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of the law as the circumstantial evidence failed to meet the test of proof.

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Police Officers' Convictions In Decades-Old Custodial Death Case

Case Details: Manik and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 747

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in an appeal by police officers convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences in a decades-old custodial death case for alleged torture and death of a man in police custody in December 1995.

A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar delivered a split verdict, particularly on the issue of conviction of the accused under section 304 Part II IPC. The two judges disagreed on the following aspect, as explained by Justice Kumar –

“This is the major point of divergence between our views. My learned brother has acted upon the premise that once the dead body is said to have been traced and it is, then, not proved to be of that person, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Permitting this premise to gain acceptance would mean that those in the police organization, who resort to such nefarious methods, can take this easy way out to ward off a finding of guilt. When sufficient evidence is available to conclude that Shama was in no position to escape from the custody of the appellants, the inevitable corollary that follows is that he died due to their torture while in their custody.”

While Justice Ravikumar set aside the convictions under section 304 IPC, Justice Kumar acquitted them.

“It is high time that our legal system squarely faces the menace of police excesses and deals with it by putting in place an effective mechanism to obviate such inhuman practices”, Justice Kumar added.

Justice Ravikumar emphasised that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence's arguments. He noted that the burden on the defence to prove an alternate theory (such as escape of the deceased) is not as stringent as that on the prosecution, but only requires a preponderance of probabilities.

“There can be little doubt with respect to the position that a Court is not justified in deciding a case upon its own suspicions or suppositions after discarding the evidence adduced by Criminal the parties and that defence evidence is also to be appreciated in the same manner as it is to appreciate the prosecution evidence, but with the understanding that in the case of accused the standard of proof required is only preponderance of probabilities”, he said.

“In Noor Aga's case, this Court observed and held that superficially a case might have an ugly look and thereby, prima facie, shaking the conscious of any court. But it is well settled that suspicion, however high it might be, could under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal evidence”, he highlighted.

S. 464 CrPC | Conviction Can't Be Challenged Based On Conversion of Charges Unless 'Failure of Justice' Is Proved : Supreme Court

Case Details: Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Ors. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748

The Supreme Court observed that to challenge the conviction based on the alteration of charges, the accused must demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to them by such conversion of charges.

The Court held so while upholding the conviction of the appellants in a murder case where they were initially charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (Common Object) but convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC (Common Intention).

The appellants assailed their conviction on the ground that the High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

Limiting Candidates For Interview Necessary To Enhance Efficiency & Transparency of Selection Process : Supreme Court

Case Details: Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 1511-1513/2021

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Citing the lack of transparency and irregularities adopted in shortlisting the candidates for the interview stage, the Supreme Court directed the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to commence the fresh selection process of the Laboratory Attendants from the stage of written test.

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti set aside the High Court's Division Bench decision which had approved PSEB's decision to invite candidates 63 times the number of vacancies for the interview.

The Court ordered that the candidates to the extent of five times the number of vacancies should be shortlisted to participate in the next segment of the test i.e., interview.

Requirement of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions : Supreme Court

Case Details: v. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750

The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.

A bench on Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.

“The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time”, the Court held.

'Technological Impediment Not Reason To Harass Assessee': Supreme Court Asks Income Tax Dept, CBDT To Resolve Software Issues

Case Details: Sunil Bakht v. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC and another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 751

Technological impediment cannot be a reason to harass an assessee, said the Supreme Court while asking the Income Tax Department to upgrade its software to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future.

The Court directed that the Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying the software.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by an assessee questioning the imposition of surcharge on Rs. 1.57 Crores and demanding Rs. 2.01 Crores for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

Supreme Court Quashes Manipur Police Notice To Trans Woman After She Expressed Regret For Comments Against Social Welfare Dept

Case Details: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 498/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 752

The Supreme Court quashed police summons issued to a transgender woman activist of Manipur, over her social media posts alleging misappropriation of transgender persons' welfare fund by the social welfare department.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner-activist had joined investigation and even expressed regret regarding her statement. The Court recorded an undertaking that she would not make such remarks in future on any public platform or social media. If she has a grievance in future, she'd raise that before an appropriate forum.

'Abuse of Criminal Process, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Wife's S.498A Case Against In-Laws

Case Details: Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Observing that a criminal case cannot be allowed to proceed based on vague and obscure complaints, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code case against the in-laws of a complaint-wife. The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no prohibition against quashing criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held so while quashing the domestic cruelty case against the accused after noting that no new allegations were discovered against the accused even after filing the charge sheet as it remained the same as recorded in the First Information Report.

S. 37 Arbitration Act | An Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Appellate Court's View Is A Better View : Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Anr. v. M/S Sanman Rice Mills & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754

The Supreme Court observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement, the bench added.

'Agreement of Sale A Sheer Piece of Fraud & Concoction' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Decree For Specific Performance

Case Details: Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr., C.A. No. 010893 / 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 755

The Supreme Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court which had validated the sale agreement transcribed on one of the blank stamp papers on which the thumb impression of the defendant (illiterate) had been taken before its transcription.

From the facts, the Court inferred that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that such a practice of the plaintiff to take the signature of the defendant on the blank paper before the transcription of the agreement is nothing but a "sheer piece of fraud and concoction."

Preserve Answer Scripts Till Selection Process Is Complete To Obviate Allegations of Wrong-Doing: Supreme Court

Case Details: Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors., SLP (C) NO. 15482 of 2016

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756

In a matter pertaining to recruitment of primary teachers in Manipur, the Supreme Court observed that when recruitment for public posts is being done, authorities shall preserve answer scripts of candidates until the process is complete, to obviate any allegations of wrong-doing.

"When recruitment for public posts is being made by the State, the preservation of the answer scripts till reasonable time after the final declaration of result is the prudent course to adopt...we expect all concerned to be mindful of their responsibility in future recruitments, to preserve the answer scripts till the selection process is successfully completed, to obviate similar such allegation of wrong doings", it said.

In terms of a judgment by the Manipur High Court, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti ordered for a revised select list of candidates to be drawn in 4 weeks, based on merit, which shall include all similarly situated persons - even those candidates who participated in the recruitment process but did not litigate to secure appointment.

Orders

Supreme Court Seeks State Bar Councils' Affidavits Over Non-Compliance of Rule To Publish List of Senior Lawyers Willing To Mentor Law Students

Case Details: Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 698/2022

While hearing a public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court called on all State Bar Councils which have not complied with the rule requiring them to publish a list of seasoned lawyers willing to mentor law students during college vacations, to file affidavits explaining reasons for non-compliance.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar heard the matter and sought the Bar Councils' explanation with regard to non-compliance of Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.

Supreme Court Seeks Response From States/UTs On Compliance of Directions To Set Up Online RTI Portals

Case Details: Anuj Nakade v. Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Diary No. 36812-2024

The Supreme Court sought response from all the States and Union Territories in a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the directions in Pravasi Legal Cell v Union of India & Ors. for having online RTI Portals across the states in the country.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala issued notice in the contempt petition filed by Anuj Nakade who alleged that 7 states and 4 Union Territories were yet to set up online RTI Portals while many of the other States either had Portals with incomplete boarding of Authorities or didn't follow the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's “Guidelines for Indian Government Websites 3.0” (pertaining to accessibility of the portals to the visually impaired). The petitioner was represented by Advocate N Sai Vinod.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea For CBI Investigation Into Congress Worker Shuhaib's Murder

Case Details: C.P. Mohammed v. The State of Kerala | SLP(Crl) No. 10308/2019

The Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the murder of a Youth Congress worker named Shuhaib in Kerala in February 2018.

The Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the division bench of the Kerala High Court which set aside the single bench direction for a CBI investigation into Shuhaib's murder.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan dismissed the petition filed by CP Mohammed and SP Raziya, the parents of Shuhaib, against the Kerala High Court's judgment. The bench however clarified that if the role of any other accused comes to light during the trial, the parties will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with the law. The bench observed that the State police has already filed chargesheet, arraying several persons as the accused, and it would be imprudent to interfere with the matter at this juncture.

3 Year Practice Or 70% LLB Mark Rule: Supreme Court Stays HC Order To Recompute Cut-Off For Civil Judge Prelims Exam

Case Details: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024

The Supreme Court stayed the 13 June order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which halted the recruitment process and ordered the recomputation of cut-off marks for Civil Judge Junior Division (Entry Level) Recruitment exam 2023.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing an SLP filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the judgment passed by the division bench of the High Court which ordered excluding all candidates who had successfully passed the Preliminary Examination because they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the Amended Recruitment Rules.

HC Must Say Why State Police Investigation Is Unfair Before Ordering CBI Probe: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024

The Supreme Court aside a Calcutta High Court order directing preliminary investigation by the CBI, holding that such directions can be passed only in very rare cases, and that too, after the High Court records reasons for deeming State investigation to be unfair or impartial.

"The High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can entrust investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that investigation by State police is not fair or is partisan. Merely, on the basis of some letters, such exercise is not warranted. It has also been held that such an exercise of entrusting the investigation by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge would reveal that there is not even a whisper as to why it finds the investigation by the state to be unfair or impartial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by CBI. For the very same reasons, the order passed by the learned Division Bench is also not sustainable in law", said the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

'NRI Quota Fraud Must Come To An End': Supreme Court Upholds P&H High Court's Order Quashing Widened Definition of 'NRI' In MBBS Admissions

Case Details: Prithvansh Malhotra v. State of Punjab WP (C) No. 000587 / 2024

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the challenge to Punjab and Haryana High Court's quashing the Punjab Government's notification to broaden the ambit of NRI Quota in medical admission, orally observed that such 'fraud' must stop as it gave way to backdoor entries at the cost of meritorious candidates.

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing three petitions challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the August 20 notification widening the definition of Non-Resident Indian for MBBS admissions.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Apply Delhi Govt OBC List In Central Govt Funded Institutions In Delhi

Case Details: Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging Medical Counselling Committee's notice dated January 10, 2022 which modified OBC reservation criteria with respect to Institutional Preference seats in central institutes.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which found no ground to interfere with the impugned notice.

Explore Possibility of Having Arbitration Centre At Air India Building Near Bombay HC: Supreme Court To Maharashtra Govt

Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of The Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands For The High Court

The Supreme Court asked the Administrative Committee headed by Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and the Maharashtra Government to look into the possibility of having an Arbitration Centre in the Air India Building near the Bombay High Court Complex.

The special bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai and Justice JB Pardiwala, was hearing a suo moto petition regarding the heritage building of the Bombay High Court and the issue of additional land allotment.

'What Is Rate of Conviction In PMLA Cases? You Keep Person In Jail For Years' : Supreme Court To ED While Granting Interim Bail

Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Chhattisgarh's suspended civil servant Saumya Chaurasia in a money laundering case, taking into account factors including the amount of time spent in custody and the non-framing of charges.

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 1 yr and 9 months now.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta 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.

Delhi Bar Association Elections: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Voter Eligibility Criteria, Allows To Approach HC

Case Details: Anurag Rawal v. Lalit Sharma and Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging requirement of furnishing proximity cards and minimum 12 appearances for eligibility to vote in Delhi Bar Association elections imposed by the Delhi High Court.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Vishwanathan and Justice PK Mishra disposed of the petition.

The Court noted petitioner's plea of practical difficulties due to the impugned order and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Delhi High Court to seek modification.

Tamil Nadu Govt Revokes Savukku Shankar's Detention, Supreme Court Orders His Immediate Release

Case Details: A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

The Supreme Court ordered the release of YouTuber Savukku Shankar from detention under the Tamil Nadu 'Goondas' Act 1982.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took on record the statement of the State of Tamil Nadu that it has revoked the detention order of Shankar following the opinion of the Advisory Board.

'We Want To See What Exactly There Is On E-Prison Portal': Supreme Court Directs To Arrange Demonstration of E-Prison Portal

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

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to arrange a demonstration of the e-Prison Portal at 4:15 pm on October 15.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih is hearing a suo moto case (In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) where it has passed orders to ensure that prisoners who get bail are released without delay.

Supreme Court Orders Women's Reservation In Delhi High Court Bar Association Posts

Case Details: Aditi Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42332-2024; Shobha Gupta and Anr. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 42644-2024

The Supreme Court ordered that there should be women's reservation for posts in the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

The Court directed that a meeting of the General Body of DHCBA be held as early as possible, not later than 10 days. The GB shall consider the desirability of reserving the post of Treasurer for women members. In addition to reserving the post of Treasurer, GB shall be at liberty to consider the desirability of reserving 1 more post of office bearers of the Bar Association for women members.

Further, the Court ordered that out of 10 Executive Committee members, there shall be at least 3 women members. The GBM may also consider that out of 3 women members of EC, at least 1 is a senior designated advocate.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's Bar bodies. It had asked the Delhi High Court Bar Association to consider reserving post of Vice-President for women lawyers in the upcoming elections. The bench further found it disappointing that since the year 1962, there had not been even a single woman President of the Bar.

DUSU Elections : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Candidate's Plea To Provisionally Contest For Secretary Post

Case Details: Rahul Jhansla v. Delhi University & Ors., SLP(C) No. 22598/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Delhi University-student Rahul Jhansla seeking permission to contest for the post of Secretary in the Delhi University Students Union elections scheduled for September 27, 2024.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan heard the matter and observed that it could neither stay the elections, nor permit Jhansla to contest provisionally. Ultimately, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.

The bench noted that Jhansla's nomination was cancelled as he filed the same for multiple posts. Further, the Delhi High Court had issued notice on his plea raising the same issue, however, as it denied interim relief, Jhansla straightaway came to the Supreme Court assailing the order of the Single Judge, without moving the Division Bench.

Supreme Court Dismisses Gujarat Govt's Review Petition Challenging Adverse Remarks Against It In Bilkis Bano Case Judgment

Case Details: State of Gujarat v. Bilkis Yakub Rasool and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Gujarat against remarks against it in the Supreme Court judgment that set aside the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.

The Court also dismissed the review petitions field by the convicts.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that there is no apparent error on the face of the record or merit in the review petitions.

Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Authorities On Demolition of Ancient Gates of Datia City In Madhya Pradesh

Case Details: Ram Kumar Itoriya v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the Collector and the Chief Municipal Officer of Datia(Madhya Pradesh) to file affidavits addressing the allegations of illegal demolition of ancient gates of the outer fortification surrounding Rajgarh Palace in MP's Datia city.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan also directed them to outline steps for the restoration and repair of the ancient gates in the city of Datia within four weeks.

“We find that it will be appropriate that respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 shall file an affidavit, within four weeks, so as to meet the averments made in the application(s). It shall also be stated in the affidavit as to what steps they propose to take for restoration and repair of the ancient gates”, the order reads.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Condition That YouTuber Must Shut Down YouTube Channel For Bail

Case Details: Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024

The Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the Madras High Court that YouTuber Felix Jerald should shut down his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” for getting bail in the criminal case over alleged scandalous remarks in the interview of 'Savukku' Shankar uploaded on the channel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that such a bail condition was extraneous to the issue and was unnecessary. The bench confirmed its September 6 order which stayed the High Court's condition.

Why Stepmotherly Treatment To Ayurvedic Doctors? Supreme Court Pulls Up Rajasthan Govt For Non-Release of Salaries

Case Details: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Pyare Lal Meena and Ors. SLP(C) No. 10560/2024

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the 'stepmotherly treatment' meted out by the State of Rajasthan to Ayurvedic doctors by the delay of 5 months in releasing the salaries of those Doctors who were reinstated after the High Court's order.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Rajasthan High Court order directing the grant of enhanced superannuation for Ayurvedic Doctors at parity with Allopathic ones. The counsel for the doctors informed that subsequent to the impugned High Court order, the Ayurvedic Doctors were reinstated but have not received salaries for the past 5 months.

The bench directed the State Government to release the salaries of the respondents and all the similarly placed doctors within one week as there was no stay on the operation of the High Court's order.

Supreme Court Closes Curative Petitions of Union & AAI On GMR- Nagpur Airport Issue After SG Says They Aren't Maintainable

Case Details: Airports Authority of India v. GMR Airports Limited & Anr. | Curative Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2022

The Supreme Court closed the curative petitions filed by the Union Government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against a judgment allowing GMR Group the operational management rights of Nagpur's Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.

The Court closed the curative petitions after Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, in his personal capacity, opined that no ground for the exercise of the curative jurisdiction was made out within the parameters of the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra judgment.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and JK Maheshwari recorded the SG's statement and closed the matter.

'Commission Needs To Be More Active' : Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With CAQM Over Steps To Stop Stubble Burning

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

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with steps taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to stop stubble burning in the States of Punjab and Haryana, which is a cause for the worsening of the air quality in Delhi-National Capital Region during every winter.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was surprised to note that the CAQM has never taken penal action as per Section 14 of the CAQM Act against those who indulge in stubble-burning contravening its directions. If there is no penal action taken under Section 14, the prohibitive directions against farm fires will remain only on paper, Justice Oka orally observed.

Supreme Court Allows Objections To Be Raised Against Admissibility of Materials Produced In Petition Challenging Karnataka Congress MLA's Election

Case Details: T.D. Rajegowda v. D.N. Jeevaraja and Ors., SLP(C) No. 20354/2024

Upon hearing Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda's challenge to a 'vague' election petition filed against him by BJP's DN Jeeveraja, the Supreme Court clarified that the parties would be entitled to raise their pleas relating to admissibility/relevance of certain documents filed as 'proof' by Jeeveraja after the filing of the election petition, at an appropriate stage.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on Rajegowda's petition challenging Karnataka High Court's dismissal of an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, seeking rejection of Jeevaraja's election petition over lack of specific averments.

Dictating the order, Justice Kant said,

"We find that election petition is broadly based upon two sets of allegations - (i) the wrongful rejection of postal ballot papers (ii) alleged corrupt practices adopted by the petitioner/returned candidate. As regards the first set of allegations, it seems to us that there is no serious contest. The High Court will proceed with the election petition on that ground in accordance with law. As regard to the allegation of corrupt practices, we find that the respondent-election petitioner has placed on record a list of documents/material/proof for further support of his allegations levelled against the petitioner. Those documents/material are yet to be formally brought on record of the election petition. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner, election-petitioner shall be entitled to raise an objection regarding admissibility/relevance of these documents/material/proof at an appropriate stage and the High Court will consider such objections in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order."

Free Copy of NCLT Order & Copy of Order Obtained On Paying Cost Are 'Certified Copies' For Filing NCLAT Appeal : Supreme Court

Case Details: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to condone delay in filling an appeal because of the filling of a 'free copy' of the impugned order.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra held that there was no difference between a free certified copy of the order and a certified copy which is obtained after paying cost under Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016.

"Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as "certified copies" for the purpose of Rule 50".

Such Litigants Have No Place In Court: Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Fine On Litigant Company For Suppression of Facts

Case Details: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a litigant for suppressing material facts in its two appeals and filing affidavits that sought to justify such suppression.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in each case on the litigant company, who has filed the SLPs challenging orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

The Court in its order noted that the appellants had suppressed material facts in both appeals and had adopted an “adventurous approach” by filing a 19-page affidavit and annexing 300 pages of documents. The affidavit, meant to explain the appellant's conduct, instead fully justified the suppression of facts, the Court stated.

Supreme Court “Showing Magnanimity” Closes Contempt Proceedings Against UP Official For False Affidavit, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Cost On State

Case Details: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the former Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration Department for making false statement in his affidavit filed to explain delay in deciding remission plea of a convict.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had issued the contempt notice after observing that Rajesh Singh, the former Principal Secretary, walked back his earlier stance that the CM Secretariat did not accept remission files due to Model Code of Conduct during Lok Sabha elections.

The Court made it clear that though it is closing the proceedings to save time, it does not accept any explanation offered by the government officers for the contempt.

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Separate National Judicial Data Grid For Tribunals

Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Ors.| W.P.(C) No. 523/2024

The Supreme Court refused the entertain a PIL seeking for the creation of a separate National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for the Tribunals in the country.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the petition considering that the petitioner had filed a similar petition previously where he sought the inclusion of Tribunals in the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

Allahabad HC's General Observations On Religious Conversions & 'Majority Becoming Minority' Were Uncalled For: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kailash v. State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (CrL) 11258/2024

The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the general observation made by the Allahabad High Court that if conversions in religious congregations were not stopped, India's majority population would become in minority.

The Supreme Court observed that "the general observations made by the High Court had no bearing on the facts of the present case and were, therefore, not required for the disposal of the case."

"The observations, therefore, shall not be cited in any other case or proceeding in the High Court or in any other Court," said the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra while granting bail to a person accused in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

State Can't Pay Less To Tribunal Member Saying Case Load Was Low; Question of Retired Judges' Dignity: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Haryana v. SD Anand Diary No. - 20661/2024

The Supreme Court stressed the need for State Authorities to treat retired High Court Judges with dignity when appointing them for positions in the state tribunals and commissions.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge by the State of Haryana against the Division Bench order of Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the Government to treat the appointment of Retired Justice SD Anand as Chairperson of Appellate Authority of Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB)at par with Chairpersons of other Tribunals for Tax and Backward Classes in terms of conditions of appointment.

Will Seriously Examine Allegations About Influencing Judiciary: Supreme Court In Chhattisgarh 2015 NAN Scam Case

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed former IAS officer Anil Tuteja to respond to allegations of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that he manipulated the Chhattisgarh judiciary to obtain anticipatory bail.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing ED's plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Tuteja, accused in the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam, which involved corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chhattisgarh.

The ED has contended that Tuteja and his co-accused Alok Shukla misused the anticipatory bail. Further, they allegedly tampered with the judicial process and influenced a High Court judge to secure the bail.

“Mr. Raju, we want to first seriously examine the first part of your allegations about the allegations concerning the judicial system. We will first examine that and then we will go to the other material”, Justice Oka remarked.

Other Developments

Tirupati Laddu Row: Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Appointment of Retired Judge To Oversee Temples' Management, Independent Probe

Case Details: Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Trust

In the wake of the controversy regarding the alleged use of adulterated ghee in preparing the laddus at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an investigation by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice into the matter.

Remission Pleas Stalled Due To Ex-CM Arvind Kejriwal's Incarceration Can Be Processed Now: Delhi Government To Supreme Courts

Case Details: Harpreet Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

The Delhi Government told the Supreme Court that it would now be able to process remission pleas, which were pending since the previous Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was in prison, as Atishi Marlena has taken charge as the new Chief Minister.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing a writ petition by a convict seeking remission. The Delhi Government had earlier submitted that decisions were stalled due to the incarceration of then CM Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case.

Tirupati Laddu Issue: 'Was There Internal Testing By TTD? Was Ghee Sample Taken From Rejected Lot?' Subramanian Swamy Approaches Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has initiated a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court seeking investigation by a Court-monitored committee into the allegations levelled by TDP-led Andhra Pradesh government regarding use of adulterated ghee in preparation of laddus at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple during the previous YSRCP regime.

Besides praying for the appointment of a Committee, Swamy has sought direction for a detailed report from the authorities on the forensics of the ghee sample used by the concerned lab (including its source).

Adulterated Ghee Not Used For Tirupati Laddus, Ex-TTD Chairman Tells Supreme Court; Seeks Probe Into Andhra CM's Allegations

Case Details: Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

In the wake of the Tirupati Temple laddu controversy, Rajya Sabha MP and ex-TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy has approached the Supreme Court with a PIL seeking independent investigation by a Court-monitored Committee, or by a retired judge of the Court alongwith domain experts, into the allegations of adulteration of the Tirupati laddus.

Besides the above, Reddy seeks a direction to the respondent-authorities for preparation of a report regarding "the detailed-forensics of the lab-report and the source of Ghee used in that report as sampling and source of precurement with all additional details".

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment of 9 Advocates As Bombay High Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of nine advocates as the Judges of the Bombay High Court. The Collegium passed two resolutions recommending their appointments. The Bombay High Court Collegium recommended the elevation of the first five advocates on 19 January 2024. The remaining four names were recommended by the High Court Collegium on 19 April 2024.

The Bombay High Court at present has 28 vacancies out of the sanction strength of 94 judges.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment of Two Judicial Officers As Judges of Patna High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of two judicial officers - Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey as Judges of the Patna High Court.

Can Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appeal To Supreme Court Against TDSAT Order Under AERA Act ? SC Reserves Judgement

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 reserved its judgement on issue of maintainability of appeals before itself by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) assailing orders of the TDSAT under the AERA Act 2008.

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.

Prosecution Directors' Appointment: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against HC Quashing Bihar Rule Enhancing Eligibility Criteria

Case Details: Bihar Abhiyojan Seva Sangh v. The State of Bihar, Diary No. 41238/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition challenging Patna High Court's order striking down Rule 5 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 as invalid. This rule pertains to the eligibility and experience criteria for the Bihar Prosecution Service.

The petition filed by an association of Prosecutors (Bihar Abhiyojan Seva Sangh) was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which scheduled it for further hearing on November 22, 2024.

Notice was also issued to the State of Bihar on the petition seeking condonation of the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition.

'You Can't Call Any Part of India As "Pakistan"': Supreme Court Disapproves of Karnataka HC Judge's Comments, Accepts Apology

Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024]

The Supreme Court cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.

"You can't call any part of the territory of India as "Pakistan". It is fundamentally contrary to the territorial integrity of the nation", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud orally said expressing concerns about the remarks made by a Judge of the Karnataka High Court who called a particular locality of Bengaluru as "Pakistan".

A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings.

'Answer To Sunlight Is More Sunlight': CJI Says Live Streaming Shouldn't Be Stopped Due To Controversy Over Judges' Remarks

Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024]

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the controversies created due to the circulation of the objectionable remarks made judges cannot be a reason to shut down the live streaming of Court proceedings.

"Answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the Court. This is a very important reminder to everyone. The answer is not to close doors and shut down," CJI said.

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing a suo motu case taken over the remarks made by Justice V Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court which stirred up a controversy after the video clips went viral on social media.

NCP Dispute: Sharad Pawar Faction Seeks Urgent Hearing In Supreme Court Ahead of Maharashtra Assembly Elections

Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024

Pursuant to a mentioning, the Supreme Court posted for hearing the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) dispute over use of election symbols on October 1.

Supreme Court To Hear Plea of Dalit Student Who Lost IIT Admission For Delay In Paying Fee

Case Details: Atul Kumar v. The Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Ors

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the plea of a Scheduled Caste candidate who qualified for admission to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Dhanbad but was barred from admission due to a delay in submitting the fees. The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the matter

Journalist Moves Supreme Court Against UP Police FIR Over Report On Casteism, Says FIR Calls Yogi Adityanath 'Incarnation of God'

Case Details: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has moved the Supreme Court for quashing an FIR filed by the UP Police over a story exploring the caste dynamics in the Uttar Pradesh State Administration.

In his plea, Upadhyay states that against his journalistic piece ''Yadav Raj v. Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj)' an FIR has been lodged against him under the offences punishable under Sections 353(2),197(1)(C), 302, 356(2) of BNS Act and Section 66 of the IT (amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner states that he is "also facing threats of legal action from official X handle of Uttar Pradesh Police in reply to his post to acting DGP and continuously getting threats of arrest and even encounter killing."

In his plea, he seeks the quashing of the FIR filed and all such FIRs that may have been filed in relation to the incident at other places.

Malayalam Actor Siddique Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case

Malayalam actor Siddique has approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case registered against him on the basis of allegations levelled by a woman.

On September 24, the Kerala High Court had dismissed his petition seeking anticipatory bail, observing that the materials on record indicated the prima facie involvement of Siddique in the crime. Challenging the High Court's order, he filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The State and the victim have filed caveats.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On CPI(M) MLA A. Raja's Appeal Against Kerala HC Annulling His Election In 2021 Assembly Polls

Case Details: A. Raja v. D. Kumar C.A. No. 2758/2023

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a plea by Kerala CPI(M) MLA A. Raja challenging the March 23, 2023 order of the Kerala High Court which annulled his elections on grounds that he was not a member of the Scheduled Caste to contest from a seat reserved for SC category. The challenge to Raja's election was raised by D. Kumar before the High Court in an election petition.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih heard the matter.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Challenging Byju's-BCCI Settlement; Orders Status Quo & No CoC Meet Till Verdict

Case Details: Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran | Diary No. - 35406/2024

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the petitions filed by US-based lender Glas Trust Company LLC challenging the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to close the insolvency proceedings against ed-tech company Byju's (Think and Learn Pvt Ltd) accepting a settlement between it and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for about Rs 158 crores.

While reserving the judgment, the Court directed the Resolution Profession to maintain the status quo and not to hold any meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) till the verdict is delivered.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra raised doubts about the NCLAT's decision dated August 2 and orally observed that there was no due application of mind. Yesterday, the bench asked why Byju's chose to settle the Rs 150 crores debt alone with the BCCI when it had over 15,000 crore debt and asked how the NCLAT could approve such a settlement. During the hearings, the Court also expressed the inclination to remit the matter back to the NCLAT for reconsideration.

Rule Restricting Judicial Censure of Police Officers Withdrawn, Delhi High Court Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar

The Supreme Court was informed that the Delhi High Court has withdrawn its Rule under the “Rules for Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases,” which stated that it is undesirable for courts to censure police officers unless strictly relevant to the case.

“We have withdrawn the Rule”, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told the Court. The Court has earlier criticized the HC's directions to judicial officers against censuring police officers.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved its judgment in a plea filed by a judicial officer challenging the HC's remarks regarding his censure of two police officers in a theft case.

Jet Airways Insolvency: Successful Resolution Applicant Has No Security Clearance To Operate Airlines, SBI Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: State Bank of India and Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.| C.A. No. 5023-5024/2024

The Supreme Court was told by the lenders of the crash strapped Jet Airways that the Successful Resolution Applicant had not yet obtained relevant security clearance for running the Airlines.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman appearing for the SBI- the lead lender of Jet Airways- told the Court that the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) Jalan KalRock Consortium has not yet obtained security clearance from the Home Ministry and has defaulted in paying several dues as per the approved resolution plan. As per the resolution plan, the SRA was to pay a sum of Rs 4783 Crores, and infuse 350 crores in the first tranche of the payment as agreed.

"The investor has to have a security clearance which he doesn't have since day 1. We put it on record, he doesn't have a security clearance from Home Ministry. This is the type of investor we have gotten. To fly an airlines, you need a security clearance."

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Ex-Punjab CM Beant Singh Assassination Case Convict's Plea For Transfer From Tihar Jail To Punjab

Case Details: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

The Supreme Court issued notice in the petition filed by Jagtar Singh Hawara, convicted in the 1995 assassination of former Chief Minister of Punjab Beant Singh and 16 others.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.v. Vishwanathan will hear the petition.

The petition has been filed for a transfer of the petitioner from Tihar jail, Delhi to any jail in Punjab on the grounds that his conduct in jail is good, the crime took place in the background of serious social upheaval, his daughter resides in Punjab and he is unable to attend court proceedings pending in 1 case to name a few.

Death Row Convict Balwant Singh Rajoana Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Release Due To Delay In Deciding Mercy Petition

Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UOI & Ors, Diary No. 43131/2024

The Supreme Court issued notices in a petition filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana, Babbar Khalsa terrorist and a death row convict, in a petition under Article 32 seeking commutation of the death sentence on grounds of 'extraordinary' and 'inordinate delay' of 1 year and 4 months in deciding his mercy petition, pending before the President of India.

The petition also seeks his consequential release on grounds that he has undergone a total sentence of 28 years & 08 months as of date, of which 17 years have been served as a death row convict in an 8” x 10” capital punishment cell, including 2.5 years in solitary confinement. The petition says: "It is submitted that this extraordinary and inordinate delay in deciding his mercy petition, for reasons beyond the Petitioner's control and not attributable to him, is an infringement of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21."

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Vishwanathan will hear the petition.

Appointment of New Bombay High Court Judges Likely To Happen Soon: CJI DY Chandrachud

Case Details: GTL Mahavitran Bhrashtachar Viruddh Samiti v. Union of India| SLP(C) No. 021615 - / 2024

The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud indicated that the appointment of the new judges of the Bombay High Court are likely to happen soon based on the recent recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing an SLP seeking for early hearing of a PIL before the Bombay High Court. The Counsel for the Petitioner stressed that before the High Court, petitions would only get listed if they are mentioned before the bench and not otherwise.

Supreme Court Hears Plea of Former Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University Against Defamation Case For Remarks Against Professor

Case Details: Firoz Bakht Ahmed v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 9236/2024

The Supreme Court orally remarked that they will ask former Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Firoz Bakht Ahmed, to publish an apology in a newspaper in connection with the “sexual predator” remark he made against Dean of the School of Mass Communication and Journalism of the MANUU, Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan.

Reportedly, Firoz Bakht Ahmed had written to the then Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Prakash Javadekar, calling Professor Ehtesham Ahmad a sexual predator in connection with allegations of "sexual harassment and humiliation" of female students at the university.

Profession Ehtesham has filed a case for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against Firoz Bakht, alleging that the remarks were made even though the University's Internal Complaints Committee did not find any evidence against him.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vishwanathan is hearing a petition filed by Firoz Bakht against the order of the Telangana High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated by Professor Ehtesham in connection with these remarks.

'Last of Few Green Spaces' : Supreme Court Expresses Discontent At Allotment of Navi Mumbai Open Sports Complex To Commercial Builders

Case Details: City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Indian Institute of Architects and Ors.| SLP(C) No. 21953/2024

The Supreme Court took a serious view of the decision of Maharashtra Government to reallot the land earmarked for developing a sport complex to commercial builders in Navi Mumbai.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court which quashed the decision of the State Government to shift the 20 acres sports complex from Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai to Nanore Village in Raigad, Maharashtra.

The CJI pointed the 'malafides' behind the decision of the State Government is shifting the sport complex land.

Telangana MBBS/BDS Local Quota : Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Excluding Students Who Went To Other States For Coaching

Case Details: The State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024

The Supreme Court while hearing the issue pertaining to the Telangana Domicile Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions expressed concern over denying the quota benefit to those candidates who, while being permanent residents of Telangana went, to neighbouring states only for coaching purposes, in the last 4 years preceding the medical exam.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice 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.

47 Assam Residents File Contempt Petition In Supreme Court Alleging Illegal Demolition of Their Homes In Violation of SC Order

Case Details: Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam

A contempt petition has been filed by 47 residents of Assam before the Supreme Court alleging wilful violation of the Court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, directing that no demolition should take place across the country without prior permission from the Court.

The Court had clarified that this order won't be applicable to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies.

The petitioners claim that the authorities in Assam have violated this order by marking their homes for demolition without providing any prior notice claiming that they are encroachers on the land. The petition seeks contempt proceedings against the officials involved. The case is listed before bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan.

Tirupati Laddu Row: Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Seeking Independent Probe Into Adulteration Allegations On Sept 30

The Supreme Court will hear on September 30 a batch of petitions seeking Court-monitored investigation into the allegations levelled by TDP-led Andhra Pradesh government regarding use of adulterated ghee in preparation of laddus at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple during the previous YSRCP regime.

The matter has been listed before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

'Punitive Demolitions Grave Violation of Human Rights' : UN Expert Seeks Intervention In 'Bulldozer' Matter In Supreme Court

Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)

In the bulldozer actions matter, an intervention application has been filed by Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, to assist the Court in framing appropriate guidelines from an international human rights law perspective.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan is hearing a batch of pleas accusing various state governments of demolishing the houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. On September 2, the bench had expressed an intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address concerns. On September 17, it passed an interim order that no demolition should take place in the country without the Court's permission (except when there is encroachment on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies).

Supreme Court's Handbook On Persons With Disabilities Debunks Stereotype-Perpetuating Terms, Advises Judges To Avoid Dehumanising Language

The Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud launched the 'Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities' of the Supreme Court of India at the 9th Annual National Consultation Stakeholders Consultation on 'Protecting the Rights of Children Living with Disability and Intersectionality of Disabilities' organised by the Juvenile Justice Committee, Supreme Court of India and in association with UNICEF India.

Justice BV Nagarathna, Chairman of the Juvenile Justice Committee, who spoke at the event, referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court on disability rights which states: "Language that individualises the impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers (e.g. terms such as “afflicted”, “suffering”, and “victim”) should be avoided or adequately flagged as contrary to the social model.'

The handbook prepared under the guise of Justice Nagarathna under Part II has dedicated an entire chapter titled 'Language and Disabilities'.

Delhi Municipal Corporation Mayor Shelly Oberoi Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Election of MCD Standing Committee Member

The Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Shelly Oberoi, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the election of the sixth member of the MCD standing committee held, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Aam Aadmi Party had boycotted the election alleging that the process was contrary to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

It is contended that the Standing Committee election was held on the basis of the directions of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the Municipal Commissioner, an IAS officer, convened the meeting. This is contended to be illegal as only the Mayor of the MCD can decide the date, time and venue for the corporation meeting where the Standing Committee election takes place.