This is the third part of the article covering 100 major Supreme Court judgments of 2021. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from January to June. The second part included judgments(53-75) delivered from July to October. The third part will cover judgments (76-100) from October to December. Read the first part here and the second part here.76. National Green Tribunal Has Suo...
76. National Green Tribunal Has Suo Motu Jurisdiction
[Case : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha; Citation : LL 2021 SC 549]
The Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which raised the issue whether NGT has suo motu jurisdiction (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases).
The Court held that the NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution as the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 (NGT Act) provides the Tribunal with wide ranging powers beyond that of a mere adjudicatory body.Opining on the intention behind the legislature in establishing such a tribunal, the Court held,
"NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament's intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT's fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court"
The Court also acknowledged that environmental impact on climate change is gaining increasing visibility in recent times and thus the NGT must be given the discretion to exercise suo moto powers in order to salvage adverse environmental consequences for generations to come.
77 .Director Of Enforcement Can Be Appointed For A Period Of More Than Two Years
[Case: Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 429]
The Supreme Court has held that a Director of Enforcement can be appointed for a period of more than two years by following the procedure prescribed Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai also upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years. It clarified that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.
The Court was delivering its judgment in a PIL that challenged the extension of tenure given to ED Director SK Mishra. The Court however held that SK Mishra's tenure should not be further extended.
Note : The Parliament later passed a law allowing the extension of the term of ED Director and CBI Chief up to five years.
78. Magistrates Cannot Extend Time To Complete Investigation In UAPA Cases
[Case: Sadique v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 434]
The Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi held.
79. PC Act Is A Code By Itself- Bank Account Of A Person Accused of Prevention of Corruption Act Cannot Be Attached U/S 102 CrPC
[Case: Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 440]
The Supreme Court has observed that bank account of a person accused under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attached invoking Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. "It is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed while allowing an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment. I
80 .Refund For Unutilised Input Tax Credit Can't Be Claimed On Account Of Input Services: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 54(3) CGST Act
[Case: Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 446]
The Supreme Court has held that Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Act excludes unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services. "When there is neither a constitutional guarantee nor a statutory entitlement to refund, the submission that goods and services must necessarily be treated at par on a matter of a refund of unutilized ITC cannot be accepted", the court observed while rejecting the challenge against Section 54(3) on the ground that it violates equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside the Gujarat High Court judgment which held that Rule 89(5) of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, by restricting the refund only to input goods, had acted ultra vires Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. It approved a Madras High Court judgment which upheld the Rule.
81.NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction To Condone Delay Exceeding 15 Days From Period Of 30 Days, Contemplated U/s 61(2) IBC
[Case: National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli; Citation: LL 2021 SC 453]
The Supreme Court observed that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has no jurisdiction to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
82. Moratorium Ordered U/Sec.14 IBC Does Not Apply To Proceedings In Respect Of Directors/Management Of Corporate Debtor
[Case: Anjali Rathi v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 462]
The Supreme Court has observed that the moratorium ordered under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not apply in respect of the directors/management of the Corporate Debtor. It applies only in relation to the Corporate Debtor and against its directors/management, proceedings could continue, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed.
83. Summoning And Detaining A Person Without There Being Any Crime Registered Against Him Illegal
[Case: M.A Khaliq v. Ashok Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 472]
The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of basic principles. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
84 . Supreme Court Recalls Suo Motu Extension Of Limitation With Effect From October 2; Period From 15.03.2020 To 02.10.2021 Stands Excluded From Computing Limitation
[Case: In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 498]
The Supreme Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021 the limitation period for filing of cases in view of the COVID second wave. The Court said that the suo motu extension of limitation period will stand withdrawn with effect from October 2, 2021. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant made these observations in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation.
85.Office Bearers Of Bar Association Are To Be Elected By Advocates Regularly Practicing In That Court; Outsiders Cannot Be Permitted To Take Part
[Case: Amit Sachan & Anr v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh ; Citation: LL 2021 SC 507]
The Supreme Court has observed that office-bearers of the Bar Association are to be elected by genuine voters and advocates genuinely/regularly practising in the High Court/Court concerned. Outsiders not regularly practicing in that court cannot be permitted to hijack the system by permitting them to take part in the election process of electing members of the Bar Association, the Court added.
86. Right To Apply For Bail Is An Individual Right Implicit In Articles 14, 19 & 21
[Case: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan and Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 523]
Disapproving the blanket orders passed by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court to not list applications for bail and suspension of sentence as urgent matters during the lockdown, the Supreme Court has observed that the right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court has observed that such blanket bans would suspend Fundamental Rights of individuals and block access for seekers of liberty to apply for bail. A Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose made the observations while delivering the judgement in special leave petitions filed against orders of the Rajasthan High Court which directed the Registry to not to list bails, appeals, applications for suspension of sentence in appeals and revisions in the category of extreme urgent matters.87. Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC's Total Ban Of Firecrackers In West Bengal; State To Ensure No Import Of Banned Firecrackers
[Case: Goutom Roy and Anr v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 629]
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which imposed a complete ban on the use of firecrackers in the State of West Bengal. "...we are convinced that Calcutta High Court should have called upon parties to give explanation before passing such an extreme order", the Court observed in the order. The Court observed that the High Court ought to have given opportunities to the authorities to place on record if any mechanism was in place to ensure that only "green crackers", as permitted by the Supreme Court, are being used. While setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court also gave liberty to any party to approach the High Court with adequate materials. "There cannot be a complete ban of firecrackers. Strengthen the mechanism to stop misuse", orally observed the bench during the course of the hearing.
88. Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not 'Deficiency Of Service' For Filing Consumer Complaint
[Case: Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit; Citation: LL 2021 SC 636]
The Supreme Court has observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be deficiency in service on his/her part. "In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
89. Compensation / Penalty Cannot Be Restricted To Value Of Illegally-Mined Mineral; Cost Of Restoration Of Environment Also To Be Considered
[Case: Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 638]
The Supreme Court has observed that the compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value of illegally-mined mineral. The cost of restoration of the environment, as well as the cost of ecological services, should be part of the compensation, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and BR Gavai observed. The polluter, according to the court, is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
90. Supreme Court Upholds Application Of RERA To Real Estate Projects Ongoing At Act's Commencement
[Case: Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 641]
The Supreme Court has upheld the retroactive application of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the real estate projects which were ongoing at the commencement of the Act. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose observed that the RERA Act does not apply to the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted at the commencement of the Act. The Court rejected the contentions raised by Promoters/Developers that the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the statutory provisions especially Section 3 of the RERA, the court observed that all "ongoing projects" that commence prior to the Act and in respect to which completion certificate has not been issued are covered under the Act. It said: "It manifests that the legislative intent is to make the Act applicable not only to the projects which were yet to commence after the Act became operational but also to bring under its fold the ongoing projects and to protect from its inception the inter se rights of the stakeholders, including allottees/home buyers, promoters and real estate agents while imposing certain duties and responsibilities on each of them and to regulate, administer and supervise the unregulated real estate sector within the fold of the real estate authority."
Also Read: Condition Of Pre-Deposit For Filing Appeal U/Sec 43(5) RERA Not Discriminatory Against Promoters
Also Read: RERA Authority Can Delegate Single Member To Decide Homebuyers' Complaint Under Section 31
91. Preliminary Enquiry By CBI In Corruption Cases Not Mandatory; Accused Cannot Demand It As Of Right
[Case : Central Bureau of Investigation vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi; Citation : LL 2021 SC 551]
The Supreme Court has held that preliminary enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation in cases of corruption is not mandatory.
"In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a "source information" discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.
"An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted", the Court stated in the judgment.
92. Section 482 CrPC - High Court Must Furnish Reasons For Issuing Interlocutory Direction At Interim Stage
[Case : Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs State of Gujarat; Citation : LL 2021 SC 642]
The Supreme Court has observed that while issuing an interlocutory direction at an interim stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court must furnish reasons.
"Even at the interim stage, the High Court must demonstrate an application of mind and furnish reasons for issuing any interlocutory direction, which is capable of being tested before this Court in an appropriate case", a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.
The bench referred to the dictum laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra LL 2021 SC 211 in this regard.
93. Mere Support To Terrorist Organization Without Intention To Further Its Activities Does Not Attract Section 38/39 UAPA
[ Case :Thwaha Fasal vs. Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 605]
In its judgment restoring the bail granted to Thwaha Fasal and Allan Shuhaib, the Supreme Court observed that mere support given to a terrorist organization or mere association with it, is not sufficient to attract offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The association and the support have to be with intention of furthering the activities of a terrorist organisation, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
94. UAPA- State Police Has Duty To Continue Investigation Of Schedule Offence Till NIA Actually Takes It Over
[ Case:Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs State of Maharashtra; Citation : LL 2021 SC 576]
The Supreme Court has observed that the State police has a duty to continue with the investigation of a scheduled offence under the NIA Act till the National Investigating Agency actually takes it over.
The court added that mere renumbering of the case filed by the NIA did not take away the power of the State police (ATS) to continue the investigation.
95. Pension Shall Be Determined On Rules Existing At The Time Of Retirement
[ Case : Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair V. Cochin University Of Science And Technology; Citation : LL 2021 SC 701]
The Supreme Court has observed that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. The Court also observed that the law did not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.
96. Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Asked to Remove Prosthetic Limbs At Airport Security Checks
[Case : Jeeja Ghosh vs Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 704]
In a petition filed to ensure convenient air travel for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday observed that differently abled persons with prosthetic limbs/calipers should not be asked to remove the prosthetics at airport security checks so as to maintain human dignity.
The Court also observed that lifting a person with disability during air travel or security checkup is inhumane, and held that the same should not be done without the person's consent.
97. States Should Not Deny Ex-Gratia For COVID Deaths On Ground That Death Certificate Does Not Mention COVID As Cause Of Death
[ Case: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 536]
The Supreme Court ordered that no state should deny the ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000 to the kin of persons who died of COVID on the sole ground that the death certificate does not mention COVID as the cause of death.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna passed the order while approving the guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority for grant of compensation in COVID death cases.
The bench also said that the next kin of the deceased shall be paid an amount of Rs 50,000 from the State Disaster Response Funds and it will be over and above the amounts paid by centre and state under various benevolent schemes.
Such amount will be disbursed within 30 days of submitting application and cause of death being certified as of COVID19.
The court has also directed the publication of the details of the district level authorities and grievance redressal committee in media.
98. NCDRC Can Direct Deposit Of Entire Or More Than 50% Of Amount Determined By SCDRC For Stay
[Case : Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others; Citation : LL 2021 SC 714]
In a significant judgment on the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC) can direct the deposit of the entire amount or more than 50% of the amount determined by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for conditional stay.
The Court added that however to pass such an order, the NCDRC has to pass a speaking order assigning cogent reasons.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna laid down this dictum in a case involving the interpretation of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribes pre-deposit for filing appeal before the NCDRC
99. Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Version In Consumer Cases Pending On 04.03.2020 Not Impacted By CB Judgment
[Case :Diamond Exports and another versus United India Insurance Co Ltd and others; Citation : LL SC 736]
100. Court Cannot Second Guess Infrastructural Needs Of Armed Forces: SC Allows Widening Of 'Char Dham' Highway
[Case : Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India; Citation : LL 2021 SC 737]
While allowing the Ministry of Defence's plea to allow the double lane widening of the Char Dham highway due to strategic reasons, the Supreme Court said that it cannot second-guess the infrastructural needs of the Armed Forces.
This observation was made by the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud while allowing an application filed by the Ministry of Defence for the double-lane widening of roads that are part of the 899-km Char Dham project in Uttarakhand. The court said it is impermissible to interrogate the policy choice of the establishment which is entrusted by law with the defence of the nationAlso Read :
100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2, Judgments 53-75]
Reports of previous years :
Good & Bad : 65 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2020
Good & Bad : 50 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2019
The Good And Bad : Read 35 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2018
Read 25 Important Judgment Of Supreme Court Of India Delivered In 2017
Best Of 2016: Read 25 Significant Judgments Of Supreme Court of India in 2016
Best of 2015; Read 25 Significant Judgments delivered by Supreme Court of India this year
Reminiscing 2014: 15 judgments by the Apex Court that altered the course