Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here.76. District Judge Selection | HC's Full Court Resolution Can't Introduce Cut-Off For Interview Against Rules : Supreme CourtCase Details: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636After a legal battle of nine years, a District Judge...
Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here.
Case Details: Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 294/2015
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 636
After a legal battle of nine years, a District Judge aspirant got relief as the Supreme Court recently held him eligible for appointment after invalidating the decision of the Manipur High Court to prescribe minimum cut-off marks for interview. A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti noted that the relevant statutory rule governing the recruitment of District Judges, the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, did not provide for a separate cut-off for interview. Hence, such a requirement could not have been introduced through a Full Court resolution without amending the rules. Also, the requirement of a separate cut-off for the interview was not specified in the advertisement and was introduced only after the written test, that too without intimating the candidates.
77. Sale of Lottery By State Not Service; Lottery Wholesalers Not Liable To Service Tax : Supreme Court
Case Details: K. Arumugam v. Union of India & Others Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.2842-2848 of 2012 (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The sale of lottery tickets by a State Government is not a service but an activity to earn additional revenue, observed the Supreme Court. Hence, the wholesale lottery purchasers are not promoting or marketing any service rendered by the State so as to attract service tax liability under the head "business auxiliary service."
The appellants before the Supreme Court were wholesale lottery purchasers, who bulk purchase lotteries from the State at a discount and sell them to retailers on a margin.
The issue before the Court was whether the lottery wholesalers were liable to pay service tax under the heading 'business auxiliary service' in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The tax authorities contended that the activity of the appellants amounted to "promotion or marketing of services provided by the client" which comes under the head "business auxiliary service" as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994.
Case Details: Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 664
While directing the Himachal Pradesh High Court Collegium to reconsider the elevation of two District Judges, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation.
The Court reiterated that the decision has to be taken collectively by the Collegium (comprising CJ and two senior judges) after deliberations.
"The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members.The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained," observed the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
79. Supreme Court: PMLA Takes Precedence Over CrPC in Summoning Procedure
Case Details: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Crl.A. No. 2221-2222/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 674
The provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in relation to the summoning of a person, held the Supreme Court in the judgment dismissing the appeals of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate for their appearance in Delhi in connection with a coal scam case.
80. Accused In Custody Can Seek Anticipatory Bail For Another Case : Supreme Court
Case Details: Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Anr. Diary No. - 51276/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 675
The Supreme Court held that an accused already in custody in connection with one case can apply for anticipatory bail in connection with another case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a case which raised the legal issue whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is arrested in another case.
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, WP (C) No 551 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 678
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel amidst the ongoing war against Gaza.
The Court said that it was beyond its jurisdiction to direct the Government of India to not export materials to any country, as it was a matter which was completely within the domain of foreign policy.
Case Details: Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 691
The Supreme Court observed that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolishing a legally constructed property, and the Court cannot ignore such demolition threats in a nation governed by the rule of law.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”, the Court observed.
Case Details: Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 023320/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
84. Supreme Court Grants Bail To Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal In CBI Case
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR registered in the Delhi liquor policy case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced verdict on two petitions filed by the Aam Aadmi party chief challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the CBI case. It had heard the matter and reserved orders on September 5.
Justice Kant held that Kejriwal's arrest was legal and did not suffer from any procedural irregularity. There is no merit in the contention that the CBI failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41/41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure while arresting him, the judge said.
At the same time, both the judges were unanimous in the decision to grant bail to Kejriwal considering the fact that the chargesheet has been filed in the case and that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Kejriwal's continued incarceration would infringe upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court said.
While Justice Kant upheld the arrest, Justice Bhuyan had a differing view regarding the necessity and timing of Kejriwal's arrest.
Remarking that CBI's arrest raised more questions than it sought to answer, Justice Bhuyan noted that CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for over 22 months and arrested him on the cusp of his release in the ED case.
However, both Justices Kant and Bhuyan dismissed Kejriwal's petition challenging the CBI arrest.
Case Details: Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish Diary No.- 8562 - 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728
Setting aside a Madras High Court judgment which held that mere storage of child pornographic material without any intention to transmit the same was not an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the Supreme Court on September 23 held that the storage of such material, without deleting or without reporting the same, would indicate an intention to transmit.
Observing that the High Court committed an "egregious error" in quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the decision set it aside and restored the criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that watching child pornography over the internet without downloading would also amount to "possession" of such material in terms of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
86. UAPA | Timelines For Sanction Mandatory, Have To Be Strictly Followed : Supreme Court
Case Details: Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729
"In matters of strict construction, when a timeline is provided, along with the use of the word 'shall' and particularly when the same is in the context of a law such as the UAPA, it cannot be considered a mere technicality or formality," the Supreme Court observed.
A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol made these observations in the context of the grant of sanctions under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 where divergent views have been found in the judgments of the High Courts.
The Supreme Court held that a sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) can be challenged on grounds such as the authority has not applied its mind or that the materials were not sufficient. However, such challenge by the accused must ideally be raised at the earliest opportunity.
Case Details: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750
The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.
A bench on Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.
88. Mere Existence Of Benchmark Disability Won't Disqualify Candidate From MBBS Course: Supreme Court
Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770
The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of a benchmark disability is not a reason to bar a person from pursuing medical education unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that that candidate is incapacitated from studying the MBBS course.
Mere quantification of the disability will not disbar a candidate and the capacity to pursue the course has to be examined by the disability assessment board
The negative opinion of the disability assessment board is not final and can be reviewed by the judicial bodies till appellate forums are created, the Court added.
Case Details: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
The Supreme Court laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.
The Court struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.
Case Details: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal C.A. No. 8629/2024 and 726 connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 772
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts which held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act) (TOLA) 2021 will not extend the time limit for issuing notices for re-assessment under the Income Tax Act.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment allowing a batch of 727 appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the various orders passed by the High Courts.
Case Details: Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 774
The Supreme Court held that if construction of a building is essential for supplying services such as renting out, it could fall into the "plant" exception to section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act which provides that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed for construction material (other than plant or machinery) for immovable property construction.
“If the construction of a building was essential for carrying out activity of supplying services such as renting or giving on lease or other transactions in respect of the buildings or part thereof which are covered by clauses 2 and 5 of the Schedule 2 of the CGST Act, the building could be held as a plant. Functionality test will have to be applied to decide whether building is a plant”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held that the functionality test will have to be applied to the facts of each case to decide whether a building is a plant.
Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 777
The Supreme Court cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.
A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings.
"Casual observations may well reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society," the bench observed in the order.
Case Details: Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (SC) 783
While granting relief to a female Sarpach of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.
The Court observed that the matter related to the removal of an elected representative should not be taken lightly, especially when it concerns women in rural areas.
94. Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority
Case Details: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 808
CJI DY Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. The majority held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.
Case Details: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Anr. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1234/2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 811
The Supreme Court has suggested to the Parliament to consider outlawing child betrothals by amending the Prevention of Child Marriage Act(PCMA), 2006. Since that PCMA does not deal with child betrothals, the Court noted that it can be used to evade the penalties under the Act.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was delivering the judgment in a PIL filed by the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action seeking steps to stop child marriages.
While issuing various guidelines for the prevention of child marriages, the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue whether the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006 overrides personal laws which sanction such marriages.
Case Details: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court urged the High Court judges to ensure that if they are pronouncing only the operative part of the judgment by saying that reasons will follow, then they should endeavour to give the reasons within 2-5 days.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that if a judge feels that the reasons can't be given within 5 days due to work pressure, then it would be prudent to reserve the judgment.
Case Details: Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran | Diary No. - 35406/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which closed the insolvency proceedings against ed-tech company Byju's (Think and Learn Pvt Ltd) accepting a settlement between it and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for about Rs 158 crores.
The Court held that the NCLAT erred in allowing the withdrawal of the insolvency application by invoking its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016. When there is a specific procedure provided for the withdrawal of insolvency applications, the NCLAT cannot invoke its inherent powers.
98. 'Legal Aid To Poor Should Not Be Poor Legal Aid: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Prisoners Get Free & Timely Legal Aid
Case Details: Suhas Chakma v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 1082/2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 828
The Supreme Court pronounced the judgment on a petition filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma seeking measures to ensure free and timely legal aid to prisoners.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to consider issuing practice directions to all Courts to append a coversheet to all judgments on conviction and dismissal including bail applications informing the convicts of their right to free legal aid facility for pursuing higher remedy.
99. Supreme Court Upholds Power Of States To Regulate Industrial Alcohol Under Term 'Intoxicating Liquor'; Justice Nagarathna Dissents
Case Details: State of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish C.A. No. 000151 / 2007 & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 832
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, held by 8:1 majority, held that the States have the power to regulate 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol'.
The majority concluded so by holding that the term "intoxicating liquor" in Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution will include industrial alcohol.
The majority held that the term "intoxicating liquor" cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only alcohol which is fit for human consumption. It was held that liquids which contain alcohol which can be used or misused for human consumption can be included within the term "intoxicating liquor".
Justice Nagarathna, in her dissent, held that 'industrial alcohol' means alcohol which is not fit for human consumption. An artificial interpretation cannot be adopted to give a different meaning to the term 'intoxicating liquor' which is contrary to the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
The 9 Judge Constitution bench comprised CJI DY Chandrachud,Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma And Augustine George Masih. The Court was essentially tasked to examine whether the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, of 1951 gave complete regulatory power to the Union on the subject of industrial alcohol.
100. Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP MadarsaEducation Act Except Its Provisions Regulating HigherEducation Degrees
Case Details: Anjum Kadari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.Diary No. 14432-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement which had struck it down earlier.
Case Details: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
The Supreme Court held by a majority of 7:2 that all private properties cannot form part of the 'material resources of the community' which the State is obliged to equitably redistribute as per the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Court held some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community'.
The 9-judge bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.v. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
The majority opinion was authored by the CJI, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.
Case Details: Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857
In a significant stride towards social recognition of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court stressed the need to give opportunities to PwDs in the medical sector and devise qualitative standards for testing disabilities in the procedure for medical course admissions.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its judgement allowed a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024. In doing so, the Court underlined that Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) needed to be perceived not with an element of sympathy but as an essential part of the society we live in today. It is imperative to further the cause of inclusion of the PwDs to achieve the national project of eradicating all forms of discrimination that the Country is scarred with.
Case Details: M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 841/2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
The Supreme Court held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.
If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.
Case Details: Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed midway after the selection process for posts has begun unless the relevant rules expressly permit so.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra had reserved its judgment on July 18, 2023
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs v. M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd. | R.P.(C) No. 000400 - / 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 867
The Supreme Court held that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) have the power to exercise powers under the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show-cause notices and recover duties
The Court held that DRI officers are "proper officers" to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Details: Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869
In the case relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:3 majority), overruled the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.
The issue whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench based on this view of the majority.
Case Details: Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
The Supreme Court ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors.
The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases.
Case Details: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884
Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.
Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.
The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held accountable.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the judgment in a batch of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners seeking directions to stop the trend of "bulldozer justice".
Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up stories can be read here.