As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our dear readers.The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers and.A disclaimer is added here that the...
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our dear readers.
The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers and.
A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence, the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case description.
The list of 100 judgments will be published in three parts and this is the second part containing 33 judgments. First part[1-33] can be read here. Third part [67-100] can be read here.
Here you go :
34. State Enactments Like Kerala/Gujarat Money Lenders Act Have No Application To NBFCs Registered Under RBI Act
The Court held that the state enactments such as Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act is a complete code in itself and the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs, is 'from the cradle to the grave'.
Case : Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited vs State of Kerala | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464
35. KEEP THE SEDITION LAW IN ABEYANCE: SUPREME COURT RULES IN A HISTORIC ORDER
In a historic development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
In an interim order, the Court urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance.
How Supreme Court's Order Has The Effect Of Suspending Sedition Cases Under Section 124A IPC?
36. Domestic Violence Victim Can Enforce Her Right To Reside In 'Shared Household' Even If She Has Not Actually Lived There: Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a significant verdict settling several questions related to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was held that a victim of domestic violence can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household.
The Court further held that every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence.
Case Title : Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474
37. Wife's Dying Declaration Can Be Used To Prove Cruelty Even If Husband Is Acquitted Of Charges Relating To Her Death
Overruling some of its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court observed that evidence of a deceased wife under Section 32 of Evidence Act with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title : Surendran vs State of Kerala | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482
38. Remission To Be Considered By Govt Of The State Where Crime Was Committed, Even If Trial Was Transferred To Another State
In the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court held that the Gujarat Government had the jurisdiction to decide the remission of convicts, even if the trial was held in the State of Mahrashtra. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath held so while allowing writ petition filed by one of the convicts. Recently, the bench dismissed an application filed by Bilkis Bano seeking review of the judgment.
Also Read - Supreme Court Ignored Binding Precedents While Dismissing Bilkis Bano's Review Petition
Case : Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
39. Supreme Court Orders Release Of Perarivalan, Life Convict In Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case
Exercising the powers under Article 142, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ordered the release of AG Perarivalan, who was serving life sentence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, considering the fact that he was undergoing sentence for 32 years and that the Tamil Nadu Government had recommended his remission in 2018, which the Governor kept pending for over four years.
The judgment also reiterated the important principle that the Governor is bound by the advice given by the State Government regarding remission. Also, with respect to the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Court held that the State Government is the "appropriate government" to decide the remission, instead of the Union Government.
Few months later, the Court ordered the release of the remaining convicts in the case as well, following the Perarivalan precedent.
40. National Green Tribunal Does Not Oust Jurisdiction Of High Courts; Direct Appeals From NGT To SC Do Not Undermine HCs
The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, which provides for the establishment of the NGT by the Central Government.
The Court also held that the National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also held that the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India.
Case : Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
41.Enhances Sentence Of Navjot Sidhu To One Year Imprisonment In 1988 Road Rage Case
The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of Congress leader and former Indian Cricket team member Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in a 1988 road rage accident in which a 65-year old person named Gurnam Singh had died.
A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul allowed the review petition preferred by the family of victim Gurnam Singh against its 2018 verdict that had reduced the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to a sentence of fine of Rs 1000 from 3 years imprisonment in the case.
42. GST Council Recommendations Not Binding On Parliament & State Legislatures
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Parliament and State Legislatures.
Though some of the recommendations of the GST council are binding on the Union and State Governments in relation to tax rate and taxable goods etc., by virtue of the provisions of the GST Act, it cannot mean that all recommendations are binding on the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
Case : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500
43. Management Of Private Medical Colleges Prohibited From Accepting Payment Of Fees In Cash: SC Issues Directions To Curb Capitation Fee Menace
The Supreme Court prohibited managements of private medical colleges from accepting payment of fees in cash.
This is to avoid charging of capitation fee. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also agreed to the suggestion for setting up web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students.
44.Supreme Court Overrules 1983 Judgment Which Held That Vacancies Arising Before Amendments Will Be Governed By Old Rules
The Supreme Court held that the conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority, are governed by the extant rules.
The three judge bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit overruled its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao which held that the appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended rules.
Case : State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
45. Sec 138 NI Act- Set Up Pilot Courts With Retired Judges For Cheque Bounce Cases In 5 States With Highest Pendency : Supreme Court
With a view of reduce the pendency of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh).
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court last year to deal with the pendency of cheque dishonour cases(In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act).
Case : IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
46. Supreme Court criticises 'sealed cover' process
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court criticized the Madras High Court adopting a "sealed cover procedure" by not sharing the copy of a preliminary enquiry report with a former Minister in relation to a corruption case investigation.
The judgment is also relevant for its discussion on the right of the accused to get copies of the materials under Section 207 CrPC and its connection with the right to fair trial.
Case : SP Velumani vs Arappor Iyakkam & Ors | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
Another related judgment - Sealed Cover Procedure Sets A Dangerous Precedent ; Affects Function Of Justice Delivery System : Supreme Court
47. Death Penalty -Trial Court Must Elicit Information From State & Accused On Mitigating Circumstances : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines
Observing that death sentences are most often imposed by the trial courts in a retributive sense, the Supreme Court has issued a set of practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of the accused are properly considered at the trial stage itself.
A bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi noted that in most cases, the information relating to the mitigating circumstances are collected at the appellate stage, and such information mostly relate to the post-conviction circumstances.
Also read another report about the judgment : Prosecution In All Criminal Cases Shall Furnish List Of Statements, Documents, Material Objects & Exhibits Not Relied Upon By Investigating Officer: Supreme Court
Case Title : Manoj & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
48. Compassionate Appointments Must Be Decided Within Six Months Of Applications
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna opined that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of the completed applications. The Apex Court was apprehensive that if the applications are not decided expeditiously, then the whole purpose of such appointments would be frustrated.
Case Title : Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa And Ors | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522
49. Arbitration Act - Dispose Sec 11(5) & 11(6) Applications Pending For Over 1 Year Within 6 Months : Supreme Court To High Courts
Expressing concerns about the long pendency of applications under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court issued directions for timely disposal of such matters.
50. Directions issued to prevent police harassment of sex workers, UIDAI asked to provide them Aadhaar cards
Asserting that the basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers, the Supreme Court has directed that the police should treat sex workers with dignity and should not abuse them, verbally or physically.
Further, the Court directed that media should not publish their pictures or reveal their identity while reporting rescue operations and stated that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code should be enforced if media publishes the pictures of sex workers with their clients. The Press Council of India has been directed to issue appropriate guidelines in this regard.
The Court also issued directions to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar Cards to sex workers without insisting on residence proof.
Case : : Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal And Ors|2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525
51. Supreme Court Mandates Minimum 1 KM ESZ For Protected Forests; Bans Permanent Structures There; No Mining In Wildlife Sanctuaries & National Parks
In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Friday directed that each protected forest should have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of 1 kilometre.
The Court further directed that no permanent structure will be allowed within the ESZ. Mining within national wildlife sanctuary or national park cannot be permitted.
If the existing ESZ goes beyond 1 km buffer zone or if any statutory instrument prescribes a higher limit, then such extended boundary shall prevail.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose passed the directions in applications filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case.
In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540
52. Supreme Court Dismisses Zakia Jafri's Plea Against SIT Clean Chit To Narendra Modi In 2002 Gujarat Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
A bench comprising Justices AK Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar dismissed the petition filed by Zakia Jafri seeking probe against the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi and high state functionaries for alleged larger conspiracy behind the Gujarat 2002 riots.
The Court observed that mere state failure or inaction during the riots cannot be basis to infer criminal conspiracy. While upholding the SIT findings completely, the judgment made certain harsh remarks against the petitioners by saying that the petition was an attempt to "keep the pot boiling" and said that the persons who abused the process of court must be put in the dock. Following the remarks of the Court, the Gujarat Police registered an FIR for alleged fabrication of evidence and arrested co-petitioner Teesta Setalvad and former Gujarat ADGP RB Sreekumar.
Case Title : Zakia Ahsan Jafri and another versus State of Gujarat and another |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 558
53. Supreme Court Sentences Vijay Mallya To 4 Months Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court; Asks Him To Deposit 40 Million US Dollars
The Supreme Court sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court.
Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The Court has directed Mallya to deposit 40 million US Dollars with 8 percent interest within 4 weeks with the concerned recovery officer, failing which attachment proceedings will be initiated against his properties. The Court also directed the Centre to secure the presence of Mallya in India for serving the sentence.
Case Title : State Bank of India and others vs Dr.Vijay Mallya | Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
54. "Democracy Can Never Be A Police State ": Supreme Court Stresses Importance Of Bail; Issues Guidelines To Prevent Unnecessary Arrest & Remand
In a very important order from the standpoint of personal liberty, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of the rule "bail over jail" and issued a slew of guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrest and remand.
The judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundersh, acknowledged that jails in India are flooded with undertrials.
Different reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case : Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
55. Bombay Blasts Case Convict Abu Salem Has To Be Released After 25 Years Of Sentence As Per Extradition Treaty With Portugal : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Abu Salem in the 1993 Bombay Blasts case has to remitted upon the completion of 25 years from the date of his detention in Portugal for extradition to India(12.10.2005), as the sovereign commitment made by the Government of India to the Republic of Portugal at the time of extraditing Salem to India was that his sentence will not exceed 25 years.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh directed that the Union Government is to place the necessary documents before the President within one month of completion of 25 years. The Bench also observed that the Central Government can itself consider remission in the said one month period upon completion of 25 years, in terms of Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2015]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
56. 'Detention Beyond Release Date Violates Article 21' : Supreme Court Grants Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation To Convict Kept In Prison In Excess Of Sentence Period
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs 7.5 Lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence.
"When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.
Case : Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
57. Preliminary Assessment To Try Juvenile As Adult - JJB Should Mandatorily Take Assistance Of Psychologist/Psycho-Social Workers : Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath held that when the Juvenile Justice Board does not comprise a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, it would be obligated to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts under proviso to Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act).
Case : Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu And Anr | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
58. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Independent Probe Into Alleged Extra-Judicial Killings Of Chhattisgarh Tribals By Forces With Rs 5 Lakh Costs
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed in 2009 seeking independent investigation into alleged extra-judicial killings of tribals in Chhattisgarh by security forces during anti-Naxal operations with an "exemplary cost" of Rs 5 lakhs.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala delivered the judgment on the petition filed by one Himanshu Kumar and 12 others in 2009.
The cost of Rs 5 lakhs is imposed on the first petitioner Himanshu Kumar, who has been directed to deposit the same within 4 weeks before the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, failing which recovery steps will be taken against him.
The Central Government had not only opposed the plea but also had filed an application seeking perjury proceedings against the petitioners alleging that they were depicting the executions carried out by Naxals as done by security forces.
Case : Himanshu Kumar and othes versus Union of India and others| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
59. All Women Entitled To Safe & Legal Abortion, Distinction Between Married & Unmarried Women Unconstitutional : Supreme Court
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court declared that unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship.
The Court ruled that exclusion of unmarried women who conceive out of live-in relationship from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules is unconstitutional.
"All women are entitled to safe and legal abortion", a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud said noting that the 2021 amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not make a distinction between married and unmarried women.
The judgment is also significant for holding that the meaning of rape must be held to include "marital rape" for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules. This means that wives, who conceive out of of forcible sex by their husbands, are also entitled to seek abortion. The judgment affirmed that consent of family or spouse is not required for a wife to seek termination of pregnancy.
Another notable facet of the judgment is its direction that in cases of teenage pregnancies, doctors need not disclose the identity of the minor victim to the police while reporting the crime under POCSO. The court passed this direction after noting that this condition of mandatory reporting might deter parents of the victim from seeking safe and legal abortion, for fear of social stigma.
60. "Arrest Must Not Be Used As Punitive Tool" : Supreme Court Says Mohammed Zubair Was "Trapped In Vicious Cycle Of Criminal Process"
The Supreme Court granted relief to fact-checker Mohammed Zubair by granting bail to him in the 6 FIRs registered by the UP Police over a satirical tweet posted in 2018, after noting that the criminal justice system was "relentlessly employed against" him and that he was trapped in a "vicious cycle of the criminal process".
The bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud further held that the "bail conditions must be proportionate" while refusing the UP Police's request that he should be asked not to tweet while out on bail.
"Merely because the complaints filed against the petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion - an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen - would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail."
Case : Mohammed Zubair vs State of NCT of Delhi and others| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629
61. Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions Filed By Private Tour Operators Seeking GST Exemption For Haj-Umrah Services
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar ,AS Oka and CT Ravikumar dismissed a batch of petitions filed by various private tour operators seeking exemption from the Goods and Services Tax for the Haj and Umrah services offered by them to pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia.
Case Title : All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632
62. Supreme Court Upholds ED's Power Of Arrest, Attachment, Search & Seizure And "Twin-Conditions" For Bail; Says PMLA Has Stringent Safeguards
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, upheld the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the PMLA, which relate to the powers of ED's power of arrest, attachment, search and seizure. The Court also upheld the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the Act and said that it has "reasonable nexus" with the objects of the Act.
The Court also upheld the "twin-conditions" for bail in Section 45 of the PMLA Act and said that the Parliament was competent to amend the said provision in 2018 even after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Nikesh Tharachand Shah case (which had struck down the twin conditions). The bench said that the Parliament is competent to amend Section 45 in the present form to cure the defects pointed out in the Supreme Court judgment.
63. Supreme Court Directs Pay Hike For Judicial Officers As Per Judicial Pay Commission Recommendations From January 1,2016; Arrears To Be Paid By June 30, 2023
Emphasizing on the need to revise the pay structure for the judicial officers, the Supreme Court ordered for implementation of the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016.
The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also directed the Center and the States to pay the arrears to the officers in 3 instalments - 25% in 3 months, another 25% in next 3 months and balance by June 30, 2023.
Case : All India Judges Association vs Union of India & Ors |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635
64. Mother Can Give Surname Of Second Husband To Child After Death Of Biological Father : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that a mother who remarries after the death of the biological father can decide the surname of the child and include it in her new family.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which directed a mother to change the surname of her child and also to show the name of her new husband in records only as 'step father'.
Case : Akella Lalita vs Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638
65. S. 313 CrPC - All Adverse Evidences Should Be Put As Questions; Avoid Bundling Circumstances Together With Only Single Opportunity To Explain
The Supreme Court observed that while examining an accused under Section 313 CrPC, all the adverse evidences has to put in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation.
"If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation.", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed. The court clarified such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him.
Case : Jai Prakash Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658
66. Hold In-Camera Trial In All Sexual Harassment Cases, Apart From Rape Cases; Disallow Questions On Sexual History
Reiterating the importance of the Courts dealing with the victims of sexual crimes in a sensitive manner, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the trial courts to avoid agony and harassment for women who file complaints of sexual harassment.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrchud and JB Pardiwala directed that in-camera trials should be allowed in all cases relating to sexual harassment. As per Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in-camera trials are mandated only in rape cases. This ambit has been expanded by the Court.
Case Title : XYZ versus State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676
Also Read -100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 1]
Also Read - 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part 3]
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/100-important-supreme-court-judgments-of-2022-part-3-217505