Collegium Centre must stop 'pick & choose' approach to collegium proposals : Supreme Court deprecates 'selective' appointments of Judges. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 985 Community Certificate A community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to...
Collegium
Centre must stop 'pick & choose' approach to collegium proposals : Supreme Court deprecates 'selective' appointments of Judges. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 985
Community Certificate
A community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression. The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document. This certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality. In such a scenario where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people's rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte. (Para 22) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037
Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case - Affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : AIR 2023 SC 1657
Affinity test not essential to determine correctness of caste/tribe claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : AIR 2023 SC 1657
Community Certificate verification must be completed expeditiously; shouldn't be cancelled ex-parte except in most exceptional circumstances. R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037
Court is appalled at the treatment given to the Appellant by the Respondents herein. The Appellant, before applying to the post reserved for ST candidates supplied all documents required in support of his claim as a ST candidate, and got the documents verified and approved. After being given employment however, the re-evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant have been kept pending for 19 years, dangling like a sword on the Appellants head. (Para 13) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037
Community Certificate - The exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously. (Para 16) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037
Company Law
Companies Act - Decision to allot additional shares cannot be set aside merely because promoters have also benefited. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : AIR 2023 SC 2977
Section 140(5) Companies Act 2013 is constitutional; resignation of auditor won't end proceedings under Sec 140(5). Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2023 SC 2576
No priority for workers' dues after liquidation of company under IBC: Supreme Court upholds Section 327(7) of Companies Act 2013. Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386
Supreme Court allows disbursal of Rs 5000 Crores from “SEBI-Sahara Fund” to depositors; Former SC Judge to monitor disbursement. Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 255
Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of Schedule III of Sebi Stock Broker Regulations. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222 : (2023) 2 SCR 737
Rehabilitation scheme under SICA binds all creditors; dues can't be recovered post revival of sick company. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208
Adani-Hindenburg Issue: Supreme Court directs SEBI to conclude investigation in 2 months, constitutes expert committee to review regulatory framework. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951
Adani-Hindenburg : Know the members of the expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court to review regulatory mechanism. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951
Adani-Hindenburg - Formation Of Expert Committee Does Not Divest SEBI Of Its Responsibilities In Continuing Investigation. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951
Company Secretary's Liability: Supreme Court says compliance officer should ensure compliance with SEBI's buyback regulations. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Section 59 Companies Act 2013 - NCLT cannot excercise parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8 : AIR 2023 SC 247 : (2023) 4 SCC 209 : (2023) 1 SCR 527
Companies Act, 1956
Additionally, there is a complex layer of commercial considerations that are to be taken into account while dealing with the issue of nomination pertaining to companies or until legal heirs are able to sufficiently establish their right of succession to the company. Therefore, offering a discharge to the entity once the nominee is in picture is quite distinct from granting ownership of securities to nominees instead of the legal heirs. Nomination process therefore does not override the succession laws. Simply said, there is no third mode of succession that the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956 (pari materia provisions in Companies Act, 2013) and Depositories Act, 1996 aims or intends to provide. (Para 46) Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1071
The vesting of securities in favour of the nominee contemplated under S. 109A of the Companies Act 1956 (pari materia S. 72 of Companies Act, 2013) & Bye-Law 9.11.1 of Depositories Act, 1996 is for a limited purpose i.e., to ensure that there exists no confusion pertaining to legal formalities that are to be undertaken upon the death of the holder and by extension, to protect the subject matter of nomination from any protracted litigation until the legal representatives of the deceased holder are able to take appropriate steps. The object of introduction of nomination facility vide the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1999 was only to provide an impetus to the investment climate and ease the cumbersome process of obtaining various letters of succession, from different authorities upon the shareholder's death. (Para 45) Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1071
Companies Act, 1956; Section 81 - The Supreme Court has upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders. The court held that though Section 81(3) of Companies Act, 1956 expressly exempts a private limited company from the purview of Section 81, which deals with further issue of capital; however, notwithstanding the same, the conduct of the Directors is to be judged on a higher yardstick. The court, however, remarked that the fact that the Directors may also benefit from a decision taken primarily with the intention to promote the interest of the Company, cannot vitiate the decision. Thus, even though the Directors who constituted the said shareholders' group, benefited and made a gain from the implementation of a decision taken primarily with a view to safeguard the interest of the Company, it cannot by itself render the decision vulnerable to attack. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : AIR 2023 SC 2977
Companies Act, 1956; Sections 529, 529A, 530 - Customs Act, 1962; Sections 61, 72, 142, 142A - In case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors. The Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683
Companies Act, 2013
Companies Act, 2013 - Upholds the constitutionality of Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, which excludes workers dues from priority payment in the event of liquidation of a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - The object and purpose of amending the Companies Act 2013 and to exclude Sections 326 and 327 in the event of liquidation of a company under IBC seem to be that there may not be two different provisions in respect to the winding up/ liquidation of a company. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the IBC, it was necessary to exclude the applicability of Section 326 and 327 of the 2013 Act, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. (Para 6) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386
Companies Act, 2013; Section 140(5) - Challenge to the constitutional validity of section 140(5) fails - Section 140(5) is neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as alleged - The application/proceedings under section 140(5) of the Act, 2013 is held to be maintainable even after the resignation of the concerned auditors. (Para 16) Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2023 SC 2576
Competition Act, 2002
Competition Act, 2002 - Coal India Ltd. would come under the purview of the Act despite being a Public Sector Undertaking. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484 : AIR 2023 SC 3122
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Special Leave Petition challenging a report of the Advisory Board / Opinion of the Board under the COFEPOSA Act is not maintainable. Union of India v. Dharanessh Raji Shetty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547
Constitution of India
75% eligibility condition for admission to sports quota 'unwarranted & discriminatory'. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : AIR 2023 SC 3723
A Country can't remain prisoner of past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
A Country can't remain prisoner of the past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Access to Justice - Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216
Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4
Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : AIR 2023 SC 4854
Article 226 - The High Court ought to relegate parties to alternate remedies when there are serious factual disputes. State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : AIR 2023 SC 5142
Article 226 - Writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedies when only questions of law are raised. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781
Article 226(2) - Supreme Court explains tests to determine if cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of the High Court. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247
Article 299 - No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777
Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728
Article 370 A Temporary Provision: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Article 370 case: won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696
Article 370 Judgment - Constitution amendments through circuitous manner not permissible; Article 368 procedure must be followed. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Article 370 Judgment - Why Supreme Court upheld repeal of J&K special status despite invalidating changes to Article 367 ? Explained. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA(7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi govt? issue referred to the Supreme Court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2023 SC 3617
Constitution does not prohibit lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court - in fact, the Supreme Court has given imprimatur to the principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Constitutional Court - A High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. (Para 42) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : AIR 2023 SC 1338
Constitutional Tort - A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort. [Justice Nagarathna dissents] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
Decide disqualification petitions over Shiv Sena rift by Dec 31; NCP case by Jan 31 : Supreme Court directs Maharashtra Speaker. Sunil Prabhu v. Speaker, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 943
Delhi Chief Secretary, though appointed by Centre, must follow directions of Delhi Govt. on matters over which it has power. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
Delhi Govt vs LG | Democratically elected Govt. should have power to control its officers to ensure accountability. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881
Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
Dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to bottom': Supreme Court reprimands Punjab CM, Governor. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : (2024) 1 SCC 407
Domicile Reservation - Domicile reservation can't be wholesale reservation - Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats - though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364
Excommunication among dawoodi bohras: Supreme Court refers to the nine-judge sabarimala bench. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293
Excommunication is subject to constitutional morality, results in civil death': Supreme Court doubts precedent upholding right to excommunicate. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293
Floor Test - the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, and not extraneous to it. The Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilise or displace democratically elected governments. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Fraternity - The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. We must constantly remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the 'State', must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. (Para 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
GNCTD vs LG: Supreme Court holds Delhi Govt has control over "services" excluding Public Order, Police & Land. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881
Governance of States can't be taken over by Union': Supreme Court underscores importance of federalism in Delhi Govt vs LG Case. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881
Governor - The discretion vested in the Governor to call for a floor test is not unfettered, and must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. The Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Governor - The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Governor can't doubt validity of assembly session: Supreme Court asks Punjab Governor to decide on pending bills. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384
Governor can't veto the legislature by simply withholding assent to bill; must return bill to assembly on withholding assent. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384
Governors should return bills as soon as possible: Supreme Court observes in Telangana Government's plea against governor. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356 : (2024) 1 SCC 405
Have to keep in mind freedom of speech': Supreme Court dismisses PIL for central govt authority to regulate media. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645
High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, they are constitutional courts. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114
In the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court cannot get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. Unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456
Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a 'State' u/Article 12. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115
It is the "political party" which has the power to appoint a whip and the leader and not the "legislature party". Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Justice Kaul recommends "truth & reconciliation commission" to report human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir by State & non-State actors. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Justice Victoria Gowri's appointment: Supreme Court rejects argument that collegium was not aware of facts; says no judicial review over suitability. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463
Legislature cannot directly overrule a judgment; but can retrospectively remove its foundation to make it ineffective. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721
Minister's speech a 'constitutional tort' if it leads to acts of officers harming persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
Ministers' Statements in official capacity cannot be vicariously attributed to Govt: Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
Minority school not entitled to state grant towards salary for employee retained beyond retirement age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487
National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 - Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA (7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi Government? Issue referred to supreme court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551
No equality in matter of illegality': Supreme Court denies relief to school teacher dismissed for degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271
No one can be penalised for holding an opinion not in confirmity with constitutional values. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
Non-tribal person's right to settle down & vote in scheduled areas not taken away by 5th schedule of Constitution. Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658
On maintaining civility in discourses between Constitutional functionaries - Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy-We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in the offices which they occupy. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble to the Constitution. (Para 26) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : (2024) 1 SCC 407
Once a law is declared unconstitutional, it becomes inoperative from its inception; void ab initio. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770
Paradoxically, the right to vote isn't a fundamental right though democracy is an essential feature of the constitution. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : AIR 2023 SC 3574
Parliament can carve out a Union Territory from a State; views of state only recommendatory. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Parliament can convert existing State into a Union Territory: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Parliamentary or State law wouldn't apply to Scheduled V area only if the Governor notifies so. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851
Petition under article 32 to challenge a binding judgment not maintainable. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179
PIL seeking the inclusion of "Rajasthani" language in the Eighth Schedule - Whether a language should be included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution is a policy decision which has to be taken by the appropriate constitutional authority. (Para 7) Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
Plea to rename places named after Muslim rulers - Supreme Court dismisses - The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past- The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. (Para 9, 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Precedents - While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view - Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Coordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable. (Para 81) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365
Purse seine fishing - Supreme Court passes restricted interim order allowing the purse-seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu but within the Exclusive Economic Zone with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2023 SC 655
Reconvening a sitting of vidhan sabha which isn't prorogued permissible in law & within exclusive domain of speaker. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384
Restore statehood of Jammu and Kashmir soon, hold elections to J&K Assembly by September 2024. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050
Right to Die: Supreme Court makes it easier for persons to opt for passive euthanasia; Simplifies 2018 guidelines on living will/advance directive. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137
Secularism - India, that is 'Bharat' in terms of the preamble, is a secular country- The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State's action. (Para 8, 9) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
'Service as Adhoc Judges can't be considered for elevation as HC Judges': Supreme Court rejects plea of judicial officers from AP. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214
Shiv Sena rift – At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. The course of action they wished to adopt in order to air their grievances and redress them was, at the time the floor test was directed to be conducted, uncertain. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP (Shiv Sena Legislature Party) MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Governor cannot enter political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes - The Governor could not have entered the internal party dispute by ordering the floor test, particularly in absence of any "objective material" to dislodge the presumption of confidence of House ingrained in a democratically elected government. The letters by some MLAs (or even by then Leader of Opposition in this case) for a direction to the Chief Minister to prove his majority does not, taken alone, amount to a relevant reason to call for a floor test. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the Governor cannot act upon an inference that he has drawn that a section of the Shiv Sena wished to withdraw their support to the Government on the floor of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - the decision taken by the Governor to call for a floor test based on the rebellion of Eknath Shinde-led faction and to direct then CM Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House, was wrong. The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the Governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the Governor to call for a floor test. The Governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether the Government seemed to have lost the confidence of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
Shiv Sena rift – The Court cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing a floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde form the government with the support of BJP. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him. The Court cannot quash a resignation which was voluntarily tendered. The Governor's earlier decision to order a floor test for the Maha Vikas Aghadi government as well as the Speaker's decision to appoint the whip nominated by Shinde group were incorrect. The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : (2024) 2 SCC 719
State action even in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505 : AIR 2023 SC 3353 : (2023) 8 SCC 240
Supreme Court allows centre to extend term of Delhi Govt Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar; upholds Centre's power to appoint GNCTD Chief Secretary. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
Supreme Court Constitution Bench doubts the correctness of the decision in Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 496 which struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293
Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court - says suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review - collegium recommendation cannot be examined on the judicial side. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463
Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking inclusion of Rajasthani language in eighth schedule. Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
Supreme Court invalidates GAIL's condition imposed on IPCL, Says writ jurisdiction can be applied when contractual terms are arbitrary. Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326
Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench Delhi Govt's plea challenging centre's services ordinance. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2023 SC 3617
Test identification parade not violative of Article 20(3) of Constitution; accused cannot refuse to join TIP. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The citizens residing in rural areas have an equal right to access healthcare services by duly qualified staff. Policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not short-change. The citizens residing in rural areas are subjected to direct and indirect forms of discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence. Any variation in the standards of the qualifications required of medical practitioners who render services in rural areas qua those rendering services in urban and metropolitan areas circumscribe constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721
The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur. Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Prime Minister / Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over other ministers. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
The state shall make all possible efforts to ensure equitable access to health services. These efforts must be made to progressively realise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, as acknowledged in international conventions and agreements. However, notwithstanding the right of the state to devise policies for public health and medical education with due regard to peculiar social and financial conditions, policies that cause an unfair disadvantage towards any class of citizens, ought not be formulated. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721
The Supreme Court allows purse seine fishing beyond TN territorial waters with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2023 SC 655
The Supreme Court invokes Article 142 powers to reinstate an English lecturer in college. Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2023 SC 4223
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. These amendments were passed by the States after the Supreme Court in 2014 banned jallikettu and similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. These laws cannot be construed as "colourable legislations" and that the State legislature had the legislative power to make these amendments as per Entry 17 to List III of the Seventh Schedule. These amendments do not go contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Nagaraja. These laws cure the defects pointed out by the judgment in Nagaraja. The effect of these laws is to minimise the pain and suffering caused to animals. The amendments, having received the assent of the President, cannot be faulted. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612
The Writ Court cannot stop implementation of a statutory provision without holding it unconstitutional. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456
Two important aspects of Parliamentary democracy - There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : (2024) 1 SCC 407
Whether Minister's statement can be vicariously attributed to government - A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility- Justice Nagarathna dissents to hold that statements in official capacity reflecting views of the govt can be vicariously attributed to the govt. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1
While upholding J&K delimitation, the Supreme Court rejects comparisons with Telangana/AP & North Eastern states. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Wholesale domicile reservation unconstitutional' : Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364
You want to keep the country on boil? don't belittle hinduism's greatness' : Supreme Court dismisses Ashwini Upadhyay's plea to rename cities. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Article 3 - Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Article 4 - Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951
Article 12 – Definition “the State''
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115
Article 14 - Equality before law
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Adoption Regulations, 2022 - Regulations 5(2)(a) and 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 305) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Even if the State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others. (Para 33) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - If there existed a statutory procedure for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized dehors that procedure. (Para 31) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement. And when this power is exercised, there must be wide publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefit by exercise of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete. (Para 26) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 995
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14. (Para 44) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Sports Quota - Objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause. (Para 17, 18) Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 52) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 43) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Nullification of Court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment. (Para 114) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution - The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14 - When a power exists to effectuate a purpose it must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 36) Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 32 - Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005; Rule 5 - Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota) - It is required to be noted that in the present case and as per the merit list produced before the High Court, the candidates, who have secured much more marks are denied promotion and the candidates / Civil Judge (Senior Division), who are having less marks / leas meritorious are promoted. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 secured 135.50 out of 200 marks and the petitioner No. 2 secured 148.50 marks out of 200 against which a candidate having secured 101 marks have got the promotion, which is affecting the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”. Thus, we are more than satisfied that the impugned Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification dated 18.04.2023 issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge are illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. (supra). Therefore, we are more than prima facie satisfied that the same as such are not sustainable. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : AIR 2023 SC 2328
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 16 - Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them? - the issue is no longer res integra - classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2023 SC 2164
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Doctrine of Equality - there cannot be equality in the matter of illegality - can't claim benefit of illegal orders passed in the cases of other persons - denies relief to school teacher who secured bachelor's degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (Para 13.2) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners is based on one class of landowners being sons of the soil, while the other class being mere landowners, who are not directly attached to the land- not reasonable classification- The justification given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority-t. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them. (Para 38 to 40) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equality test for permissible amendments – Right to Equality – Even permissible amendments would have to be tested on the touchstone of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution – Reducing cut-off marks only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category when other candidates had already acquired some right – Held, violative of right to equality being based not on objective criteria such as the candidates' suitability but on extraneous reasons namely to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates – Further held, cut-off marks could not be reduced in the absence of a sound reason that would indicate that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to determine suitability for appointment to advertised posts. (Paras 25, 30) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Supreme Court holds the condition imposed by GAIL on IPCL to be arbitrary- the contractual exercise of providing such a clause runs contrary to every commercial and common sense and is manifestly arbitrary, as IPCL is not being charged under any general terms but for a specific purpose. This purpose cannot exist in the contract in view of the master authority, i.e., the Union of India, providing to the contrary. (Para 21) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of classification - To survive the rigors of Article 14, the impugned classification must not only make it through the test of reasonableness, but also clear the Wednesbury Principle, and by extension the Proportionality test. (Para 41) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of Proportionality - The classification, as discussed above, if allowed to exist, can lead to several Gair-pushtaini landowners who may also need to be rehabilitated, cannot rehabilitate themselves without compensation for the same. Such a mischief, if allowed to exist, would not only nullify the purpose of the Act, but also violate the third and fourth principle of the proportionality test, and hence is liable to be struck down. (Para 55) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422
Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - A restriction on the right to enter into a union based on sexual orientation would violate Article 15 of the Constitution. (Para 252) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15 - The female heirs, subject to the statutory rule operating in that field, are required to be treated equally to the male heirs. Gender equality is recognised by the world community in general in the human rights regime - Exclusion of women from inheritance on the ground of gender was a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition against unfair discrimination. (Para 15) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717