Judgment/OrdersSupreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Teesta Setalvad For 7 Days ; Stays HC Order After Special Night SittingCase title- Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat Citation-SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 25725/2023The Supreme Court at a special sitting on Saturday night granted interim relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR lodged against her by...
Judgment/Orders
Case title- Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Citation-SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 25725/2023
The Supreme Court at a special sitting on Saturday night granted interim relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR lodged against her by Gujarat police for allegedly fabricating documents to implicate high government functionaries in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots. While staying the Gujarat High Court's order which dismissed her bail application and directed Setalvad to immediately surrender, the 3-judge bench took note of the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2022 which granted her interim bail.
Case title : FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491
The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar held that having allowed the workmen to render services for 2 decades to their own benefit, the management now cannot claim a right to challenge the award. The workmen altered their position and remained with FCI due to their absorption in services. Now, having put them in such a position, the management cannot turn back the clock.
Case Title: Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492
The Court reminded that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. Various precedents, which hold that the Court has the duty to impose the "appropriate sentence" which is proportionate to the crime, were cited in the judgment.
Case title: Dheeraj Singh vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493
The Apex Court bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the appellants
The court also observed “While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.”
Case Title: Naveen Arora v. High Court Of Delhi And Anr
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court that upheld a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger". The allegation against the judicial officer was that a “stranger” had “sponsored” his family's foreign travel in 2016.
Case title: Supriya Jain vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court has held that Section 180 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted if a person refuses to sign the statement made to a police officer in course of an investigation. In terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.", the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.
Case Title- Ramesh Kumar v State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496
The Supreme Court has disapproved of the practise followed by the Courts to direct deposit of amount as a condition for granting anticipatory bail for the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
“It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail", the Court observed.
Case title: Indira Devi vs Veena Gupta
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495
The Supreme Court held that the condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so.
“Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such a condition shall be enforceable, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed.
Case Title: M/s Sanvira Industries vs Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court who had set aside the increased quota allocated for import of raw pet-coke (RPC) based on the “Consent to Operate” (CTO) issued to the importer recording an enhanced production capacity, after the top court’s order dated 09.10.2018.
Case Title: Sarnam Singh V. Shriram General Insurance
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that in cases of motor accident claims, the physical disability caused due to an accident must be judged with reference to the nature of the work being done by the injured for assessing award of compensation.
Case title- Voice of Ex servicemen society v. Union of India, 2023
The Supreme court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed a petition by the an organisation of ex- servicemen society seeking a direction for payment of revised pension for those who retired before 1.1.2016. The court held that since pension is covered within Service matters, they should approach the Armed Forces Tribunal which must decide the issue expeditiously.
The court ordered that retired officers would be permitted to file the matter in a representative capacity but no federations would be allowed.
Case Title: Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499
The Supreme Court has ruled that if in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, the court said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail.
The bench made the observation while dealing with the issue regarding the classification and taxability of ‘maize starch’ under the TNGST Act for the assessment year, i.e., 1998-99.
Case title: Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500
The Supreme Court observed that the continuing trend of projecting a purely civil financial dispute as a criminal matter is extremely disturbing.
In this context, the court observed: "In “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.”, (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation.
Case title: Pradeep vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501
The Supreme Court observed that the trial courts have to make proper preliminary examination of minor witnesses before recording their evidence.This is to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers.
Case title: State of U P vs Sonu Kushwaha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502
The Supreme Court observed that "The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6, on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act.
Case title: Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2013
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld the conviction of two accused in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case and sentenced them to life imprisonment without remission. The convictions of two other former death row convicts who were discharged by the Delhi High Court were also restored and they were awarded life sentences extending to the rest of their natural life.
Case Title: Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to pay Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of back wages to a conductor who was terminated from service and later on reinstated by the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the appellant (conductor) discharged the burden by establishing that he was unemployed for thirteen months after termination.
Case title: Imamudin v. State of Rajasthan
Citation:Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2023,
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man in an inter-faith relationship, who was in custody for over nine months in a case filed by the woman's parents alleging rape and kidnapping. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the couple had been in a live-in relationship since August 2022. They had also filed a joint petition for police protection and the petitioner had already been in custody for 9 months.
State Action Even In Contractual Realm Must Abide By Article 14 : Supreme Court
Case title: Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505
The Supreme Court observed that 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, the bench of Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar said.
Case title: Hari Prakash Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507
The Supreme Court observed that the right of forest inhabitants for claims to be heard by Forest Officer is not limited only to certain recognized forest communities.
Case title: Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs Integrated Sales Service Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506
The Supreme Court observed that an error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
An error on the face of record must be such an error which, merely looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath observed.
Case title: Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508
Highlighting how crucial it was for such cases to be decided promptly, the court observed “Expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels.”
Case Title: Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that once there is a valid insurance policy in favour of a person, the claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred must be paid. It also observed that once the insurance company has accepted that concealment of a disease at the time of purchasing the policy was not material as it was not related to the disease that caused death, it cannot later refuse further claims or renewal of insurance policy on the same ground.
Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5l0
The Supreme Court on Wednesday modified the conviction under Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) imposed on a bus conductor, for allegedly ringing the bell which was a signal to the driver to start the vehicle due to which the victim fell down and sustained injuries, to conviction under Section 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC on the ground that the conductor was negligent in not performing his duties and he did not have knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of the victim.
Case title: Vinod Kumar vs District Magistrate Mau
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511
The Supreme Court observed that only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can determine the dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation under National Highways Authority Act, 1956.
There is a fine distinction between determining the amount to be paid towards compensation and the apportionment of the amount, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.
Case title: THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS v. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6033 OF 2009
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time-barred. The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT’s decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005.
Case title: Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs V. Ganesh Murthy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a High Court cannot quash an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Case title: Pratibha Manchanda vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514
The Supreme Court, this Friday observed that, while dealing with anticipatory bail applications, courts must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
While it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and C T Ravikumar said.
Case title: Ford India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Medical Elaborate Concept Ltd.
Citation: Civil Appeal no.41924194/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects. The issue related to a Ford Titanium Endeavour 3.4L owned by the consumer.
Supreme Court weekly roundup(July 10-16)
Ballistic Expert's Evidence Important In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms: Supreme Court
Case title: Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
The Supreme Court observed that, in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
Case title: Sajjan Singh vs Jasvir Kaur
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517
The Supreme Court observed that the appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue that should be considered while deciding an application seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case title: Dr.Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, while upholding the validity of the 2021 amendments to the Central Vigilance Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, rejected the argument that granting extensions of only one year at a time to the terms of the heads of the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation would threaten the independence of the agencies.
Case title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol noted that ignoring the direction given by the Supreme Court in the 2021 judgment in the case Common Cause vs Union of India that SK Mishra should not be given further extensions, the Union Government extended his tenure two times after that, in November 2021 and November 2022.
Case Title: Raman Kumar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court has held that act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized since only 35 posts were available.
Case title: Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair And Ors.|
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521
Recently, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with a disability, who was denied the same for a long time(Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair And Ors).
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J and K) vs M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court where the court had held that where the assessee had been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, (2018) 1 SCC 105, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Revenue Department was not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, where the decision in M/s SRD Nutrients was overruled by the top court.
Supreme Court 'Shocked' To See Lawyer Filing Article 32 Petition Against State To Recover Legal Fees
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of UP And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523
On Monday, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a former Additional Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding fees, the Supreme Court expressed doubt whether such a petition can be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, especially when the entitlement of the petitioner to the fee has been disputed..
Case title: Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station V. Ashwani Kumar Dubey
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
The Supreme Court recently held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. It also held that if the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. The Court also specifically noted that the recommendations made by an expert Committee are not binding on the NGT and are only to be considered as a guide to allow the Tribunal to arrive at its decision
Case title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526; 2023 INSC 620
The Supreme Court has held that once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
Pavement Built On Acquired Land Encroached By Vendors; Supreme Court Asks DDA To Take Action
Case title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526
Taking a serious view of vendors encroaching upon a pavement which was built on a land which was compulsorily acquired from a citizen for public purpose, the Supreme Court called for necessary action by the Delhi Development Authority.
A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk", the bench observed.
Case citation: State of Orissa And Anr. v. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) thr. LRs And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 527
The Supreme Court, recently, held that a writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. It reiterated that the principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would also apply to writ proceedings.
Case Title: Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528
The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’ since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability.
Case Title: Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529
In a plea regarding the continued detention of a person under a preventive detention law in Jharkhand, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to procedural requirements in cases concerning preventive detention laws. The bench, comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, acknowledged that preventive detention laws are inherently stringent as they curtail personal liberty without a trial. Therefore, the procedure becomes crucial for the detainee's rights.
Case title: Gurudeep Singh v Regonda Srinivas
Citation- 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530
The court observed that the judgment by the High Court in 2021 did not debar NTPC from issuing a fresh notification. It only directed them to finish the recruitment process within 2 months. Therefore, it would not constitute contempt of court.
The court also observed that an unconditional apology was tendered by the appellants in the present case which should have been considered by the High Court.
Case Details: Mathew Alexander V. Mohammed Shafi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531
The Supreme Court recently held that while considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. It also observed that the final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [(2023) SCC Online SC 481], an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions to assessee’s income in respect of completed/unabated assessments if no incriminating material has been found during the course of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Court while applying the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, observed: “As regards to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
Case title: VK Juvenile v State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a juvenile accused who spent more than 2 years in custody. As per Section 436-A CrPC, one can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense.
A pertinent question of law had arisen here - Would he be entitled to be released as per section 436A CrPC since he has already undergone more than half of the maximum sentence of 3 years prescribed under the JJ Act? Would provisions of CrPC apply under JJ Act?
Case title: The State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association
Citation: SLP(C) No. 12037-12042/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which struck down certain provisions of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 in relation to the powers to regulate the fees and appointments of private unaided schools.
Case Details: Enforcement Directorate v. Y.S. Bharathi Reddy,
Citation: Diary No. 22285-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging the order of the Telangana High Court that allowed YS Bharathi Reddy, wife of Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy to substitute the property attached by the ED with a fixed deposit. The property had been attached by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in a corruption case involving Bharathi Cement.
Case title: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of UP
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5376-5377/2023
The Supreme Court today extended interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal and Director Vinod Bihari Laland of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) in connection with the alleged mass religious conversion case.
Case Title: Deeksha Dwivedi v. The State Of Manipur And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 298/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday extended the interim protection granted to Advocate Deeksha Dwivedi, who was booked in an FIR over offenses of sedition and conspiracy to wage war against India, after she accompanied a fact-finding team to enquire into the ongoing Manipur violence, till the next date of hearing in the matter.
Case title: Purnaprakash Sharma v. Yashwant Singh Faujdar
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No 726 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No 132 of 1988
The Supreme Court on Monday closed the contempt proceeding initiated against the officer bearers of the Bharatpur Bar Association, Rajasthan, who had allegedly obstructed the work of legal aid defense counsel appointed by the Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 229/2017
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held as illegal the process followed by the Kerala High Court in fixing a cut-off mark on the basis of viva-voce for the selection of District Judges in March 2017. The Court noted that cut-off was fixed by the High Court after the conduct of the viva voce, which was "manifestly arbitrary. The exam scheme and the recruitment notification also did not stipulate any cut-off for viva-voce. Hence, the process was held to be "ultra-vires" the rules.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that its permission is not required for the High Courts to transfer Presiding officers of Special Courts dealing with cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. The same was done by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra to ensure that the administrative work of the High Courts does not suffer.
Case Title: In Re: Order Dt. 23.05.2023 In Gobind Rai @ Monu Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the matter in which it took suo motu cognizance of the order of the Allahabad High Court which directed the Head of Astrology Department, Lucknow University to determine if an alleged rape victim is a Mangali/Mangalik by examining her Kundali. The Apex Court disposed of the matter on the submission of the counsel for the complainant and the state of Uttar Pradesh that the bail application filed by the accused was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence the matter had become infructuous.
Supreme Court Stays NGT's Direction Appointing LG As Chairman Of High-Level Committee On Yamuna
Case Title: Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Ashwani Yadav
Citation: Diary No. 22325 OF 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the direction of the Nation Green Tribunal (NGT) which had appointed the Lt. Governor of Delhi as the head of the High-level Committee for Yamuna river pollution. CJI DY Chandrachud added–"There shall be a stay of the operation on the direction of NGT to the extent that the LG has been asked to be the head. We are not staying the entire order.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
While giving yet another extension of time to the Union Government to file its counter-affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the mere pendency of the petitions does not mean that the Act has been stayed.
Case Title: X v. St. Xavier’s University Kolkata And Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 12808/2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a plea filed by a former professor of St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata who was allegedly forced to tender resignation pursuant to complaints by an undergraduate student’s parent over her photographs on her personal Instagram account. The former professor (petitioner) assailed the order passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing her plea to proceed with the writ petition anonymously, without making her identity public.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 12034/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and State Bank of India's (SBI) notifications that permit exchange of Rs. 2000 currency notes without the requirement of any identity proof.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v The State of Kerala
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8081/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to the editor of Malayalam YouTube News Channel 'Marunadan Malayalee' Shajan Skaria in a criminal case under the SC/ST Act over making alleged derogatory remarks against MLA PV Sreenijin.
"His statements may be defamatory, but these are not offences under the SC/ST Act. He may have said something against the father-in-law (of the complainant), judiciary etc, which may be in bad taste", CJI said.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union Government on a writ petition filed by the Delhi Government challenging Centre's ordinance taking away the powers of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) from 'services'.
Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 19206-2023 XIV
While hearing the matter pertaining to Manipur violence, the Supreme Court on Monday stressed upon its limitations and underlined that the court cannot take over the responsibility of maintaining law and order from the elected government.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandi
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11588-11589/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's order passed on May 18 allowing the Enforcement Directorate to summon Trinamool Congress leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the teacher recruitment scam.
Observing that the High Court has "duly applied its mind" regarding the need for investigation, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the direction, adding that the consequence of doing so would be to "stifle the investigation at the incipient stage".
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6561 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister of the Delhi government Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case.
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to cancel faculty appointments in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) from 2008 to present for allegedly violating reservation norms. The PIL also sought for equal opportunity to be given to candidates from northern and Hindi speaking states in faculty positions at IITs across India
The Court observed that the petitioner himself had admitted that the matter relating to the implementation of reservation policy in IITs is already pending before the Apex Court and the Madras High Court and hence no separate writ was required to be entertained pertaining to the same issue.
Case title: Ravi Khandelwal v. M/S Taluka stores
Citation: SLP(C) No.9434/2020
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the objective of section 14(3) of Rajasthan Rent control Act,1950 was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit..
Case details: CBI BHOPAL vs ABHISHEK SACHAN @ ABHISHEK SINGH
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).405/2021
The Supreme Court will examine whether supplying of hard copies of the documents relied on by the Prosecution, is mandatory, or can it be supplied in digital format?
This issue was raised in a special leave petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had upheld the direction issued by the Special Judge ordering for supply of hard copies of the concerned documents to the accused.
Case details: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs Raman Ispat Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534
The Supreme Court observed that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.The provisions of the IBC treat the dues payable to secured creditors are at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said
Case title: Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535
The Supreme Court held that the decision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter is for the legislature to take. The court cannot force the legislature to come out with a specific law even in its writ jurisdiction. The court also took note of the steps taken by the state governments for the protection of cows.
Case title: Pawan Bhasin v State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537
The Supreme Court held that where a cheque is dishonoured, the interim compensation can be directed to be paid only after the accused has pleaded not guilty as per section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case details: P Yuvaprakash v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538
The Supreme Court observed that school transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register cannot be relied on to determine age of the victim in POCSO cases.
While acquitting an accused, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar noted that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case title: Arvind Kumar v State, NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539
The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a Delhi Police guard under Section 302 IPC(Murder) to Section 304A(causing death by negligence) in the case related to the death of a constable due to accidental firing. The Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that the Semi-Automatic weapon pistol was not in a safety position, it cannot be said that the appellant knew that by not keeping the weapon in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased.
The Court held that none of the ingredients of culpable homicide was made out. However, it held that there was gross negligence on the part of the appellant in not keeping the semi-automatic weapon in a safe position
Case Title: Lokendra Gurjar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540
The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant who sought the constitution of a ‘special neutral bench’ with judges who neither belong to OBC nor to unreserved category, to hear a matter pertaining to enhancement in reservation in public service filed by candidates in OBC and unreserved category candidates.
Case Title: Girisha Chandra Mishra and Others v. Union of India, WPC (C) No.908/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541
The Supreme Court recently allowed teachers from 10 different states who had jointly filed a plea challenging the revised selection process for National Award to Teachers issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry in 2018 as "opaque and discriminatory", to approach the Centre with their representation.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which dismissed an application filed by the CBI seeking leave to appeal under section 378 (3) of CrPC against order passed by the trial court acquitting three policemen who were charged of murder while patrolling, on the ground that the circumstances found do not constitute a complete chain as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons who committed the crime.
Case title: Indra Bai v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543
While enhancing the compensation to an injured laborer under the Workmen Compensation Act 1923, the Supreme Court reiterated that functional disability is the determining factor and not physical disability. The Court held that functional disability is the determining factor and not just physical disability to assess whether the claimant has incurred total disablement as per section 2(1) of the Act.
'No Overt Act': Supreme Court Set Aside Conviction Under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC
Case title: Boini Mahipal v State of Telangana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546
The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction under section 323 read with section 34 IPC(joint liability) on the ground that the appellants themselves did not do any act which can be attributed to them in the incident. The case related to the assault of a woman who was beaten to death. However, the specific role played by appellants in the crime was not proved.
COFEPOSA | SLP Challenging Report Of Advisory Board/Opinion of Board Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of India V. Dharanessh Raji Shetty
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a special leave petition challenging a report of the Advisory Board/Opinion of the Board under the COFEPOSA Act is not maintainable.
The Top Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in Union of India v. Nisar Pallathukadavil Aliyar, (2020) 20 SCC 252 which held that Advisory Board's opinion is never intended to be open to challenge on the merits before any tribunal.
Govt Officers Should Not Be Summoned To Court 'At The Drop A Hat' : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Bihar V. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548
The Supreme Court has observed that the practice of summoning authorities of the State to Court at the drop of a hat undermines the majesty of the Court. The Apex Court was of the view that insisting on the presence of officers in court wastes precious time that could be spent in the discharge of their duties and that such a practice must not be adopted as a routine.
Case details: Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549
The Supreme Court observed that the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has to be duly complied with before any disposal/destruction of seized narcotic substances.
The court held that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence that requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn. Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect.
Case details: Anbazhagan vs State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550
In a judgment delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court explained the fine difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed that, under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all.
Case Title: State of Gujarat V. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
The Supreme Court on Monday held that if a person is summoned under Section 69 (Power to arrest) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording of his/her statement, the provision of Section 438 (Anticipatory Bail) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 cannot be invoked.
The Court also observed that in such a circumstance, the only way to seek protection against arrest would be to approach the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
DHJS Exam 2022: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order Allowing Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheet
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that permitted re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination 2022 on the ground that there was no ‘material error’ warranting interference.
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court, while granting bail to human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, observed that the accused not filing an application for quashing the FRI/Chargesheet is not a relevant consideration for deciding bail application.
If such a position was to be accepted, then no bail application be can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings, the Apex Court had observed.
Case title: Manoj Kumar and others v Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment which held that dwellers of jhuggis which are outside the list of recognized jhuggi clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation as per the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act 2010.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Inclusion Of Rajasthani Language In Eighth Schedule
Case Title: Ripudaman Singh v. Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 387/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the inclusion of "Rajasthani" language in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: State of Tripura V. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 34826/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the order of the Tripura High Court that directed the State Government to pay former judge of the Gauhati High Court, Justice Alok Baran Pal who retired as the Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board to be paid remuneration at the rate of the salary of a High Court judge minus the pension during the period he held the sole post as Chairman of the Board
Modality Proposed By Calcutta HC To CBI For Filing Appeals Not A Mandate: Supreme Court
Case title: CBI v. S.R. Ramamani
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 558
The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which proposed a mechanism for filing of appeals before the HC against acquittals in CBI cases, should not be treated as a mandate.
Case Details: Mohd Azharuddin v. Nalgonda Cricket Association & Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 26604 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain former Indian Test Cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin’s plea against a contempt notice issued by the Telangana High Court in a dispute between the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and the Nalgonda District Cricket Association (NDCA). Azharuddin, who was the president of the former, is facing contempt proceedings for ‘willful disobedience’ in complying with certain orders of the high court allowing the Nalgonda district association to participate in the HCA league matches.
Case Details: The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Youth for Equality & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10404 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of as infructuous a plea against a May 4 order of the Patna High Court issuing an interim stay on the ongoing caste-based survey in Bihar, in view of a division bench of the high court finally hearing the matter and reserving its verdict earlier this month.
Case title: Saranya Mandal v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 710/2023 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that the National Testing Agency should consider accommodating students from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes(ST) categories who are not in possession of SC/ST certificates as on the last date of applying for NEET exams.
“You have to see from their perspective. The certificate is only evidence of the status. You've to implement it in a proper spirit. You can add columns- when the certificate was availed and so forth. So they can avail benefit at the time of filling the form", Justice Bhat said..
.
Case Title: Mamta Rani vs Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 713/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking the revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certificate (CBFC) for the movie "Adipurush". The bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with film certifications based on the "sensitivities of each individual"
Case title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kirpal Singh
Citation: C.A. No. 4478/2013
.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta took note of the peculiar circumstances and held that a holistic view has to be taken in the wake of 3 issues of validity of acquisition, regularisation, and the fate of allottees . It requested the Chief Justice of Delhi HC to post matters for hearing immediately and finish it expeditiously within 6 months.
The Supreme Court observed that different sets of writ petitions seeking quash of acquisition/ regularisation and direction to hand over possession to allotted have been listed before different benches at different points of time which has resulted in the issuance of directions that authorities may find difficult to give effect to.
Case Title: National Council of Educational Research and Training V. Parth Trivedi
Citation: Civil Appeal No 4403 of 2023
The Supreme Court recently set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court that directed the NCERT to determine the merit of students afresh in the National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) of 2013 after considering their marks scored in the language test
The Court observed that 8 years had passed since the examination was conducted and that scholarships had already been awarded to students all over the country based on the result. The Court accordingly set aside the order without touching upon the issue in reference.
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the selection process to judicial services conducted by the Gauhati High Court, Gujarat High Court and Patna High Court in a batch of matters being heard by the Top Court in a reference made to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540.
Supreme Court Stays ED Probe Against Chhattisgarh Government Officers In Alleged Liquor Scam Case
Case Title: Yash Tuteja And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to not proceed with investigation against Yash Tuteja, in relation to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Yash is the son of Anil Tuteja, IAS officer, whom the ED has identified as a kingpin of the syndicate for illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh. The Apex Court had previously directed the agency to refrain from taking any coercive steps against Yash Tuteja.
Case Title: St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7636-7637 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the Delhi High Court would be ‘at liberty’ to hear a writ petition filed by St Stephen’s college against a 2023 notification by the University of Delhi (DU) mandating that all categories of students – including those belonging to minority communities – would be admitted to undergraduate and post-graduate courses only on the basis of the marks obtained in the Common University Entrance Test (CUET).
Case title: Union Of India v. Rhea Chakraborty
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 2127/2021
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the Rhea Chakraborty case interpreting the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act will not be treated as a precedent in any other cases.
“At this stage the challenge to impugned order may not be required. However, the question of law would be kept open. This judgment of HC would not be taken as a precedent for any other case", the bench stated in the order.
Case Details: Andhra Pradesh Amateur Wrestling Association v. Assam Wrestling Association and Ors
Citation: Diary No. 25626-2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted the interim stay imposed on the elections to the executive committee of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the Gauhati High Court.
Case Title: U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023
Expressing doubts about the reasons for which the Kerala High Court suspended the conviction of MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case, the Supreme Court of India on Monday considered remitting it to the high court to be considered afresh.
During the hearing today, the top court raised its concerns about holding a conviction and sentence in abeyance only on the ground of the monetary loss caused to the exchequer in organising this administrative exercise. “Because there is going to be a disqualification, we are going to suspend his conviction...That cannot be the reason,” Justice Nagarathna said.
.
Case Details: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6056 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as withdrawn, a petition filed by former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, who has been in jail since February 23, 2022 following his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case.
Case Title: National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. The Registrar, Circuit Bench At Port Blair And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 13609/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the order of the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, which had imposed a cost of Rs 100 crores on the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCR) for failing to repair the National Highway-4 (NH-4) in North and Middle Andaman on a timely basis. Although the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra stayed the order of the High Court, in order to hold the NHIDCR accountable, it also directed the NHIDCR to file within three weeks, a comprehensive status report indicating the status of the repairs carried on the NH-4 and a time period required for completely repairing the same.
Case Title: STATE OF MANIPUR v. ARIBAM DHANAJOY SHARMA ALIAS PAOJEL CHAOBA AND ORS
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14732/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Manipur High Court's order which directed the Manipur Government to restore internet in a limited fashion in the State affected by ethnic conflicts. However, the Court granted liberty to the State of Manipur to approach the High Court to apprise it of the the difficulties faced by the in implementing the High Court's.
Case Details: Selva Mary v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 391 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail of Gnana Prakash, an associate of the slain forest brigand Veerappan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 in the Palar bomb blast case. The sexagenarian life convict – diagnosed with advanced stage cancer – was released last year after spending almost 30 years under incarceration, pursuant to the top court’s direction in a writ petition filed by his wife, Selva Mary.
Case Title: Common Cause v. Abhijat And Or.
Citation: Conmt Petition(C) No. 550/2015 in WP(C) No. 821/1990
The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to file an affidavit setting forth the instances wherein any State Bar Association across the county has called for strikes in the last one year and the action taken in that regard. The BCI is to file the affidavit within a period of two weeks.
“BCI to also file affidavit within 2 weeks setting forth where any Bar Association has called for strike in the last one year and what action has been taken.”
A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt petition filed by Common Cause inter-alia alleging that the BCI is not taking steps to prevent advocate’s strikes and is not looking effectively into its disciplinary control side.
Case title: State of Jharkhand v Nishikant Dubey
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7844/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice in the petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the Jharkhand High Court's order quashing the FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari and few others in the Deoghar Airport case. The FIR was lodged over allegations that the accused had threatened and forced ATC to permit the takeoff of private aircraft in violation of security regulations at Deoghar Airport in September 2022..
Case Title: P.T. Sheejish v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by a lawyer against the Kerala High Court's dismissal of a plea to direct the Southern Railways to permit a stop for the 'Vande Bharat Train Service' at Tirur Railway Station in Malappuram District.
Case Title: Abdul Maudany Vs State of Karnataka
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8084-8092/2013
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relaxation of bail condition to Abdul Nasser Maudany, accused in the 2008 Bangalore blasts case, permitting him to travel and stay in his home town in Kerala. As part of the bail condition imposed by the Apex Court on 11.07.2014, the Kerala People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chairman was to stay in Bengaluru till the trial in the blasts case is over.
Case title: Rohit Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
The Supreme Court recently held that vital aspects of the case must be considered while deciding bail applications. The nature of the crime, criminal history of the accused and the nature of punishment involved must also be weighed in by the courts. The court pressed for reasoned orders to be passed while exercising discretion in granting bail.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax-IV vs Prime Focus Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as ‘imparting special effects’, ‘post production service’, ‘digital asset management and content service’ and ‘digital restoration service’, will not fall under the ambit of ‘video-tape production’ under Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case details: Gurbachan Singh (D) vs Gurcharan Singh(D)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562
The Supreme Court observed, that in second appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule.
Case Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court that dismissed an application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, the appellant.
While dismissing the appeal and affirming the High Court order, the Top Court observed:
“The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution which enacts that “every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than twenty-one years of age on such date as may be fixed and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election
Case Title: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Citation: SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, indicated that courts should impose realistic conditions of bail considering the economic and social position of the undertrial prisons or else the act of grant of bail does not subserve its purpose.
Case Title: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Citation: SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, observed that countries like the United State of America that have incorporated plea bargaining successfully have encompassed both sentence bargaining and offence bargaining, while the scope of plea bargaining is limited in the Indian context as the criminal justice system here has only incorporated 'sentence bargaining'.
Case Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
It is a paradox that the right to vote is not a fundamental right, though democracy has been held to be one of the basic features of Constitution, said the Supreme Court in a recent judgment. The Court noted that right to vote has been termed as a "mere" statutory right.
Case details: Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs Jet Airways Ltd.
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564
The Supreme Court observed that any settlement between employee Union and the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless it is more beneficial to the employees.
The employer and workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed.
Case Title: Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565
The Supreme Court on Monday held that without impounding of the passport, the Passport Authority cannot unauthorizedly retain a passport handed over by the Police in the name of a pending criminal case.
Case Title: Air India Ltd. & Anr. V. Tushar Kothari,
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 23377/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which upheld the order of the State Commission and District Forum directing Air India to pay a compensation of Rs2.03 lakh to a passenger who lost his luggage during travel.
Case details: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd. Afzal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction granting interim protection to accused while rejecting their anticipatory bail plea. We are amazed to see the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed.
Case Title: Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Of India V. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 4074/2023
The Supreme Court recently set aside the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that had stayed an order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Of India (IRDAI) directing the transfer of policies from Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited to SBI Life Insurance Company Limited.
Case Title: M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave to appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) only if it is passed by the Commission in its original jurisdiction. No further appeal will lie against the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the Apex Court clarified.
Case Title: Ram Kishan (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Anr. v Manish Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568
The Supreme Court has held that a property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be ‘de-sealed’, while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment.
Case Title: Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.1443 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the process of drawing of samples under Section 52-A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The entire exercise of collecting the sample must be certified by the Magistrate to be correct, it was held.
Case details: L/Nk Gursewak Singh vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571
The Supreme Court observed that the term 'cruel' in exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is a relative term. Taking note of the evidence on record, the bench observed that the appellant cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner that will deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
"The term cruel manner is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act. The appellant fired only one bullet which proved to be fatal. He did not fire more bullets though available. He did not run away and he helped others to take the deceased to a hospital. If we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4 which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied.
Justice-Oriented Approach To Be Adopted While Dealing With Delay Condonation Plea : Supreme Court
Case details: Raheem Shah vs Govind Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should adopt the justice-oriented approach rather than the 'iron- cast technical approach' while dealing with delay condonation applications.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there was delay of only 52 days in filing the appeal and the point raised by the appellants was that the judgment was not in their knowledge.
Case title: Hem Raj v New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574
The Supreme Court held that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant when he had duly placed on record the evidence of him paying the medical bills of a person injured in a motor accident in respect of which there is third-party insurance coverage.
Case Title: Reserve Bank of India v. Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd,
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15667/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, against an order of the Kerala High Court that lifted the loan restrictions imposed by it on Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
The notice was issued by a division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared for the RBI.
Case details: Sandeep Kumar vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573
The Supreme Court observed that the merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial and not at the stage of Section 319 CrPC.
The court added that for attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly. "Any specific individual role or act is not material.. No overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly", it said.
Case Details: Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575
Mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act, the Supreme Court of India held while granting bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused and activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. This verdict was delivered yesterday by a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Court also held that there was "no credible evidence" against them regarding the commission of any terrorist act as defined under the UA(P)A.
Case details: Yashodhan Singh vs State of UP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576
The Supreme Court held that a person summoned under Section 319 CrPC need not be given the opportunity of hearing before being added as an accused.
Doctor’s License Cannot Be Suspended By Court As Penalty In Contempt Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title: Gostho Behari Das V. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a medical practitioner's license cannot be suspended as penalty in contempt proceedings.
The Top Court opined that it is trite law that the power of contempt must be used by courts judiciously and sparingly:
Case Title: Poonam Anjur Pawar v. Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579
The Supreme Court observed that non-participation in a proceeding of restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences.
29 Constitution Bench Matters Pending In Supreme Court, Oldest From 1992
There are 29 Constitution Bench matters pending in the Supreme Court. Out of these 29 cases, 18 cases are pending before 5-Judge Bench, 6 cases pending before 7-Judge Bench and 5 cases pending before 9-Judge Bench for adjudication.
This information was given by the Union Law Ministry in response to a query raised by CPI(M) MP AM Arif.
Case Title: Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad V. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 246 Of 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by a Mechanical Transport Driver enrolled in the Army Service who was dismissed from service for overstaying the leave granted to him. “Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service,” the Top Court said in this regard.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Installation Of CCTV Cameras In All Vehicles
Case Title: Mithun Mondal vs Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 18063-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to direct the Union to frame guidelines for the installation of CCTV cameras in all vehicles across the country. The PIL also requested the implementation of Section 136-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires the installation of body cams and dash cams in public vehicles.
Case title: State of West Bengal v Suvendu Adhikari
Citation: 2023 INSC 647
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation in six FIRs related to Ram Navami violence from March 31 to April 3 to the National Investigation Agency.
News Updates
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan Versus The Commissioner Of Police, Delhi And Ors.
Citation: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5719/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Commissioner of Police in an appeal by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging the opening of a history sheet against him by Delhi Police in March last year declaring him as a 'bad character'..
Case title: Mahesh Kumar Tiwari V. Union Of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 10740/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking guidelines to deal with increasing suicide rates among married men subjected to domestic violence and the setting up of a ‘National Commission for Men’ for dealing with such grievances.
“If you expect us to hold that these husbands have committed suicide because of harassment by the wife, you are sadly mistaken",the Court told the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the names of Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Kerala High Court Chief Justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti as judges of the top court, in order to fill two of three vacancies left behind by now retired Judges - Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi and V Ramasubramanian.
Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has recommended the appointment of Justice Devendra Upadhyaya of the Allahabad High Court as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
The collegium noted that Justice Upadhyaya has acquired eleven years of experience in dispensing justice, and his appointment will provide representation of the Allahabad HC among the Chief Justices.
Case title: S. Narahari And Ors. v. S.R. Kumar And Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504
The Apex Court opined that ‘Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC makes it amply clear that no Special Leave Petition can be filed against an order passed in review, and as such, does not require our further consideration’. It noted that the petitioner has filed the SLP impugning the order in review as well as the original order passed by the High Court.
Case title: Pratibha Manchanda And Anr. v. State of Haryana And Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 514
The Supreme Court, recently, directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate a land scam that involves officials at the office of land Registering Authorities and other accused persons allegedly duping an elderly NRI couple. The Apex Court categorically stated that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram is personally responsible for monitoring the day-to-day investigation. The SIT will be headed by an officer, not below the rank of DySP and will have two inspectors as its members.
Case title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as illegal the extension given to the term of Enforcement Directorate chief SK Mishra for violating the mandate of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case that he should not be given further extension. However, the Court allowed him to continue in his post till July 31, 2023, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Union Government regarding peer review of international body FATF and smooth transfer of power.
Case title: Mohd Azharuddin v Nalgonda Cricket Association
Citation: SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 26604/2023
Former Indian cricket team captain and the President of Hyderabad Cricket Association Mohammed Azharuddin has approached the Supreme Court challenging the contempt notice issued by the Telangana High Court in a dispute related to Nalgonda Cricket Association.
Google v CCI | Supreme Court Lists Matter For Final Disposal On October 10, 2023
Case Title: Google LLC And Anr. v. Competition Commission Of India And Ors.
Citation: C.A. No. 4098/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday decided to list on October 10, 2023, the appeal filed by the tech giant Google challenging the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had upheld the imposition of Rs. 1337.76 Crores penalty on Google by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Google has been penalized for abusing its dominant position in the Android OS app store market, which resulted in the denial of market access for competing search apps.
Case title: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7700 of 2023
Supreme Court judge Sanjiv Khanna and Senior Advocate Harish Salve had a minor disagreement in court, during the hearing in Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s plea for bail in a money laundering case over whether Kapoor pushed the bank into a financial crisis by allegedly receiving illegal gratification in lieu of sanctioning bad loans to high-profile borrowers.
Case Details: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6056 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing in a petition filed by former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik, who has been in jail since February 23, 2022, following his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case.
To be very frank, it is already over," Justice Khanna said, "Interim bail has been rejected, which you may challenge. Challenge that please." Justice Trivedi added, "You can take instructions."
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 685/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in the plea filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) party MP Sunil Prabhu seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to expeditiously decide on the disqualification pleas pending against rebel Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde.
Case title: Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the cases registered by the CBI and ED in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.
Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & SV Bhatti Take Oath As Supreme Court Judges; SC Strength Rises To 32
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti took oath as judges of the Supreme Court today. With their appointments, the Supreme Court's strength rose to 32 with two more vacancies remaining.
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India,
Citation: Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a PIL on the implementation of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 asked the Centre if any schemes for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers have been put in place.
Case Title: Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 229/2017,
Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud on Wednesday shared his experiences as a High Court judge while discussing the selection process for district judiciary candidates. He said "We have all been High Court judges. When you sit in the selection committee, you are looking at the best interest of the institution. The motive is very, very laudable. The question is whether it is lawful. Sometimes what happens is that the High Court thinks look this is the crop which we are taking in the judiciary, that is what weighs with them.
Case title: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC
Civil Appeal Nos.9486-9487/2019
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to defer for two months the hearing of a reference which raises the issue of whether a person, who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator, can appoint an arbitrator.
'There Has To Be An Enduring Solution': Supreme Court On Stray Dog Issue In Kerala
Case title: Animal Welfare Board of India v. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles
Citation: C.A. No. 5988/2019
The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally said that there has to be an enduring solution to the issue of stray dogs in Kerala.
The Court was considering the plea filed by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KeSCPCR) citing an increase in stray dog attacks in Kerala, especially against children, seeking directions to curb the menace.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: Diary No. 14476 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid, who has been arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the Indian capital. Khalid has been behind bars since September 2020, awaiting his trial.
Case Title: Delimitation Demand Committee for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur & Nagaland in North East India v Union of India
Citation: Diary No 12880 of 2022
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, while hearing a petition seeking for delimitation in four north-eastern states of India, namely, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh, orally observed that it seemed that the Election Commission of India did not require the authorization of the Government of India to conduct the exercise of delimitation.
Speaking at the felicitation function organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association in honour of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K V Viswanathan who was recently appointed as judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, “We must also accept the fact that the government is also a stakeholder in the process and these recommendations that have come through in less than 72 hours after the names were recommended. I think we’ve sent the nation a message that the collegium is vibrant, active and committed to its task.”
Case title: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigation Agency & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5997 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in the bail plea of activist and Bhima Koregaon case accused Jyoti Jagtap, saying that the judgments on the bail applications of co-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira are expected to be delivered next week.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to July 17, the hearing in a clutch of pleas against the premature release of the life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, directing it to be listed for directions on that day. After the retirement of Supreme Court judge KM Joseph, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra will now be hearing the challenge against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang-rapes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 162/2023
In the Adani Hindenburg matter, the Supreme Court enquired about the background of the legislative changes introduced by SEBI in the regulatory framework. This was after Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a petitioner seeking a probe into the Hindenburg allegations, pointed out that as per the Expert Committee, SEBI's investigation will not reach anywhere owing to their own amendments and changes made to the definition of "opaque structure", "related party" etc.
Supreme Court Extends Interim Bail Granted To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case
Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the interim bail granted to Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son, Ashish Mishra in light of the ongoing trial in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei And Ors
Citation No. 19206-2023 and connected matters
In the batch of pleas concerning Manipur violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Manipur Government to act upon certain suggestions made by petitioners to mitigate the situation. Yesterday, stating that the Court cannot take over the control of law and order from the elected government, the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had called for "constructive suggestions" from the petitioners which could be considered by the government, while leaving out the aspect of security measures for the executive to handle.
Case Title: Shah Faesal And Ors. v Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1099/2019
The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed August 2, 2023 as the starting date for the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution of India which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. The petitions also challenge the J&K Re-organization Act 2019 which bifurcated J&K into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
Case title: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 000754 / 2016
"Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked", orally observed the Supreme Court on Monday while asking the States to share data regarding mob lynching cases.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Bela Trivedi was hearing the Tehseen Poonawalla case in which the Supreme Court in 2018 had issued several directions to the Union and States regarding measures to prevent mob lynching. The matter was posted again to monitor the follow-up action taken by the governments.
Can Court Direct Union Govt To Make Law Commission A Statutory Body? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. K. Pushpavanam And Ors.
Citation: SLP(C) No. 478/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, reserved judgment in the Union Government’s plea, inter alia, challenging the directions passed by the Madras High Court to the Central Government to consider suggestions for making Law Commission either a statutory body or constitutional body.
Case Title: Committee Of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors.
A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court to transfer all pending suits related to the Krishna Janambhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute from the Mathura Court to itself.
Case Title: Women Lawyers Association Of Nilgiris v. The Registrar, Madras High Court And Anr.
Citation: MA 1378/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 511/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday said that the media report about the lack of toilet facilities for women lawyers in the Nilgiris District Court complex in Tamil Nadu district was incorrect. Referring to a report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court indicating the facilities given to women lawyers, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure about the media report, which it said resulted in a "negative portrayal" of the judiciary and the Madras High Court in particular.
The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that the issue ultimately emanated out of rivalry between two associations of lawyers.
Case Title: Abdul Maudany v. State of Karnataka
Citation: MA 418-426/2023 in SLP(Crl) No. 8084-8092/2013
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the State of Karnataka's response in the plea filed by 2008 Bangalore blasts case accused Abdul Nasser Maudani for relaxation of bail condition, permitting him to travel and to stay in his home town in Kerala. As part of the bail condition, the Kerala People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chairman was to stay in Bengaluru till the trial in the blasts case is over.
Case title: BV Srinivas v. State of Assam
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6210 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday adjourned to August the hearing in Indian Youth Congress (IYC) president BV Srinivas’ plea against the Gauhati High Court rejecting his application for anticipatory bail in an alleged harassment case.
Case Title: Gohar Mohammed Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & others Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9322 OF 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday urged the States and High Courts that had not filed their compliance reports in connection with a slew of directions issued by the Apex Court in December 2022 with regard to motor accident compensation claims to do so by August 14. The Court warned that if the reports are not submitted on time, the Court would have to insist on the presence of Registrar Generals of the concerned High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States in Court.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set up a high-level panel to examine the environmental issues arising as a result of a large number of pilgrims visiting the temples located inside the core area of Rajasthan’s Sariska Tiger Reserve and directed them to furnish a report within six weeks
Fill Vacancies In Central Govt Industrial Tribunals By August 31 : Supreme Court To Union
Case Title: Labour Law Association v. Union Of India | W.P.(C) No. 562/2023 PIL-W
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to complete the process of appointing judicial officers to the vacant seats of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals before August 31, 2023. The direction was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Title: Seema Girija And Anr. v. UoI And Ors. Diary No. 29329/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all State Governments to comply with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 [“RPwD Act”] expeditiously before September 30, 2023. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra also directed the States to appoint Chief Commissioners for persons with disabilities by August 31, 2023.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551
While referring the Delhi Government's challenge against the Centre's Ordinance on services to a Constitution Bench, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that contours of the powers of the Parliament under Article 239AA(7) of the Constitution were not considered in either of the earlier Constitution Bench judgments of 2018 and 2023 in the GNCTD vs Union of India cases.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Akhil Gogoi's Plea Challenging Sedition Law And Similar Offences
Case Title: Akhil Gogoi v. Union Of India |
W.P.(C) No. 672/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in the writ petition filed by the Assamese activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition contained in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences “which employ similar logic of sedition inasmuch as they entail the same ingredients”.
Case title- Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. Crl. 177/2023
In a rejoinder filed to the UP government's affidavit, Tiwari alleged that the state government has suppressed material facts. Tiwari referred to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court on March 21, 2023, in a petition filed by Ashraf praying for his safety and protection during transit in police custody. In its order, the High Court noted that Ashraf had serious apprehension about his life. The High Court directed that the state shall ensure the safety of Ashraf during jail transit from Bareilly to Prayagraj.
The Supreme Court has further modified the criteria to designate senior advocates by removing the 5-year limit for considering reported and un-reported judgments in which the applicant has appeared and also pro bono/amicus curiae work.
As per the new guidelines, in the application form, the candidate has to specify the number of reported and unreported judgments (excluding orders that do not lay down any principle of law) in the last five years in cases in which the candidate has appeared as a lead arguing counsel or an assisting counsel. For pro-bono/amicus curiae work also, 5 year limit was there.
Case Title: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5526-5527/2023]
On Friday, Supreme Court Judges were taken aback that Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, who is undergoing life sentence in Tihar jail after being convicted in a terror funding case, was present in the Apex Court to appear before it in person.
The matter in which Malik was appearing is an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation assailing orders of Special Court in Jammu whereby fresh production warrant was issued for Malik's physical appearance.
Case Title: Committee Of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14275/2023
The Supreme Court, on Friday, sought details from the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court the civil suits filed in respect of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura, which were sought to be consolidated and transferred to the High Court from the trial court.
"Looking to the nature of the matter, is it not better that the High Court tries the matter?. Thinking aloud, if it is tried at a higher level...pendency of matter causes its own disquiet, one side or the other", Justice Kaul observed.
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by Congress leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Gandhi seeking suspension of his conviction in a criminal defamation case over 'Modi thieves' remark, which resulted in his disqualification from the Lok Sabha. As soon as the matter started, Justice Gavai said that his father was associated with Congress and his brother is still associated with the party and asked if there was any objection to him hearing the matter:
Taking exception to the explanation called from Railway Officials at the instance of one of the judges of the Allahabad High Court over the 'inconvenience' caused to him during a train journey, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has written a letter to all Chief Justices of the High Court sharing his displeasure and concerns regarding the entire issue.
In his letter, CJI Chandrachud has stressed that protocol facilities available for the judges should not be used in a manner that is "liable to result in inconvenience to others or to bring public criticism of the judiciary."
Case Title: M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Limited. v. Rambha Devi
Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Constitution on Thursday issued notice to the Union Government to seek its view on the issue whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
On Thursday, Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed displeasure as one of the Counsels had failed to file a written synopsis in a final hearing matter, despite the same being stipulated in the cause list.
Supreme Court Decides To Appoint DERC Chairperson Ad-hoc Due To Deadlock Between Delhi Govt & LG
The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor could not agree on a name for the appointment of Chairperson of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). In view of this deadlock, the Supreme Court said that it will appoint a person for the post as an ad-hoc measure till the issue is finally decided. The Court made it clear that the appointment will be on a pro-term basis as in interim arrangement..
Case Title: Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995
Less than a week after the death of the eight cheetah translocated to Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park from the African continent, the Centre told the Supreme Court of India on Thursday that the death of fifty percent of the cheetahs was not ‘alarming’ and actually anticipated.
The Supreme Court on Thursday took suo motu cognizance of the horrific video showing two women in Manipur being paraded naked and subjected to sexual violence amidst the ethnic conflict in the State. The Court asked the Centre and the State Government to inform it of the steps taken to bring the perpetrators into law.
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8503 of 2023
In a significant development, not only was social activist Teesta Setalvad’s bail application allowed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, but a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta also asked a number of incisive and critical questions during the hearing. In its order, the bench noted that the considerations that weighed with the Supreme Court when it granted Setalvad interim bail, were “still available at this stage”.
Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors.
Citation: C.A. No. 2634/2013
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Tuesday(July 18) reserved its judgement in the batch of petitions raising the issue of whether the "rules of the game" can be changed after the selection process for posts has begun. The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Title: Sadaqat Pathan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 8885/2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that a journalist or a reporter doesn’t have the license to take the law into their own hands. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea by a journalist who was denied anticipatory bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The case of the journalist was that he was trying to expose a racket involving the illegal sale and purchase of a newborn child. However, an FIR was registered against him alleging that he sought illegal gratification to suppress the news
Case Details: Suneetha Narreddy v. YS Avinash Reddy & Anr.
Citation: SLP (Crl) No. 7449/2023
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to Suneetha Nareddy’s plea challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Lok Sabha member YS Avinash Reddy by the Telangana High Court. Besides this, the top court also directed the central agency to file, in a sealed cover, a copy of the charge-sheet, as well as that of original case files pertaining to the murder of former Andhra Pradesh minister YS Vivekananda Reddy.
Case Title: M. Sivasankar v. UoI And Anr
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 5590/2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the Enforcement Directorate two weeks' time to file its response in the plea by M. Sivasankar, Former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, seeking bail on medical grounds.
Supreme Court Agrees To Consider Early Listing Of Pleas Challenging Marital Rape Exception
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that it would consider listing the pleas concerning the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which provides exception to non-consensual matrimonial sex from the offence of rape. The batch of petitions was to be listed on May 9, 2023 after it could not be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala on March 21, 2023 owing to Justice Pardiwala's absence.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Independent Probe Into Alleged Fake Encounters In Assam
Case Title: Arif Md Yasin Jwadder v. State Of Assam & Ors
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed against the Gauhati High Court’s refusal to entertain a PIL filed in 2021 seeking independent investigation of alleged fake encounters in Assam.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea Relating To Effects Of Radiation From Mobile Towers On September 5
Case title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Justice I.S. Israni (Retd)
Citation: SLP(C) No. 1349/2013
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted to September 5 a bunch of petitions relating to the effects of electromagnetic radiation generated by mobile phone towers.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was hearing appeals arising out of a Rajasthan High Court judgment which upheld a government notification prescribing a minimum distance of 500 meters for mobile towers from schools, playgrounds, hospitals etc.
While adjourning the matter, Justice Bopanna said in a lighter vein that the lawyers who are opposing mobile towers should deposit their mobiles before arguing.
Case Title: Akhil Gogoi v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 672 of 2023
Assamese activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition contained in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with related offences “which employ similar logic of sedition inasmuch as they entail the same ingredients/
Plea To Publish Clinical Trials Data Of Rotavac Vaccine : Supreme Court To Hear After 3 Weeks
Case title: S. Srinivasan v. Union Of India And Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Secretary
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 289/2016 PIL-W
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in a PIL seeking publication of the segregated date of the clinical trial (phase III) of the vaccine Rotavac administered to infants to protect against diarrhoea..
Case Title: Dr.Cyriac Abby Philips and Ors v Union of India
Citation: WP(C) 1352/2021
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Ministry of Ayush, Central Council for Research Homoeopathy and the State Of Kerala in a plea seeking to restrain the administration of homeopathic medicine "Arsenic album 30" to children and elderly persons over 65 years of age as a preventive measure of Covid-19 or for boosting immunity.
Case title: Mizoram Chakma Students Union v Union of India
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14073/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 17) issued notice on a plea challenging rules for reservation in selection to higher technical courses in Mizoram.
The impugned notification issued by the State in 2021 sub-classified scheduled tribes of Mizoram into the majority Zo(Mizo) tribe for whom 93% of seats were reserved, whereas 1% of seats were for Non-Mizos comprising Chakmas and communities residing permanently in Mizoram. An additional requirement of passing Class XI, XII from Mizoram was imposed on them. The petitioners challenged the notification as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16( 4) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing In SNC Lavalin Case At CBI's Request; Posts To September
Case Title: Kasthuri Ranga v. State Rep. By Addl. Superintendent Of Police CBI And Ors. Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 7801/2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other accused in the SNC Lavalin Case to September 12.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Akshai M Sivan
Citation: T.P.(C) No. 1310-1312/2023
The Supreme Court has transferred to itself the petitions pending in the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Bombay challenging the enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the order on Monday allowing the transfer plea filed by the Bar Council of India.
The cases transferred consist of separate ongoing petitions concerning the issue of high enrolment fee of State Bar Councils in the Kerala High Court, the Bombay High Court, and the Madras High Court.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to August 7, the hearing in a clutch of pleas against the premature release of the life convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, after recording that the service against all the respondents – both through direct service and paper publication – was complete.
After the retirement of Justice KM Joseph, a bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna will now begin hearing from the first Monday of August, the challenge against the decision of the Gujarat government to grant remission to the 11 convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
Case Details: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed its reservations about a plea filed by a non-governmental organisation, Association for Democratic Reforms, seeking a declaration that every voter had the fundamental right to verify that their vote has been ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded’.
The bench pronounced: “Let an advanced copy be served on the nominated/standing counsel for the Election Commission of India. Our attention is drawn to an order dated December 13, 2019, passed in Association of Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr. wherein notice was issued and writ petition was directed to be tagged with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1389 of 2019. Re-list after three weeks.”
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal And Ors. v. Suvendu Adhikari And Ors.
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 6283-6286/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to Friday a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the cases related to Ram Navami violence to the National Investigation Agency.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra asked the parties to verify if the six FIRs registered over the Ram Navami violence cases overlap and pertain to the same rally.
Case Title: Indian Olympic Association v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14533/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the time to file objections to the draft constitution of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) framed under the supervision of Justice L Nageswara Rao for a period of two weeks. The bench further stated that all objections to the Draft constitution should be made to Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj who was then given the responsibility of collating all objections and submitting the same before the Apex Court by the next hearing of the matter. The matter has been listed next for August 11, 2023.
Case title: Advocate Farhat Wasi v Anubhav Singh Bassi
Citation: W.P. C.No.489/2023
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a plea filed by an Advocate against stand-up comedian, Anubhav Singh Bassi, alleging that he has humiliated ‘advocates and the judicial system’ in his stand-up special, Bas Kar Bassi.
Ten Opposition Leaders Move Supreme Court Against ECI's Draft Delimitation Proposal for Assam
Case Details: Lurinjyoti Gogoi & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 28012 of 2023
Ten opposition leaders from Assam have approached the Supreme Court challenging a draft proposal recently published by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the delimitation of Assam's 126 assembly constituencies and 14 Lok Sabha constituencies.
Besides this, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which forms the statutory foundation of the exercise of this power by the Election Commission, on the ground that it is arbitrary and opaque.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Raman Bhuraria
Citation: Diary No.- 23447 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that it will consider whether the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court on an accused requiring him to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, could be permitted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Hirendranath Gohain vs Union of India and others
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 51/2023
While refusing to stay the ongoing process of delimitation of the assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies being undertaken by the Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge made to it by a group of non-BJP party leaders.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra agreed to hear a challenge to Section 8A of the Representation of Peoples Act and issued notice on the writ petitions filed by the opposition party leaders.
Case Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs High Court of Gujarat
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 432 Of 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday refused a request for urgent hearing of an interim application seeking vacation of an order that stayed the promotion of 68 Gujarat magistrates to district judge posts. The Court informed Dave that it would not be able to decide the matter by July 31, when some of the judges are set to retire
Case Title: Mizoram Chakma Students Union And Anr. v. The State Of Mizoram
Citation: SLP(C) No. 14073/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court which dismissed a petition challenging the sub-classification within the Scheduled Tribes in Mizoram. The Court restored the petition to the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not to have dismissed the plea merely because a reference was pending before a 7-judge bench. Accordingly, the court stated–
Case Title: OBC Advocates Welfare Association v. HC of MP
Citation: WP(C) No. 718/2022
The Supreme Court, on Monday, refused to entertain a petition filed by the OBC Advocates Welfare Association assailing the legality of three circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court asking District and Sessions Courts to dispose of 25 of their oldest cases every quarter to clear pendency.
Case title: Kapil Dev and others v Union of India
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000536 - / 2022
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian cricket team captain Kapil Dev challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which allow "the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed" and "the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law"
The Court observed that the High Courts can be moved for the reliefs sought. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition giving them liberty to approach the concerned High Court.
Your petitioners' standing is very high in the country, the will earn the same respect even if they go to HC", the bench said. "When the Supreme Court takes up such cases, it gives an impression that the high court is not capable of taking up such issues", it added.
National Policy On Menstrual Hygiene: Supreme Court Warns States & UTs Which Haven't Filed Responses
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v GoI And Ors.
Citation: WP(C) No. 1000/2022
The Supreme Court on Monday directed all States and Union Territories to submit their responses concerning their respective menstrual hygiene policies to the Union Government by August 31, 2023. The direction was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra in a plea seeking menstrual hygiene for school-going girls in the country.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court in the matter relating to criminal cases against MPs/MLAs has pointed out that as of July 2022, 44% of Lok Sabha members and 31% of Rajya Sabha members have criminal cases pending against them. He stated this in the 17th report submitted in the case relying on a study done by the Association for Democratic Reforms.
The Supreme Court has been monitoring the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs since 2016 in a PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Supreme Court Stays Fresh Proceedings Against Kerala Minister Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case
Case title: MR Ajayan vs State of Kerala and Antony Raju vs State of Kerala
Citation: Diary No. 18482-2023 and SLP(Crl) No. 7896/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed fresh proceedings against Kerala transport minister Antony Raju in the case for alleged tampering of an underwear evidence in a drugs case conducted by him as a junior lawyer in 1990.
The Court passed this interim order while issuing notice on two special leave petitions challenging the Kerala High Court's order quashing the criminal case against Kerala transport minister Antony Raju over
Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Project 39A of National Law University-Delhi to intervene in a PIL seeking to abolish the present practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and to replace the same with less painful alternatives. The PIL was being heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra..
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a plea seeking the elimination of harmful chemicals and pesticides used in the country, raised concerns over the Union Government's repeated formation of expert committees to review the banning of pesticides. The court questioned the rationale behind appointing several committees when the initial expert committee had already recommended the banning of 27 pesticides in the country.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, said that the impression was that the Union Government kept appointing committees until they obtained a favorable decision.
Case Title: People Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. The State of Nagaland
Citation: Civil Appeal No.3607/2016
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, called the Union Government out for not taking action in the State of Nagaland to implement the constitutional scheme of one-third reservation for women in municipal and town council elections.
The Court said that while the Centre takes 'extreme stands' against other State Governments, it does nothing against its own State Governments are violating the Constitution..
Case Title: Association For Democratic Reforms And Anr. v. Union Of India Cabinet Secretary Citation: W.P.(C) No. 333/2015
In the batch of petitions seeking the inclusion of all political parties as "public authorities" under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Supreme Court made oral remarks suggesting that political parties had valid reasons for not wanting to disclose the details of their candidate selection process.
Advocate PV Dinesh, representing CPI(M), expressed support for transparency regarding financial matters of political parties but argued against disclosing the reasons behind candidate selection and internal party discussions.
Acknowledging the concerns raised by him, CJI DY Chandrachud commented – "They have a point. They're saying that don't ask us why we selected a candidate."
Case title: Radhe Shyam Sharma v State of Bihar
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15059/2023
A retired judicial officer from Bihar has approached the Supreme Court challenging the penalty of deduction of 50% of pension imposed on him in a disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Patna High Court. He contended that he was suspended 4 days before his retirement on a complaint regarding "hasty decision" in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mitthal took note of the submission that the concerned case for which his suspension was ordered was not a part of the article of charges framed against the petitioner. The said case was belatedly added as a charge beyond the permissible time of 4 years as per the rules.
The bench issued notice on the petition on July 25.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a clarification regarding its order passed on July 24, 2023 in the Gyanvapi Mosque case, aiming to clear up any confusion surrounding the matter. The order, which was meant to dispose of the Interlocutory Application (IA) filed by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid Committee concerning the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey, mistakenly mentioned that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Committee challenging the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of its Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea against the maintainability of Hindu Worshippers' suit was disposed of.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the trial court for ASI survey of the property, which was allowed on July 21. On July 24, the Supreme Court stayed the ASI survey till 5PM, July 26 to enable the Committee to challenge the order before the High Court.
At present, the hearing of the Mosque Committee's petition is ongoing before the bench led by Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court
Case Details: Mx Kamlesh & Ors. v. Niten Chandra & Ors.
Citation: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 952 of 2023
Only transgender persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or Economically Weaker Sections can avail the benefits of reservation, the Centre has told the Supreme Court in response to a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the top court’s 2014 judgement in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India..
Case Title: Gail (India) Limited v. National Green Tribunal
Citation: Civil Appeal Diary No(S). 18853/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change to consider the application of the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) for clearance for laying pipeline of 255 meters in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area in Tamil Nadu.
Case Details: Megala v. The State | V Senthil Balaji v. The State| Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. Megala
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8652-8653 of 2023| Diary No. 28176 of 2023| Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8750 of 2023
The power of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to make an arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be conflated with the power to seek the remand of an accused in its own custody, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday.
Case Title: Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun
Citation: C.A. No. 2844/2011
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage had a right in parents' ancestral property as per the Hindu law. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a reference of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1 regarding the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Cooperation With Investigation Cannot Mean That Accused Says "Yes" To Allegations: Justice SK Kaul
In an interesting courtroom exchange today, Supreme Court judge Justice SK Kaul orally remarked that cooperation with the investigation by the accused did not necessarily mean that the accused person had to say "yes" to the allegations. Justice Kaul added that the police could not merely claim that an accused individual was not cooperating during an investigation and emphasized the necessity of providing concrete evidence to support these assertions.
Case Details: Jaya Thakur v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1106 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Thursday extended the term of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) SK Mishra till September 15 in "larger public interest". Mishra's term was to end on July 31 as per the July 11 judgment which held the previous extensions given to the officer to be illegal.
The Centre cited the involvement of the outgoing ED director in the review of India’s anti-money laundering mechanisms by the Financial Action Task Force(FATF), a global peer review body.
The bench comprising Justices Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which set aside the bail granted to one Fasahat Ali Khan, who was accused of forcefully demolishing the house of one person in Rampur using bulldozer and looting Rs.20,000 from the house in 2016.
The objection made by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the grant of bail to a person accused of bulldozing a house elicited a comment from the Supreme Court.
“So you agree that bulldozing houses is wrongful? Then you will of course not follow the principle of bulldozing houses? Should we record your statement that you say that bulldozing houses is wrong? You just now argued that bulldozing houses is wrong.".
Kashmiri Pandit Body Supports Abrogation Of J&K Special Status; Says Article 370 Was Discriminatory
In yet another development in the case pertaining to the abrogation of Article 370, which the Supreme Court is set to start hearing from August 2, 2023, certain intervenors, advocating for the rights of Kashmiri Pandits, have filed intervention applications in support of the central government's decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Additionally, these applications have urged the Supreme Court to recognize the violence inflicted upon the Kashmiri Pandit community between 1989 and 1991 as a "direct or indirect consequence of the powers granted to the Jammu & Kashmir State government under Article 370". The applications have been filed by an organisation representing Kashmiri Hindus, the Youth 4 Panun Kashmir, as well as Virinder Kaul, a Kashmiri pandit social activist.
Case Details: Megala v. The State | V Senthil Balaji v. The State| Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. Megala
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8652-8653 of 2023| Diary No. 28176 of 2023| Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8750 of 2023
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal expressed his apprehension over the ‘abuse’ of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002 to target political opposition in the country.
The senior counsel told a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh: “What I am worried about is that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been used and abused enough. My worry is that. We stand here for our clients, who may win, or lose. But, the more important thing is the future of India in terms of the powers of the Enforcement Directorate, which has come into question. This is not straightforward.”
Supreme Court Expresses Anguish At States Not Implementing Prohibition Of Manual Scavenging Act
Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India,
Citation: Writ Petition(Civil) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing a PIL on implementation of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 asked the Centre, why the states have not taken action on implementation of the Act.
Justice Ravindra Bhat asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati- “Why are the states not taking action? Think of a mechanism where the states can report to the Union. We can mandate the committees to be constituted within 2 months and each of them will report to the Ministry of Social Justice. We can also mandate that they meet atleast once a month.”
To this, the ASG responded that a draft will be submitted before the Court with suggestions of directions to be issued to states. The Amicus Curiae suggested that the central monitoring committee be empowered to coordinate between states.
Supreme Court Hears PIL Petition Raising Corruption Allegations Against Arunachal Pradesh Govt
Case title: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v State of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: SLP(C) No. 034696 / 2010
The Supreme Court on Thursday pondered on whether to entertain a PIL which raises allegations of corruption regarding certain tenders floated by Arunachal Pradesh government years ago at a belated stage.
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing a Special Leave Petition where the petitioners alleged that contracts were given by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh without floating any tender. The former Chief Minister of the state and beneficiary contractor were parties in the original SLP. An Interlocutory Application was also filed impleading the present CM as Respondent
The court scheduled further hearings for directions in four weeks and in the meanwhile asked Adv Prashant Bhushan to submit a short note of his compilation for assisting the court.
The Government of India, in response to the distressing incident involving the video of two women in Manipur being paraded naked and subjected to sexual violence amidst the ethnic conflict in the State, has decided to entrust the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with the investigation in the matter. The step has been taken with the consent of the State Government of Manipur considering the gravity of the offence.
In a recent affidavit filed in the matter, the Union Government has also requested the Supreme Court to transfer the trial out of the State of Manipur to any other State. The Centre has also sought a direction to complete the trial within six months of filing the chargesheet.
Case Title: Rajan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.485/2021
The Supreme Court recently closed a plea filed by a Sri Lankan citizen for his premature release after being incarcerated in India for over 35 years. The matter was closed on the submission of the Tamil Nadu Government that his release had been arranged for by providing him documents for his travel issued by the Sri Lankan Government.
The Supreme Court has rescheduled to July 31, 2023, the hearing of Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing's plea challenging the summons issued against him by a Manipur Court. The summons was in connection with his alleged defamation of the Metei community during an interview with 'The Wire.'
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) raising alarm over an increase in cases of lynching and mob violence against Muslims, particularly by ‘cow vigilantes’, despite the court’s Tehseen Poonawalla ruling. In this 2018 judgment, the top court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the union and state governments regarding the prevention of lynching and mob violence.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Cryptocurrency Fraud In Four Different States
Case Title: Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar V. State of Gujarat
Citation: Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(S).268/2023
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar, booked in connection with a cryptocurrency fraud in four different states. He has been accused of duping innocent investors to become part of a sham exchange whereby investors were lured into selling cryptocurrency.
The Court however imposed several bail conditions including the surrender of his passport and restricted him from indulging in the sale or purchase of crypto currency.
Case title: K Muthu Sumathi v. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
Diary Number: 27546/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in a petition filed by K Muthu Sumathi, a candidate of Communist Party of India challenging the election of AIADMK candidate K.Chokkayee as a Councillor in Madurai Corporation in 2022. The petitioner sought a recount of votes alleging irregularities by erring officials. The officials had declared an AIADMK candidate as the winner by 4 votes.
Supreme Court Directs ED To Withdraw LOC Against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee & Wife Rujira Banerjee
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee And Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 2806-2807/2022
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) today to withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee in connection with the money laundering allegations over the alleged coal scam. The direction was passed by a bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in an application filed by the Banerjees seeking to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The ED told the Court that the petitioners will be allowed to travel abroad after informing their travel plans one week in advance.
Justice Kaul said– "The problem is this- someone goes, you say they can go. The pendency of LOC creates a scenario that someone is stopped somewhere. That is not done. Your time wasted, my time wasted. In criminal cases, prosecution has to prove case beyond reasonable doubt Mr Raju. You know that. That principle cannot change...there is an LOC, you recall the LOC."