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.
67. When There Are Contradictory Dying Declarations, Which One To Accept? Supreme Court Answers "Difficult Question"
In a case of conflicting dying declarations, the Supreme Court relied on the one recorded after a medical examination with regard to the fitness of the deceased.
The Court explained the "difficult question" before it as follows :
"In the present case, we are faced with two dying declarations, which are totally inconsistent and contradictory to each other. Both are recorded by Judicial Magistrates. A difficult question that we have to answer is which one of the dying declarations is to be believed".
The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha opined that the court was required to examine as to whether a dying declaration was true and reliable; as to whether it had been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and; whether it had been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting.
Case : MAKHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
68. Pre-Institution Mediation Under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory; Suits Filed Violating This Liable To Be Rejected
In a judgment having far reaching impact in commercial litigations, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy declared that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre- institution mediation, is mandatory and suits which are filed violating this mandate are liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court has however made this declaration effective from August 22, 2022.
69. Section 3(2) Of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act Declared As Unconstitutional
A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli declared that Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 as unconstitutional on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary.
Section 3(2) prescribes the punishment for entering into benami transaction.
The Court further held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the 2016 amendment cannot be held as merely procedural.
Case : Union of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
70. 'Don't Confuse Or Confound Readers" : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Writing Simple & Lucid Judgments
Observing that the purpose of a judgment is not to "confuse or confound the readers", the Supreme Court has urged the Courts and Tribunals to "provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact" in their verdicts.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made this crucial observation while dealing with a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was found to be "incomprehensible".
Case : State Bank of India vs Ajay Kumar Sood | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
71. Family May Take Form Of Unmarried Or Queer Relationships, Atypical Families Also Entitled To Protection Of Law : Supreme Court
In a notable order, the Supreme Court has made certain significant observations which expand the traditional meaning of family.
"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships", the Court observed, while holding that atypical family units are also entitled to the equal protection of law.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna made these observations in a judgment delivered on August 16(but which was uploaded a few days ago), while granting the relief of maternity leave to a Central Government employee regardless of the fact that she had availed child care leave for the children of her husband from his earlier marriage.
Case : Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718
72. Arbitrators Cannot Unilaterally Fix Their Fee As It Violates Party Autonomy
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally fix their fees without the consent of the parties.
The Court further held that the fee scale prescribed under the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not mandatory.
Also From the judgment
Case details
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
73. 'Remission To Be Considered Without Application Once Convict Is Eligible' : Supreme Court Isses Slew Of Directions To UP Govt On Premature Release
In a batch of petitions challenging the 2021 amendment carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the Standing Policy Regarding Premature Release of Life Convicts, 2018, the Supreme Court passed directions regarding premature release. The decision of the Apex Court would have an impact on the consideration of the remission plea of about 512 convicts who are undergoing life imprisonment.
Case : Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P. And Anr | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754
74. "Once Buried, A Body Should Not Be Disturbed" : Supreme Court Suggests Enactment Of Law On Exhumation
The Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation.
"The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death..His family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions., the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case : Mohammed Latif Magrey vs Union Territory Of Jammu and Kashmir | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756
75. No Separate Domicile For States ; State Reorganization Cannot Take Away Fundamental Right Of Indian Citizens To Reside & Settle In Any Part Of Country: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.
The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.
Case : State of Telangana vs B. Subba Rayadu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767
76. Supreme Court Allows Amendment Of BCCI Constitution; Cooling Off Period Only After Two Consecutive Terms At BCCI Or State Association For Respective Levels
The Supreme Court allowed the amendments proposed to the Constitution of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) to relax the mandatory cooling off period requirement.
Now, the cooling off period of 3 years will apply only if a person serves two consecutive terms at the BCCI or the State Association. Also, the cooling off period requirement will apply at that particular level, i.e. either at the State Association or BCCI. In other words, the cooling off period requirement will not bar one from seeking election to the BCCI immediately after serving two consecutive terms at the State level.
Case : BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 770
77. Larger Bench Judgment Will Prevail Regardless Of Number Of Judges In Majority : Supreme Court Constitution Bench
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgment of a 7-judge bench delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench.
A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 778.
78. For "Insider Trading", Mere Possession Of Sensitive Information Not Enough; Actual Profit Motive Essential : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that merely because a person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information at the time go trading in securities, it cannot be held that the transaction becomes the mischief of "insider trading", unless it is established that there was an intention to take advantage of the information.
A distress sale of shares will not become "insider trading" merely because the person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.
Case : Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 787
79. Convicts Who've Completed 10 Years Of Sentence, Whose Appeals Won't Be Heard Soon, Should Be Released On Bail Unless There Are Other Reasons : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India opined that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence, and whose appeals will not be heard in the near future, should be enlarged on bail, unless there are other reasons to deny them bail.
A division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was considering a batch of petitions of life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before various High Courts.
Case : Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788
80. Supreme Court Doubts 2015 Judgment Which Directed RBI To Disclose Defaulters List; Says It Might Affect Customers' Privacy
The Supreme Court expressed prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar prima facie observed that the Jayantilal Mistry case did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The bench also noted that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right under Article 21 in a subsequent judgment delivered by a 9-judge bench in 2017 in the Puttaswamy case.
Holding so, the bench held as maintainable the writ petitions filed by various banks challenging the directions issued by the RBI seeking information from the banks relating to inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual financial inspection reports.
Case : HDFC Bank Ltd versus Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811
81. NCLT Has Discretion To Not Admit Financial Creditor's CIRP Application Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Default : Supreme Court
In a judgment having wide ramifications in the IBC litigation, the Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.
The court observed that, ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.
"Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits", the impugned judgment had observed.
However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari cautioned.
Later, the bench dismissed a petition seeking review of the judgment. While dismissing the review petition, the bench stated that the observations were made in the factual context of the case.
Case : Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587
82. No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act If Cheque Is Presented For Full Amount Without Endorsing Part Payment Made By Borrower
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no offence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out if the cheque is presented for the full amount without endorsing the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the cheque.
The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally enforceable debt" as per Section 138 NI Act, when it has been presented for encashment without endorsing the part-payment. Part-payments must be endorsed on the cheque as per Section 56 of the NI Act. If such endorsement is made, the cheque can be presented for the balance amount, and the offence under Section 138 NI Act will be attracted if such a cheque with endorsement of the part-payment gets dishonoured, explained the Court.
Case : Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel versus Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830
83. Supreme Court delivers split verdict in hijab case
The Supreme Court passed a split verdict on a batch of appeals challenging restriction on Muslim girl students wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.
Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the 26 appeals filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that hijab was not an essential practice of Islam and allowed the ban on wearing headscarf in educational institutions in the State.
Expressing the divergence in his opinion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment and held that the entire concept of essential religious practice was not essential to the dispute.
Read other reports about the verdict :
Hijab Verdict : Judges Express Contrasting Views Regarding Fraternity & Discipline
Case Title : Aishat Shifa versus State of Karnataka and others| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842
84. No Person Should Be Prosecuted Under Section 66A IT Act : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Shreya Singhal Judgment
The Supreme Court directed that no one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case.
The Court issued a slew of directions to the Director Generals of Police and Home Secretaries of all States to ensure that reference to Section 66A is removed from all pending cases. The Court also directed that the bareacts of the IT Act published should adequately inform the readers that Section 66A has been invalidated.
CASE TITLE: PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Versus UNION OF INDIA| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846
85.Profit Oriented Educational Trusts Can't Claim Income Tax Exemption; Education Must Be Sole Objective
The Supreme Court held that educational trust or societies, which seek exemption under Section 10 (23C) of Income Tax Act, should solely be concerned with education, or education related activities.
Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval , the bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha observed.
The court overruled its earlier judgments which interpreted the expression 'solely' in Section 10(23C) as the 'dominant / predominant /primary/ main' object. However, it clarified that the law declared in the present judgment shall operate only prospectively.
Case : New Noble Educational Society vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859
In another related judgment Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865, the Supreme Court held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.
Related reports from the judgment - Advancement Of General Public Utility Won't Be "Charitable Purpose" For Income Tax Exemption If It Is Done As Business
86. License To Use Software Is "Deemed Sale";Service Tax Not Leviable On Ground That Updates Are Provided : Supreme Court In QuickHeal's Case
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax seeking to levy service tax to the tune of over Rs 56 crores on Quick Heal Technologies Ltd for its sale of anti-virus software during the period 2012-2014.
The Court held that the sale of software in CDs/DVDs is a sale of goods and once sales tax has been paid on the sale consideration, service tax is not leviable on the same transaction on the ground that updates are being provided to the customer.
Case : Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi versus Quick Heal Technologies Ltd |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660
87. Take Suo Motu Action Against Hate Speech Crimes Without Waiting For Complaint : Supreme Court
Observing that the "there cannot be fraternity unless different religious communities are available to live in harmony", the Supreme Court on Friday issued a set of interim directions in a plea to curb hate speeches in the country.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed the Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to file a report before the Court regarding the actions taken on the hate speech crimes which happened within their jurisdiction.
Importantly, the Court directed that these Governments should take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint. Cases should be suo motu registered and the offenders should be proceeded against in accordance with law. The action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Any hesitation to act as per the directions would be viewed as contempt of court, the Court warned.
Case : Shaheen Abdullah versus Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872
88. Supreme Court Upholds EWS Quota By 3:2 Majority; CJI Lalit & Justice Bhat In Minority
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Read Other Reports About The Judgment–
50% Ceiling Limit For Reservation Flexible: Supreme Court In EWS Quota Case
[EWS Quota] Why Supreme Court's Minority Judgment Did Not Read Down 103rd Constitutional Amendment ?
SC/ST/OBC Exclusion From EWS Quota Logical, Necessary To Avoid Double Benefits: Supreme Court
CASE TITLE: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922
89. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Disposing Cases Through Plea Bargaining, Compounding Of Offences & Probation Of Offenders Act
A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka issued the following guidelines for disposal of criminal cases by resorting to the triple method of plea bargaining, compounding of offences and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Case - RE: POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 889
90. Supreme Court Bans Two-Finger Test; Says It's Based On Patriarchal Mindset That Sexually Active Women Can't Be Raped
The Supreme Court prohibited "Two-Finger Test" in rape cases and warned that persons conducting such tests will be held guilty of misconduct.
It is regrettable that "two-finger test" continues to be conducted even today, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli lamented while restoring the conviction in a rape case.
"This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases alleging rape and sexual assault. The so called test has no scientific basis. It instead re-victimises and re-traumatises women. The two finger test must not be conducted....The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the truth", the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment.
Case : State of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890
Also from the judgment - Dying Declaration Does Not Become Inadmissible Merely Because Police Officer Recorded It : Supreme Court
91. State Failed To Maintain Law & Order During 1992-93 Bombay Riots; Victims Must Be Compensated
Almost thirty years after the communal riots which rocked Bombay in 1992-93 after the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for payment of compensation to the families of victims and for revival of criminal cases which are lying dormant.
A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka observed that there was a failure on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case : Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910
92. Supreme Court Upholds Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014; Extends Cut-Off Date For Option; Holds Condition For Additional Contribution As Invalid
In a crucial judgment, the Supreme Court held the provisions of the Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 to be legal and valid. However, so far as the present members of the fund are concerned, the Court has read down certain provisions of the scheme.
While allowing the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization and the Union Government challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014, the bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aniruddha Bose read down certain provisions of the scheme.
93. Leave Travel Concession Is For Travel Within India; TDS To Be Deduced From LTC If Foreign Visit Is Involved
The Supreme Court has observed that Leave Travel Concession (LTC) is not for foreign travel and is meant for travel within India.
The moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel within India and hence not covered under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act.
Case : State Bank of India vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 917
94. "Education Is Not Business ; Tuition Fee Shall Always Be Affordable" : Supreme Court Quashes GO Enhancing Private Medical College Fees By 7 Times
"Education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be affordable", the Supreme Court remarked while setting aside a Government order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.
Case : Narayana Medical College vs State of Andhra Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929
95. Centre Withholding Names Reiterated By Collegium Unacceptable : Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka passed a stern order slamming the Centre for withholding approval for names reiterated by the collegium for appointment as judges. While expressing disapproval of the Centre's inaction, the Court stated that the collegium system has sufficient checks and balances. The Court made these observations while considering a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru against the Centre not acting as per collegium reiterations.
In a subsequent order passed in the same case, the Court highlighted the issue of advocates becoming reluctant to accept offer for judgeship due to delay in appointments. The Court also reminded the Centre that the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges has been finalised by the Collegium way back in 2017.
Case : The Advocates' Association Bengaluru v. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary (Justice) |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949
Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
96. All Muslim Public Trusts Not Waqf: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that all Muslim public trusts will not amount to a "waqf".
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that there is a difference between 'waqf' and a public trust created by a Muslim. Hence, the Court "cannot paint all Muslim public trusts with the same brush as treat them as waqf".
Case : Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
97. Section 319 CrPC Power Has To Be Exercised Before Pronouncement Of Sentence In Case Of Conviction : Supreme Court Constitution Bench
The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case : Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab |2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
98. Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
99. Scheduled Tribe Women Not Entitled To Any 'Right Of Survivorship' Under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court Urges Centre To Bring Suitable Amendment
The Supreme Court held that a female member of the scheduled tribe is not entitled to any right of survivorship under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari urged the Central Government to consider whether it is necessary to bring a suitable amendment to Hindu Succession Act in this regard.
"To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe." the bench said.
Case : Kamla Neti (D) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
100. 'Collegium Discussions Cannot Be In Public Domain' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Disclose Details Of Dec 2018 Meeting Under RTI
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought for details of the Supreme Court collegium's meeting of December 12, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, observing that the discussion cannot be disclosed to the public and that only the final decision of the Collegium need to be uploaded in the website.
The Court observed that only the final resolution can be considered as the decision and whatever is discussed is not required to not be in public domain, that too under the RTI Act.
Case : Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
Also Read :