Judgments/OrdersSupreme Court Sets Aside Order Suspending Conviction Of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal; Asks Kerala HC To Decide AfreshCase Title: U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors.Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023 The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Kerala High Court suspending the conviction of Lok Sabha MP...
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Kerala High Court suspending the conviction of Lok Sabha MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case and asked the High Court to take a fresh decision within six weeks.
Even while remitting the matter to the high court, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the benefit of the suspension of conviction will continue till the high court disposes of the application, enabling the Nationalist Congress Party leader to continue as a Member of Parliament (MP) representing Lakshadweep.
Case Title: Yash Tuteja and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023
ED (Directorate of Enforcement) cannot be a law unto itself, orally observed the Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) while extending the interim protection from coercive action to certain Chattisgarh government officials in the UP Police FIR over alleged making of duplicate holograms in connection with the liquor scam case.
Case Title: Amrit Malik v. Medical Counseling Committee
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.121/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to a disabled student and lowered her penalty of Rs 15 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs after she withdrew her admission from a PG Medical course seat in Tamil Nadu. The plea was heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No. 33790 - 2023
Forcing a woman to have a child conceived as a result of rape is against our constitutional philosophy, the Supreme Court observed on Monday, while allowing a plea for termination of pregnancy by a 25-year-old rape survivor. Noting that such pregnancy affected the physical and mental health of the woman, the court set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court that had earlier dismissed the survivor's petition for a medical termination of pregnancy.
Woman Alone Has Right Over Her Body; She's The Ultimate Decision Maker On Abortion : Supreme Court
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: Diary No. 33790 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Monday has reiterated that a woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. This observation was made by the court while allowing a plea for termination of pregnancy by a 25-year-old rape survivor.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. St. Stephen's College & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17344 of 2023
In a major relief to Delhi's St Stephen's College, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Delhi University and University Grant Commission’s pleas against the college adopting an 85-15 formula for minority applicants, with the university’s Common University Entrance Test (CUET) contributing 85 percent to the overall score considered at the time of admission and the rest 15% counted on the basis of performance in interviews.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 22) set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order allowing badminton players to participate in tournaments unrecognised by the Badminton Association of India (BAI). Allowing an appeal filed by the BAI, the Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta asked the High Court to reconsider the matter.
The Supreme Court observed that the ex-parte interim order passed by the High Court was in the teeth of the Apex Court’s judgment in Devraj v. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (civil) 2084 of 2004 where it was held that relief in the nature of final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage unless a very strong prima facie case is established.
Case Title: Sreeram Venkittaraman v. State of Kerala
Citation: Diary No.- 27504 - 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday(August 25) dismissed Kerala IAS officer Sreeram Venkittaraman’s petition challenging the Kerala High Court’s order which resorted culpable homicide charge against him in the 2019 drunken driving case that led to the killing of a journalist named KM Basheer.
A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar refused to interfere with the High Court’s order. The bench however clarified that the observations made by the High Court are limited only to the criminal revision and won’t prejudice the trial.
Case title: Aditi Trivedi v. UPSC
Case No: W.P. C. No. 878/2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(Aug 22) granted permission for the withdrawal of a petition that sought publication of the answer key and cutoff marks for the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2023. The decision comes in light of the fact that a similar issue is already under consideration by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court had reserved its decision on the matter on 2nd August 2023.
Case Title: S. VE. SHEKHER V. AI GOPALSAMY
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9522- 9525/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court that refused to quash a batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists.
The cases were registered after Sheker had allegedly forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018. The High Court had said that persons forwarding social media messages are liable for its contents
Case title: Moorthy v. State of TN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679
The Supreme Court recently held that while extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances.
Case title: Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682
The presumption of innocence is a human right, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside concurrent conviction in a 1995 murder case.
The court observed that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities.
"When this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence", the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683
The Supreme Court has ruled that in case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors, the court has held.
The court said that the Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956
Case Title: Amrit Malik v. The Medical Counselling Committee and others
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) reiterated that students who take admission in All India Quota(AIQ) seats for Post Graduate medical courses cannot vacate the seats after the second round of counselling for AIQ seats in National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET).
The Court referred to the order passed in May 2017 in the case Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust v Medical Council of India in this regard.
Case Title: Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685
The Supreme Court recently held that under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale.
Case Title: Gohar Mohammed Versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686
The Supreme Court recently criticized the 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance reports on directions issued by the Top Court for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court has allowed the Union Government to notify the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which has been constituted by the Supreme Court for overseeing matters related to forests, as a permanent body.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an application, filed in the main matter of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 Of 1995, allowed issuance of notification for constitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent body. The Bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case title: Mursaleen Tyagi v State of UP
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 000898/ 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday(August 23) emphasized that bail with onerous conditions should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and not in ordinary matters. The bench asserted that pre-trial detention should only be employed when there is a clear threat to society or a genuine concern that the accused could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The court also referred to the case of Yashik Jindal v Union of India (2023) and held that a similar course needs to be adopted
Case Title: Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya
Citation: 2023 INSC 743
The Supreme Court in the judgment Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors has explained the concepts of 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer'.
Referring to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), the Court observed, “A deeming fiction was added in the negative that a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale”.
Supreme Court Acquits Convict On Death Row; Orders Immediate Release
Case Details: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted a death row prisoner convicted in the murder of his two brothers and own son.
This verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra after hearing the convict’s plea against the Allahabad High Court confirming the death sentence handed to him by a Uttar Pradesh sessions court in 2017. The Court ordered his immediate release from Bareilly Central Prison.
Case Title: Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal, re-iterated the established position of law related to Section 100 of the CPC.
The Court observed that the provision clearly indicates that the first appellate court is the final court on questions of facts but only if there is any substantial question of law, a second appeal could be considered and raised by the High Court and such substantial question(s) of law ought to be answered. The bench comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Title: Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689
The Supreme Court recently held that a revision petition must be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or the party’s counsel, in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.
The Court referred to the ruling in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar,(2007) 7 SCC 623 wherein it was held that a criminal appeal must not be dismissed for default and held that this rule would also apply to criminal revisions.
Case title: Smt Dulu Deka v. State of Assam
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691
In a case pertaining to an Assistant teacher claiming the release of her unpaid salary from 2001 onwards, the Supreme Court recently held that once the appointment has been declared illegal and void ab initio by the Director of elementary education in Assam in 2001, continuing in service becomes untenable in the absence of challenge to the cancellation order.
The Court held that the failure to contest the cancellation order bars the appellant from claiming a legal right to continue in service and consequent salary claims.
Case title: Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692
The Supreme Court recently held that the age of superannuation for employees is determined solely by statutory rules. It held that even if two job positions share similar tasks, this similarity does not warrant altering an employee's service conditions(Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das).
The Supreme Court held, “The age of superannuation is always governed by the statutory rules governing appointment on a particular post. Hence, even if it is averred that the nature of work involved in the two posts is similar, the same cannot be a ground to increase or alter the service conditions of an employee as each post is governed by its own set of rules.”
Case Title: M/s S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693
The Supreme Court, while restoring an arbitral award passed in 1997 which was set aside by the Trial Court and the High Court under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has emphasised that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not.
The Court while restoring the arbitral award said, “The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate review, which is impermissible in law and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”
Case title: Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court observed that the owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents.
The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation, the bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan observed in Om Gurusai Construction Company vs V.N. Reddy.
Case title: Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque case against a partner of the firm cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that he/she did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques.
Case Details: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, while acquitting a death row prisoner, reiterated that ‘great caution’ must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements. The court held –
“It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.
Antilia Bomb Scare Case | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Mumbai Police Officer Pradeep Sharma
Case Title: Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5764 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to former ‘encounter specialist’ Pradeep Sharma, an accused in the Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder cases.
After reserving the verdict last week, it was delivered today by a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha after hearing Sharma’s bail plea challenging a decision of the Bombay High Court to deny him bail in January of this year.
Case title: Odi Jerang vs Nabajyoti Baruah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
The Supreme Court observed that the procedure under Section 202(1) CrPC is mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
"There cannot be any doubt that in view of the use of word "shall" in sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC and the object of amendment made by the Act No. 25 of 2005, the provision will have to be held as mandatory in a case where the accused is residing at a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate” the court observed.
Case title: Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of the Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same, the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case title: Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India - Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704
The Supreme Court held that a dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. In appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar observed that the awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly.
Case title: Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act is not mandatory.
"It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit", the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed.
Case title: Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co-Op Society Ltd vs Oneup Entertainment
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706
The Supreme Court reiterated that in cheque cases, the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant can be permitted to be taken on affidavit.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal noted the following guideline issued by the Constitution Bench in the case of "In Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881":
"For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses."
Case Title: Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal challenging the grant of bail to the accused in a gang rape case, observed:
“The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of यत ननायर्यस्तत पपूज्यन्तत रमन्तत तत दतवतनाताः (where women are respected Gods live there) would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law.
Case title: CBI v. Narottam Dhakad
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
The Supreme Court held that a charge sheet filed in a language other than the language of the Court or the language that the accused does not understand is not illegal.
The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed that if both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet.
Case Title: Dr Prakasan MP and others v. State of Kerala and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708; 2023 INSC 772
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by a group of teachers in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala seeking an increase of their retirement age from 55 years to 60 years at par with the teachers of other Medical Colleges.
The bench explained that "the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government".
"It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges...", the judgment authored by Justice Kohli said.
Case Title: Drakshayanamma and ors vs Girish and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
The Supreme Court recently cautioned against filing of bulky synopses in matters before it. The Apex Court made the observation while considering a Special Leave Petition against an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The Top Court expressed its disappointment that the order of the High Court that was being challenged only consisted of 6 pages, while the synopsis of the SLP was more than 60 pages. Additionally, the Apex Court also noted that the order of the trial court that was challenged before the High Court contained only 10 pages.
Case title: Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. The Chairman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711
The Supreme Court recently applied the doctrine of harmonious construction in a case related to ambiguity in consent terms between parties recorded by the High Court in relation to an award in a land acquisition matter.
"As per the rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, the document has to be read as a whole and in its totality. If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of the clauses of the document, the courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with the other clauses and with the purpose and intent of the parties executing it", the Court observed.
Case Title: Smt. Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition by treating the decree for possession as inexecutable, merely on the basis that the property has been lost to a third party/encroacher.
“If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder’s right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed,” the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.
Case Title: Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Of Orissa v. Late Surgeon Vice Admiral Gp Panda Through His Legal Heirs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713
The Supreme Court recently upheld the judgment by the Orissa High Court in a land dispute involving the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa (IDCO) and the heirs of a late Surgeon Vice Admiral
A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti while dismissing the appeal held that the High Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
“The serious objection of the State against impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, we consider that the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected” the Apex Court said.
Case title: State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714
In a case related to “suppression of material information” about a pending criminal case by a candidate, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial aspect of specificity when seeking information from candidates during the verification process.
It reiterated the principle laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 held that- “For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases, action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.”
Case title: Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717
The Supreme Court recently pronounced a notable judgment explaining the factors which a Government should take into account while deciding to grant remission of sentence to convicts as per Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The government should also take into account factors such as age, health, familial relationships, reintegration possibilities, extent of earned remission, and post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being.
The Court suggested that the government could also benefit from a report prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting with the convict. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the individual's post-conviction development, rehabilitation efforts, and potential for reintegration into society.
Case Title: XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to cancel the bail of Jitendra Narain, former chief secretary of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar, who, along with other top government officials, has been accused by a 21-year-old of gang-raping her.
News Updates
Case Title: Charles v. State of Gujarat & Anr
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10010 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 25) issued a temporary stay on the criminal proceedings against a Catholic parish priest in Gujarat for baptizing a child at the request of the child's Christian mother, who is estranged from her Hindu husband. The priest has been accused of forceful religious conversion under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003. This stay will operate till the next date of the hearing.
Case Title: Subi K.V.. v. Union of India
Citation: Diary No. 15683-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Central Government, all States and Union Territories on a PIL seeking reservation for transgender persons in public employment.
The petition referred to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NALSA V. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, wherein the Court directed the state to make reservation provisions for TGP as follows :
“We direct the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public.”
Supreme Court Grants Bail To PFI Leader Abdul Razak Peediyakkal In Money Laundering Case
Case Title: ABDUL RAZAK PEEDIYAKKAL v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 4627/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razak Peediyakkal in a PMLA Case where he has been accused of collecting and laundering funds of over Rs. 20 crores for the PFI. The Apex Court directed the trial court to impose bail conditions including to appear before the investigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) once a week, to surrender his passport and to not leave the state of Uttar Pradesh until completion of trial.
MBBS Admissions: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging NRI Quota In Assam Medical Colleges
Case Title: HADIUJJAMAN LASKAR v. STATE OF ASSAM
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 000862 - 000862/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 25) issued notice in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging the State of Assam’s rules allowing 7% seats quota in medical Colleges to be reserved for NRIs. Pertinently, the Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Bhatt and Aravind Kumar, also stayed further allocation of seats under NRI quota in the ongoing counselling of seats.
Case Title: Society for Protection of Unborn Child v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: Diary No. 11029 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by an anti-abortion NGO seeking deletion of a provision under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act which allows women to undergo an abortion if any form of contraception device used either by her or her partner fails.
Supreme Court To Hear CBI's Plea To Cancel Lalu Prasad Yadav's Bail In October
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav
Citation: SLP (Crl) 1550/2020
The Supreme Court on Friday posted the appeal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the bail granted to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief and former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in a fodder scam case to October 17.
The Court turned down the request made on behalf of the CBI for an earlier date in September.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contended that the sentences imposed on Yadav should run consecutively and not concurrently while opposing the bail granted to Yadav by the Jharkhand High Court.
Case Title: Naveen Prakash Nautiyal V. H. Venkateshwarlu
Citation: Diary No. 31723-2023
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Kerala High Court that had upheld the appointment of Prof Venkateshwarlu as Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala. The petition was filed contending that the appointment of the VC is in violation of UGC Regulations, Central Universities Act, 2009, and it’s statutes and is marred by procedural defects.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta while dismissing the SLP, pointed out that 3 years had passed since the appointment of the VC. It was also pointed out that the persons aggrieved by the selection process had not approached the Apex Court.
Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Deepak Gupta delivered a lecture on the topic "Development of Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence in Last 10 years" as part of LiveLaw's 10th anniversary lecture series
On Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's judgment, Justice Gupta said that the “PMLA judgment is, in my opinion, even a bigger blow than the Watali judgment. It turns the criminal law on its head.” He then questioned that even if we presume that the material placed by the police is right and accepted as a gospel truth “why cannot the court see all the material which has been collected and decide whether the same shows the prima facie case or not”
“The officials of the ED have been given every police power…but they are held to be not police officers”. Justice Gupta also questioned the low rate of convictions in ED cases and said, "Yes, we need to be strict with these laws but, we need to convict them too, not just send them to jail".
The Supreme Court again criticized late uploading of reasoned orders by the High Courts.
It is not completely alien to the system where reasoned orders are sometimes to be delivered later on, but that does not mean that such period of later-on can be unending, the bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.
The court therefore directed the Registrar General of the High Court to file a status report in this regard.
In a full court reference of the Supreme Court held on Thursday, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud paid tribute to late Shanti Bhushan, Veteran Advocate, Politician and Former Union Law Minister, who passed away on 31st January 2023. The CJI praised the indomitable spirit of Shanti Bhushan and his commitment to the constitutional essence of democracy. 'Our constitutional legacy is dotted with events Mr. Shanti Bhushan helped create or shape' the CJI said.
“In the landmark election case of the prime minister, Indira Gandhi V Raj Narain, Raj Narain was represented by the indomitable Shanti Bhushan. The case as he recounts in his book aroused both pride and envy in equal measure. Pride for the independence of the Indian Judiciary and envy among American lawyers who expressed amazement at the impossibility of a similar outcome in its own judicial system, which otherwise prides.. or atleast prided itself in its liberal tradition." The CJI also added that during the emergency, Shanti Bhushan championed the cause of liberty and justice.
Case title: Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Diary No. 33188 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to extend the status quo order it had granted on 16th August with respect to a demolition drive being carried out by railway authorities in a settlement in the backyard of Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.
A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was informed by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the Railways had completed the eviction process.
The Court questioned the locus standi of the petitioner and observed that squatters on public land cannot claim any vested right. The bench has granted the petitioner time to file rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the Railways and posted the case to next Monday.
The Supreme Court on Friday extended the interim bail granted on medical grounds to Satyendar Jain - Aam Aadmi Party leader and former cabinet minister in the Delhi government - in a money laundering case till September 1st. Jain was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in May 2022, but was granted interim bail on medical grounds.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was considering Jain’s plea challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to deny him bail last year.
"Though Learned ASG opposes grant of extension of interim bail by contending that medical advice cited is not sufficient, medical bail granted earlier stands extended till September 1." the Court said in its order.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secretary v. State Of Tamil Nadu State
Citation: MA 3127/2018 in C.A. No. 2453/2007
The Supreme Court on Friday, while hearing a plea by the State of Tamil Nadu seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water, directed the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to submit its report on this issue, by next Friday.
“We do not possess any expertise on the matter. Apart from that, Learned ASG Aishwarya Bhatti informs us the that the meeting of the CWRC is to be held on Monday to consider the discharge of water for next fortnight. It is submitted that thereafter, the matter will go to CWMA. We find that it will be appropriate that the CWMA submits it's report as to whether the directions issued by it for discharge of water has been complied with or not. In the meantime, the orders with regard to discharge of water for the next fortnight will also be available. ASG is requested to communicate this order to the CWMA to obtain its report prior to next Friday.” the Court said in its order.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday called for inclusivity in the legal profession while recalling an incident where a young student who began his internship at a law office was asked by his supervisor which caste he belonged to. When he revealed his caste he was asked not to return. “I was filled with despair when I heard of this” the CJI said while addressing students at the 31st Convocation Ceremony of National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore.
“As lawyers we are keenly aware of society and its injustices. Our duty to uphold constitutional values is higher than that of other citizens. Yet, this incident shows some lawyers are violating the law, leave aside upholding constitutional values.” He said.
Legal Education Must Strive For More Inclusivity: Justice Ravindra Bhat In Convocation Address
Supreme Court Judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat delivered the Convocation Address at the 10th Convocation Ceremony of the National Law University, Delhi on Saturday.
Justice Bhat recalled that when he joined college, there were fewer female students, which was not unique to this profession but a mere reflection of society and women’s participation in it. “Standing after 40 years, it is heartening to see how far we have come.” However, he said there are miles to achieve equal participation of women in the workforce in our deeply unequal society and that everyone should endeavor to make room for being more diverse and representative. “Our legal education must strive for inclusivity.”
He added that this is the only way to encourage more women to pursue a law career long after graduation.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Challenging Arrest & Summoning Powers Of GST Officials
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh v. Union of India
Citation: W.P. (Crl) No. 339/ 2023
The Supreme Court on August 25 issued notice in two similar writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) including Section 69 (i.e., power to arrest), 70(1) (i.e., power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents).
The Court has further stayed any coercive steps against the petitioners. The Bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
Law is supposed to be a noble profession, Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed on Thursday. This remark came on the heels of the counsel for one of Bilkis Bano’s rapists informing the court that he is now practising as a motor vehicle accident claims lawyer in Gujarat.
Not only this, the judge also posed a critical query about the effect of conviction on an advocate’s enrolment at a state bar council, namely, whether a convict could be given the license to practise law even after his conviction.
Case Title: Lijesh M.J @ Lijeesh Mullezhath V. State of Kerala Represented by Director, Directorate of Culture & others
Citation: SLP (C) No. 18559/2023
Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J has approached the Supreme Court against the order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022. The Division Bench had upheld the order of dismissal by a single bench of the High Court that had found the plea to be 'frivolous'.
The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe', Lijeesh, has filed the plea alleging that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
Article 370 Case | Ends Can’t Justify Means, Supreme Court Tells Union
On the tenth day of the Supreme Court hearings in the Article 370 matter, the Central Government commenced its arguments supporting the Presidential Orders of 2019 which diluted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
At the very outset, the CJI posed an interesting query to the Union and asked if the ends could justify the means. He orally remarked that, "means should also be consistent with the ends.
Bilkis Bano Case |Earlier SC Judgment Won’t Bar Review Of Remission Order: Supreme Court
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 491 of 2022
We are not sitting in judgment over a coordinate bench’s ruling, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, refusing to accept a ‘judicial propriety’ argument in the Bilkis Bano case.
The Court said that the 2021 ruling, which allowed the Gujarat Government to consider the remission applications, will not bar the judicial review of the remission orders subsequently passed.
Case Title: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.678/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to amend its writ petition - which was filed challenging the GNCTD (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 - to incorporate a challenge to the recently passed Act which replaces the Ordinance.
Manipur Violence: Supreme Court Transfers CBI Cases To Assam For Pre-Trial Steps
Case title: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 19206 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to transfer the sexual violence cases related to Manipur ethnic violence, which have been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to Assam, "bearing in mind the overall environment in Manipur, and the need for ensuring a fair process of criminal justice administration".
The Court asked the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to designate Courts in Guwahati to handle the pre-trial steps of CBI cases. Applications for remand, extension of custody, issuance of warrants etc., can be virtually made by the investigating agency before the designated Courts in Guwahati.
The Court further stated that the victims and witnesses will be at the liberty to give evidence virtually from their places in Manipur, instead of travelling physically to the Assam Courts.
Case title: Arvind Kejriwal v. The State of Gujarat
Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 10191/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the trial in the criminal defamation case filed by the Gujarat University against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal over the remarks made by him in connection with the academic degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Court noted that Kejriwal's petition seeking stay of the trial was pending before the Gujarat High Court and is posted on August 29. "We are not inclined to issue notice in the SLP, as the matter is still sub-judice before the High Court", the Court observed. "We hope and trust that the High Court will decide the petition on the said date", the Court added.
Case Title: Veljibhai Masani and ors v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 840/2023
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a public interest litigation pertaining to the petition seeking revival of a joint judicial committee between India and Pakistan to resolve disputes between the two countries concerning fishermen who are arrested while violating territorial waters.
Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 162 of 2023
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has informed the Supreme Court that out of the 24 investigations in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, 22 have attained finality, while the remaining two are currently underway. In an affidavit, the market regulator has stated –
“Out of the 24 investigations, 22 are final in nature and two are interim in nature. As on date, the said 22 final investigation reports and one interim investigation report are approved by the competent authority in accordance with the extant practice and procedures of SEBI. In the remaining one matter, interim findings are approved by the competent authority.
Case title: UT of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference
Citation: SLP(C) No. 18727/2023
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure at the Ladakh administration for not notifying the allotment of 'plough' symbol for the J&K National Conference for the upcoming Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council elections, despite the direction passed by the J&K&L High Court.
“It's unfair, your arbitrariness. We’ll set aside the election schedule if need be"s, Justice Vikram Nath, the presiding judge of the division bench, told the counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Ladakh
Case Details: Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2022
The Supreme Court on Friday advocated for 'practical and effective' steps to deal with the problem of hate speech so that its earlier decisions are followed both in letter and in spirit. Accordingly, it sought responses from the state government on the status of their compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla guideline requiring the establishment of district-level nodal officers.
Case Title: Mohd Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10108 of 2023
In an interim relief to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday put a temporary stay on a trial court's order directing him to submit a voice sample in the 2007 hate speech case.
A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Azam Khan against a direction to provide his voice sample in a hate speech case, for comparison with a CD-recorded speech he delivered during a public gathering in Rampur in August 2007. Last month, the Allahabad High Court refused to interfere with this direction by a special judge in Uttar Pradesh
'J&K Governor Had No Idea' : Petitioners Cite Satya Pal Malik's Interview Before Supreme Court In Article 370 Case
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, referred to Malik's interview given to Karan Thapar of 'The Wire' in April this year.
As per Constitutional Order 272, the "Government of J&K" is construed to mean the "Governor of J&K".
To highlight that the Governor had no prior knowledge about the Centre's decisions on August 4, 2019, Ramakrishnan read out the following portion from Malik's interview:
"I did not know anything. I was merely called by the home minister one day prior saying, Satyapal I’m sending a letter tomorrow morning please get it passed by a committee before 11 tomorrow and send it to me". "He had no idea on the night of August 4 of what was coming. And he has given concurrence like this?", Ramakrishnan asked.
In the Article 370 case hearing, the Union Government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has absolutely no intention to interfere with the special provisions applicable to North Eastern states or other parts of India.
Recording this statement made on behalf of the Centre, the Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant disposed of an intervention application filed by an Arunachal Pradesh politician.
Case Details: Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4999 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an interim bail application filed by English professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen on grounds of her deteriorating health.
Case Details: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018
A union of taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers has approached the Supreme Court expressing concerns about overturning a verdict which allows drivers having Light Motor Vehicle(LMV) license to drive transport vehicles which have unladen weight less than 7500 kilograms.
The Tamil Nadu Urimai Kural Driver Trader Union, representing over 2000 taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers in the southern state, has filed an application seeking to be heard in the case pending before a constitution bench of the Supreme Court hearing a batch of pleas over the question of whether additional endorsement on a light motor vehicle (LMV) license is required to drive transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kilos.
“It is with immense pride, as a citizen of our great nation, that I witnessed the remarkable landing of Chandrayaan-3 on the moon today. The success of the lunar mission, places India in a select group of nations to have successfully achieved a landing on the lunar surface. It is all the more significant because India is the only nation to have achieved a lunar landing on the south pole of the moon. This will help new avenues in scientific research and discovery. Truly, this lunar landing represents, a milestone in the onward march of our nation. My heartiest congratulations to team ISRO and the entire scientific community on this historic achievement. They have truly made the nation proud of their work.” CJI Chandrachud told PTI news.
As the petitioners presented their concluding arguments, the bench engaged the counsel with insightful questions. Particularly noteworthy were Chief Justice Chandrachud's oral observations concerning the 'self-limiting' nature of Article 370 and Article 370 seemingly being a 'pro-tem provision' until further actions could be taken.
In the hearings, the CJI asked Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was appearing for the petitioners, if the Constitution of J&K would be seen an overriding document that would be applied in preference to the Indian Constitution and whether decisions made by the Constituent Assembly of J&K could bind the Indian Parliament.
Case Title: State of Kerala V Joy John
Citation: Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(s). 31298/2023
The Supreme Court recently stayed the order of the Kerala High Court that directed the state of Kerala to refund the fee imposed on a land owner, for conversion of less than 25 cents of paddy land, under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court in its order dated 13th October 2022 had held that merely because landowners had remitted fees for conversion of less than 25 cents, the state must not be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves.
"If they're allowed to do this, heaven knows what else they would do!," exclaimed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan today on the ninth day of Constitution Bench hearing in the pleas challenging dissolution of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370.
Sankaranarayanan, while concluding the arguments for petitioners, used certain "extreme examples" to argue that upholding the Centre's actions can set a precedent for great mischief, whereby Constitutional processes can be circumvented by simply changing the definition clauses under Article 367 instead of following the amendment process under Article 368.
Written Submissions Can Never Substitute Oral Arguments: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Recently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan speaking at his felicitation ceremony held by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) stressed on the importance of oral hearings. "Though written submissions are no doubt very useful, they cannot be a substitute for oral arguments." he said. Justice SV Bhatti who was also recently appointed was also felicitated at the function.
In his address, Justice Bhuyyan recounted lessons from his early days as a judge." As a new judge, I read all the briefs meticulously and prepared notes. In one matter I wrote 'deserves dismissal'. My good friend the next day argued so effectively that I issued notice and granted ad interim stay".
At the outset, Singh argued that the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India amended Article 3 of the Constitution (which deals with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States) to also include within its ambit UTs. Here, he asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was not applicable to J&K on 5th August 2019. Thus, the nature of J&K could not have been altered. He said–
"Article 3 was not amended till the Eighteenth Amendment when those two explanations were inserted. Now the explanations have become the tail which is dragging the dog. Now any permutation and combination is available to the parliament under Article 3. This fiction that you can convert a State into UTs was never applied to the State of J&K.
Closing in on the eight day of arguments in the Article 370 pleas, the Supreme Court Constitution bench expressed its reservations towards accepting the argument that Article 370 had ceased to exist once the J&K Constitution was framed
The CJI said– "The net consequence would be that the Constitution of India in its application to J&K would stand frozen as of 1957. Therefore, no further development in Indian constitution can at all apply to J&K according to you. How can that be accepted?"
Underlining further consequences, the CJI continued–
"If Article 370 ceases to operate and Article 1 continues to operate, then J&K is an integral part of India. Surely, the jurisdiction of every democratically elected institution is not excluded...There has to be then a provision in Indian constitution which excludes its application to J&K. Article 5 says that the legislative and executive powers of the State would extend to all matters except those with respect to which parliament has power to make laws. That means provisions of constitution of india. That postulates that Indian constitution does apply to J&K. Unless we accept that Art 370 existed till 2019, there would be no trammel on the jurisdiction of parliament. If we accept your argument, there would be no restraint on the power of parliament."
Case Title: M/S OM SAI TRANSPORT SERVICES & ORS ETC v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
The Supreme Court has issued a notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the constitutional validity of ‘Mukhya Mantri Annadoot Yojna’, a scheme introduced by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for allotment of transportation work to unemployed persons.
Case: State of West Bengal v. Soumen Nandy
Citation: SLP(C) No. 15534/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the probe in West Bengal Municipality Recruitment Scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked prima facie that that the municipality recruitment scam appeared to be linked to the teachers recruitment scam(which is under the investigation of the CBI & ED).
Case Details: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023
The caste-based survey conducted by the Bihar government may have some ‘ramifications’, Solicitor-General for India Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Monday, on behalf of the central government.
While the court granted the Centre permission to file an affidavit, it reiterated its earlier stance on issuing a temporary halt to the caste survey. “You file an affidavit,” Justice Khanna told SG Mehta, before adding –“We are not staying anything. We are very clear about this. Unless a prima facie case is made out, we will not stay it.”
Case Title: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND ORS
Citation: Diary No. 23224-2023
An appeal filed by the Delhi Government challenging the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) decision to appoint Lt. Governor (LG) as head of a Solid Waste Monitoring Committee was listed today before the Supreme Court. A Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, heard the appeal.
Will Lay Down Guidelines For Courts To Summon Government Officers: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday orally remarked that it would lay down guidelines pertaining to appearance of Government officials before courts in litigation that involves the Government.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which took into custody Special Secretary (Finance) and Secretary (Finance) of the Uttar Pradesh government over the non-compliance of directions to provide domestic help and other facilities for retired judges.
The Apex Court had earlier directed the immediate release of the officers who were taken into custody and stayed the order.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta shared his views on marital rape in the backdrop of Right to Privacy. Justice Gupta was delivering an online lecture on the topic “Developments in Fundamental Rights in Last Decade” as part of LiveLaw's 10th anniversary lecture series.
On being asked about his views on the issue of marital rape, which is pending in the Supreme Court for adjudication, he replied: “Women has a right to say no. She has a right to say no to her husband also. …Just because you are husband and wife, wife does not have a right to say no to have sex? When she says no then it means no. There is nothing more to it. It is a very simple argument. It is just that we have to outgrow our patriarchal and archaic system of thought. Otherwise, there is nothing. This is the most simple thing on earth.”
Case title: M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. LATHA RAJANIKANTH |LATHA RAJANIKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation- SLP(Crl) No. 009818 - / 2022| SLP(Crl) 8327/2022
A Chennai-based company has approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of an alleged cheating case against actor Rajinikanth's wife Latha Rajinikanth.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala agreed to post the special leave petition filed by M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed the cheating case Latha, on September 8, 2023.
Case Details: Jyoti Jagtap v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5997 of 2023
Deciding the bail application of activist and Bhima Koregaon-accused Jyoti Jagtap would involve a determination of whether her case 'fits the formula' in which the bail pleas of co-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were decided, the Supreme Court orally observed on Tuesday, while adjourning Jagtap's bail hearing until September 21.
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5442 of 2023
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to pin-point the specific role attributed to Islamic cleric Maulana Kaleem Siddique in the case over the alleged running of a mass conversion racket.
The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea filed by the State against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Siddiqui, almost eighteen months after his arrest for allegedly running a conversion syndicate in the state.
The Supreme Court registry today(Aug 22) issued a circular detailing comprehensive guidelines to streamline the process of filing written submissions and compilations before constitution benches and important final hearing cases.
The guidelines, laid out in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), are set to provide a structured framework for filing soft copies of written submissions and creating common compilations of essential documents, rules, precedents, and timelines for oral arguments.
Case Title: Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004
The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has filed an application for the withdrawal of its oral undertaking given in November 2022 promising to maintain status quo on the commercial cultivation of genetically modified mustard. The undertaking was made before a bench headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who has since retired.
Supreme Court Is Not A Poly-Vocal Court, It Is A People-Centric Court: CJI DY Chandrachud
The Chief Justice Of India D Y Chandrachud on Tuesday speaking at the felicitation ceremony of newly appointed Supreme Court judges Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice SV Bhatti, held by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) said that the 'Supreme Court is not a polyvocal court, rather it is a people-centric court'.
Speaking of the diverse background from which Justice Bhuyyan and Justice Bhatti come from the CJI said, "their elevation reaffirms that this is not the Supreme Court of just Delhi or Maharashtra. This is the Supreme Court of India. Our aim here is make sure that it reflects the diversity of India."
Case Details: Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19225 of 2021
The decision on whether chicken and other meat would be provided as a part of the midday meal menu to schoolchildren was a policy decision that should be left to the wisdom of the executive, the Lakshadweep administration told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea over the Lakshadweep administration’s decision to exclude chicken and other meat from the menu of midday meals for schoolchildren, as well as its order directing the closure of all dairy farms in the archipelago run by the animal husbandry department