IndexCitationsAshok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 941Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 943Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13708 - 13709 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 944Irfan Khan v. State (NCT of...
Index
Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 941
Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942
Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 943
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13708 - 13709 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 944
Irfan Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 945
M/s Grasim Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 946
R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 947
Bijay Agarwal v. M/s Medilines 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 948
X v. State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 949
Kabir Shankar Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 950
Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951
Abhay Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 952
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 953
Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 954
State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 955
State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir| Crl.A. No. 004931 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 956
Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 957
P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 958
Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 959
Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 960
Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 961
Nalin Choksey v. The Commissioner of Customs, Kochi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 962
Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others | SLP(C) No. 10098 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963
Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 964
National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 965
Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 966
Leela Agrawal v. Sarkar & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 967
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 968
Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969
Kirpal Singh v. Government of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P Ravikumar and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 971
Ms. X v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284/2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 972
Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 973
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram, Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 975
Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976
Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 977
Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 978
Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 979
Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 980
Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981
Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12516/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 982
Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 983
Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 984
Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 985
Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 986
Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 13870/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987
Dechamma IM @ Dechamma Kaushik v. State of Karnataka 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 988
Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 989
State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 990
Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991
Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 992
Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26568/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993
Union of India v. Rohit Nandan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 994
Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 995
Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 997
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 998
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 999
Irfan Akbani & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| SLP(C) No. 26511/2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1001
X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC)1002
Jyoti Limited v. BSE Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat| Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Athar Parwez v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
Deepti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1007
Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010
Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1011
Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1012
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s Madhan Agro Industries (Pvt) Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Anr v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
Hyder v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1016
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Vivek v. Gawde Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1017
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1018
Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1019
Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020
Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021
Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1904 of 2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1022
Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024
Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1025
Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026
Noida Toll Bridge Company v. Federation of Noida RWA, SLP(C) No. 33403/2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (Das) and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028
China Development Bank v. Doha Bank OPSC and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
Amutha v. AR Subramanian 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030
Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1031
Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, SLP(Crl) No. 12120/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033
Hongkong Andshanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Awaz . and Ors., C.A. No. 5273/2008 & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1034
Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1036
Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1037
Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038
Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1039
Union of India & Ors. v. NM Raut & Ors., SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042
Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1043
Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal (D) By Lrs v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare, Arising Out of SLP (C.) Nos. 11716-11717 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1044
Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo, SLP(Crl) No. 15189/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1045
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1046
State of West Bengal and Ors v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1047
Nadeem v. State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1048
Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1049
K. Vidhya Kumar v. The Deputy Director and Anr. MA 2454/2024 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024
AM Bhukharee v. Kshitijkumar Satishbhai Banker and Ors. SLP (C) 27304/2024
Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024
Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No.44584/2024
S. Bhargav Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 476/2024
Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 28828/2024
We The Women Of India v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021
v. Venu and Ors. v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli) | SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
Akshaya Katiyar v. Ajay Kumar Sahu | C.A. No. 007313 - / 2022
R. Prashanth v. Ashok Kumar M. | SLP(C) No. 020871 - / 2021
Harbhajan Singh (Dead) & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors., SLP (C) 9948/2018
S S v. Rajat Gupta & Ors., Civil Appeal No.13447/2024
Union of India v. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja, Executive Officer, Diary No. 23843-2023
Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26568/2023
Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.11919/2024
R.M. Babu Murugavel v. Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M. Appavu, SLP(Crl) No. 16265/2024
Dr. L. Murugan v. Murasoli Trust, SLP (Crl) No. 12091-12092/2023
G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya v. State of Karnataka., SLP(C) No. 26848/2023
Rahul Kakran v. Ravi Rai | C.A 13659/2024
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Manipur., SLP(Crl) No. 9379-9380/2024
Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998
C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 795/2024
Sami Ullah and Ors. v. Zulfikar Nasir and Ors. Crl.A. No. 1547-1549/2018 and connected cases
Tina Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 735/2024
E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003
Manojbhai Varjangbhai Mori v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27622/2024
Balwan Khokhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Crl.A. No. 1665-1666/2019
Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., SLP(C) No. 18653/2024
Yogamaya MG v. Union of India | Diary No. 48246/2024
Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei | Diary No. - 19206/2023
Anam Khan and Another v. Consortium of National Law Universities | Diary No.56811/2024
Gaurav Luthra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 802/2024
Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024
Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Dr. Solamon A v. State of Kerala, SLP(C) No. 3946/2023
The Food Corporation of India and Anr v. Namita Paul Diary No. 50350-2024
Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024
Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., Diary No. 52096/2024
D.K Shivakumar v. The Income Tax Department, SLP(Crl) No. 3128/2020 (and connected cases)
Common Cause v. Abhijat and Ors., CONMT.PET. (C) No. 550/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 821/1990
PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Anr.
Rachana Gangu and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1220/2021
Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. 57476-2024
Anmol v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27632/2024
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
Karan Singh Dalal & Anr. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 822/2024
Savya Sachi Krishnan Nigam v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 45679/2024
M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 48030-2024
State of Haryana v. Rajan Kapur & Anr. Etc. | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.14734-14736 of 2024
Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Jubair Bhati & Anr.
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024
Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 43648-2024
V. Shrinivasan v. THG Publishing Private Limited |D No. 58560/2024
Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited
V. Venu and Others v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
Sanjay Badaya v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 15953/ 2024
State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Pandit Varun Mehta v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 17846/2024
Thiruvambady Devaswom and Anr v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 30389-30390/2024
Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
Aruna Roy & Ors v. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors. | Diary no. 58833/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
Arun Baburao Phalke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP(C) No.7278/2020
Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo., SLP(Crl) No.15189/2024
Madhu Koda v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1340/2019
K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.
Surya Prakash v. Union of India, Diary No. 23982/2023
Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India with connected cases
State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024
Reports/Judgments
'Legal Aid Must Be Effective; Prosecutors Must Ensure Fair Trial': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Legal Aid Lawyers, Prosecutors
Case Details: Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 941
The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the role of the Public Prosecutor and the appointment of Legal Aid Counsels in upholding procedural fairness and the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal trials.
The Court said that the Public Prosecutor must assist the Trial Court in recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, ensuring all incriminating material circumstances are presented to the accused. While ensuring offenders are punished, the Prosecutor must also prevent infirmities in the trial that could prejudice the accused, the court added.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih issued the following directions while overturning the conviction of a person accused of raping and murdering a minor girl who was not afforded proper legal aid during the trial and was not provided incriminating evidence during recording his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
'Soldier's Widow Should Not Have Been Dragged To Court': Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 50K Cost On Centre For Challenging Pension Order
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942
The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's appeal against order of Armed Forces Tribunal granting a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) and other benefits to the widow of a soldier who died while on an Area Domination Patrol along the Line of Control.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant, observing that the widow of Naik Inderjeet Singh (deceased), should not have been dragged to court in such a case.
“In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. Therefore, we propose to impose costs quantified as Rs.50,000/-, which will be payable to the respondent”, the Court observed.
Charge Sheet Can't Be Filed When There Is Interim Order Restraining Coercive Action Against Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 943
The Supreme Court observed that a charge sheet cannot be filed after a court passes an interim order restraining the state from taking coercive action against the accused in a criminal case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discharged contempt notices issued to three officers of the Jharkhand Police after they apologised for filing charge sheet despite the Court's interim order restraining further action.
The Court examined affidavits filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Deepak Kumar, Investigating Officer (IO) Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari, and Station House Officer (SHO) Dayanand Kumar. The Court accepted their apology and directed the State to modify a 2011 letter by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) that contributed to the filing of the charge sheet.
“They have relied upon a letter dated 15th April, 2011 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand to all Police Officers in the State. It is stated in the letter that even if court passes an order that no coercive action shall be taken as against the particular accused, there is no prohibition on filing charge-sheet against the accused. If a charge sheet is filed by relying upon clause 3 of letter dated 15th April, 2011 against an accused in whose favour there is an order directing not to take coercive action, the concerned officer will expose himself to contempt jurisdiction”, the Court observed.
'Need To Preserve Temples With Utmost Care': Supreme Court Appoints Retired HC Judge For Election Of Kerala's Oachira Temple Management
Case Details: Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13708 - 13709 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 944
In a plea related to the management and administration of Oachira Parabrahma Temple in Kerala, the Supreme Court appointed a former Kerala High Court Judge as an Administrator to conduct a fresh election for the administration and management of the subject temple and its allied institutions, in a free and fair manner.
The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan considered the temple to be a unique, and historical one and said that it is imperative to preserve and protect the temple and its properties. The Court underscored the importance of free and fair elections in the temple administration under judicial oversight.
Arms Act | Prohibition On Buttondar Knife Applies Only If Knife Was For 'Manufacture, Sale Or Possession For Sale Or Test': Supreme Court
Case Details: Irfan Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 945
The Supreme Court quashed the Arms Act case against the person accused of possessing a buttondar knife.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta heard the case, in which the appellant was accused of possessing a buttondar knife (having dimensions 31.5 cms in length (blade length of 14.5 cms and handle of 17 cms) and width of 3 cms), violating the Arms Act, 1959, and a 1980 DAD Notification. The FIR and charge sheet were challenged because the knife did not meet the specifications for violation.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, Mehta J. in the judgment observed that “the notification whereby, a buttondar knife having blade dimensions of 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth has been brought under the mischief of the Arms Act, would be applicable only when the recovered knife is meant for the specified reasons i.e., 'manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test' as indicated in the DAD notification.”
NGT Cannot Outsource Its Opinion To Committees & Base Its Decision On Such Opinions: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/s Grasim Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 946
The Supreme Court criticised the National Green Tribunal for 'outsourcing' its opinion to a committee and basing its opinion only on the findings of the committee.
“The NGT is a tribunal constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010. A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such an opinion,” observed the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanatan.
In this regard, the bench cited the 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others which held that NGT's adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated to expert committees.
In this case, the NGT had imposed penalties on M/s Grasim Industries based on the report of a joint committee. However, the company was neither added as a party in the case nor was issued any notice before passing the order.
Plaintiff Seeking Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Must Also Show Availability Of Funds: Supreme Court
Case Details: R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 947
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying Specific Relief to the plaintiff because he was not able to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that for the contract to be concluded, the plaintiff shall not only aver about his readiness and willingness to perform the contract but “is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time.”
S. 148 NI Act | Signatory Of Cheque Issued By Company Can't Be Directed To Pay Compensation For Suspension Of Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bijay Agarwal v. M/s Medilines
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 948
The Supreme Court reiterated that the official signatory of the company does not assume the status of a 'drawer of a cheque' to attract the liability for payment of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”).
The Court clarified that liability for payment of compensation as well as deposit to suspend the sentence pending the appeal could only be fastened upon the drawer of the cheque, and not on the company's official who acted as an authorized signatory of the company.
“To wit, as in the case of the position qua Section 143A, NI Act, merely because an officer of a company concerned is the authorised signatory of the cheque concerned by itself will not make such an officer 'drawer of the cheque' under Section 148, NI Act, so as to empower the Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 138, NI Act, to direct to deposit compensation of any sum under Section 148(1), of the NI Act.”, the Court held.
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol heard a criminal appeal filed by the company's authorized officer who challenged the High Court's decision approving the trial court's direction to the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount for suspension of sentence in a cheque dishonor case.
Bail Should Not Be Granted Ordinarily In Serious Offences Like Rape & Murder Once Trial Starts: Supreme Court
Case Details: X v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 949
The Supreme Court has observed that in serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., bail applications of the accused should not be ordinarily entertained by the Trial Courts and the High Courts.
“Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused,” observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
“It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed,” the bench added.
Supreme Court Allows West Bengal BJP Leader Kabir Shankar Bose's Plea For CBI Probe Of Assault Cases Against Him
Case Details: Kabir Shankar Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 950
The Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation into two assault and sexual harassment cases arising from an incident on December 6, 2020, against West Bengal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kabir Shankar Bose.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered its judgment in the writ petition filed by Bose alleging that false criminal charges were filed against him due to political rivalry.
The “politically charged atmosphere” of West Bengal and the fact that the petitioner belonged to a rival political party may not be conducive for a fair investigation, the Court observed.
Suit For Specific Performance Of Sale Agreement Be Filed In Court Having Jurisdiction Over Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951
The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell must be instituted in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the property -which is the subject of the agreement- was situated as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court rejected the argument that a specific performance decree can be enforced by the personal obedience of the defendant and hence such a suit was maintainable at the place where the defendant resided/carried out business in terms of the proviso to Section 16 CPC.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the proviso to Section 16 was not applicable.
'Pendency Of Criminal Appeals In MP HC Quite High, Early Hearing Unlikely': Supreme Court Suspends Sentence
Case Details: Abhay Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 952
Citing the high pendency of criminal appeals in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the unlikelihood of an early hearing of an appeal filed in 2024, the Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a convict who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in a cheating case.
The convict, convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, appealed to the Supreme Court aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the maximum term of punishment for the offences committed by the convict was 5 years and he has already undergone eight months' custody.
Penalize Govt Officers Who Cause Delay In Filing Of Appeals: Supreme Court Directs All States
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 953
The Supreme Court directed all States to fix liability on government officers who cause delay in the filing of appeals/cases on behalf of the government and thereby cause loss to the public exchequer.
The Court observed that in many cases, he filing of appeals are delayed due to the failure to communicate the decisions to the higher authorities in time. Thus, appeals get dismissed by the Courts on the grounds of delay, although the subject matter is highly valuable.
Exasperated with such instances, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the States to streamline their machinery on litigation, fix responsibility on the officers, and penalize them for the value of loss caused to the government.
Supreme Court Rejects State's Argument That It Has No Liability To Pay Retiral Benefits To Employee Of Aided Institution Whose Dismissal Was Set Aside
Case Details: Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 954
In a case, the Supreme Court rejected the Gujarat Government's argument that it has no liability to pay the Retiral Benefits to the employee of an aided educational institution whose dismissal was set aside. The Court ruled that the payment of the pensionary and retiral benefits to the employee of an aided private educational institution rests with the State Government, not the educational institution.
The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard the appeal filed by the Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapeeth, an aided private educational institution situated in Gujarat against the High Court's decision directing the appellant, along with the State, to pay the retiral benefits to the respondent no.2-employee. The respondent-employee was initially dismissed from the teaching service but subsequently was directed to be reinstated with payment retiral benefits after his superannuation.
S. 197 CrPC | Once Denied, Sanction to Prosecute Public Servant Cannot Be Granted Again On Same Material: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 955
The Supreme Court held that once a sanction to prosecute a public servant has been denied, it cannot be granted again unless new material is presented to the competent authority justifying the subsequent sanction.
“The subsequent sanction was given based on the same material, therefore, in the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law”, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar heard a criminal appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the High Court's decision quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent (C. Shobha Rani), who had been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Intent Of S.50 NDPS Act Is To Inform Suspect Of Right To Be Taken To Officer Who Isn't Part Of Search Party: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir| Crl.A. No. 004931 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 956
The Supreme Court has observed that the intent behind Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is to inform a suspect who is about to be searched of the right to be taken to a Gazetted Officer who is not part of the raid team.
“It is obvious that the intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search,” the Court observed.
“Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched. Delay should be avoided, as is reflected from the use of the word “unnecessary delay” and the exception carved in sub-section (5) to Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision, “ the Court added.
A bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing Govt. of NCT Delhi's challenge to Delhi High Court order which granted bail to a person allegedly accused of purchasing and possessing 500 grams of Heroin. An FIR u/s 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused.
Complete Police Verification Of Candidates Selected For Govt Service Within 6 Months Of Their Appointment: Supreme Court Directs All States
Case Details: Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 957
The Supreme Court warned against the careless and indifferent approach of the Police Authorities in failing to submit the Police Verification Report of candidates selected for government service appointments within the required timeframe, affecting the regularization of candidates.
In this regard, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice R Mahadevan issued a direction to “the police official(s) of all the States to complete the enquiry and file report as regards the character, antecedents, nationality, genuineness of the documents produced by the candidates selected for appointment to the Government service, etc., within a stipulated time provided in the statute / G.O., or in any event, not later than six months from the date of their appointment.”
The Court clarified that to avoid future complications, the candidate's regularization has to be done only after verification of the candidate's credentials.
The Supreme Court cited the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 while allowing the citizenship claim of an individual who migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to India in 1969.
The bench referred to the proviso added to Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (“Act”) by the 2019 Amendment to state that the appellant (belonging to the Hindu religion) would not be treated as an 'illegal migrant'.
UGC/AICTE Retirement Age Regulations Not Binding On State University-Affiliated Institutions Without State Adoption: Supreme Court
Case Details: P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 958
The Supreme Court held that amended UGC or AICTE regulations raising the retirement age to 65 years do not apply to institutions affiliated to State Universities where the State Government opts not to adopt those regulations. Such institutions must follow the retirement age followed in the State.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the civil appeal filed by one P.J. Dharmaraj who was initially appointed as Lecturer, and Reader in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (“JNTU”) and subsequently retired from the position of Director of Church of South India Institute of Technology (“CSIIT”) affiliated to JNTU, Telangana.
Supreme Court Issues Directions For Effective Implementation Of POSH Act
Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 959
The Supreme Court passed comprehensive directions for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The Court particularly emphasised “decentralising” the POSH Act to take on board the private sectors, which the Union also pointed out is a “red flag” because they have been “very hesitant” in implementing the POSH Act especially in constituting Internal Complaints Committee for hearing complaints pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh passed further orders in addition to the orders passed by this Court on May 12, 2023, and October 22, after it had observed that there are “serious lapses“ in the implementation of the POSH Act.
It has stated that a copy of the Court's order shall be taken by the respective State counsel to the State Secretaries for compliance and a status report has to be filed in response to the same.
In Quashing Petition, Wider Challenge Is Available Than Discharge Petition: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 960
The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused can still file a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) even after filing a charge sheet. It rejected the argument that the accused must wait for charges to be framed and then challenge an order framing charges through a revision application.
The Court explained that in a quashing petition, wider grounds of challenge would be available than in a discharge petition.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice AG Masih heard the criminal appeal filed by the accused against the Allahabad High Court's order dismissing the quashing petition declaring it as 'infructuous' after a charge sheet was filed against the accused.
Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission to Woman Army Officer Who Was Denied Benefits Given To Similarly Situated Others
Case Details: Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 961
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a female Army Lieutenant Colonel, granting her permanent commission after she was unfairly left out while others in similar situations were extended the same benefit.
The appellant-Lt. Col, commissioned as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps in 2008, assailed the Armed Forces Tribunal's (AFT) decision which had not considered her case for permanent commissioning. The appellant along with other applicants was entitled to three chances to secure a permanent commission. However, following an amendment in 2013 in the original policy, the appellant was denied the third opportunity for permanent commission, which other officers similarly situated had been granted.
The AFT granted relief to other applicants by allowing them a one-time age relaxation. However, the appellant was denied benefit as she was not a party to the original case due to personal difficulties.
Setting aside the AFT's order, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that denying the benefit of permanent commission to the appellant when other similarly situated applicants were extended the benefits of the permanent commission shows discrimination with the appellant.
The Court said if other officers were given age relaxation and considered under the old policy, the appellant should have received the same benefit.
While granting relief to a female army officer by directing the grant of a permanent commission even though she had not pursued litigation, the Supreme Court reiterated that individuals are not required to separately litigate for the same relief that was obtained by other similarly situated individuals against the action of the government department.
The reliefs granted to similarly situated individuals would be automatically extended to individuals who have not litigated their cases, the court said.
Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nalin Choksey v. The Commissioner of Customs, Kochi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 962
The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty on the import of the vehicle.
The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the appeal preferred by the subsequent purchaser of a Porsche Car against the High Court's decision upholding the demand of custom duty of ₹17,92,847 from the appellant along with other individuals on the allegation of misdeclaration of the car's model, tampering with its chassis number, and undervaluation to evade customs duty.
When Is An Order Passed By HC Single Bench In Contempt Jurisdiction Appealable Before DB? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others | SLP(C) No. 10098 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963
The Supreme Court held that an order passed by a single bench of the High Court declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, or initiating proceedings for contempt, or an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable to the division bench under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such an order can be challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea challenging the institution of an appeal in Allahabad High Court against the single bench order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings relating to a service matter.
Court observed that when possession of the immovable property is transferred implicitly upon execution of the sale deed, a separate suit seeking possession of the immovable property is not required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Death Penalty Execution & Mercy Petitions To Avoid Delay In Process
Case Details: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 963
The Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to constitute a dedicated cell for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions by death row convicts within the timeline laid down by the respective governments.
“A dedicated cell shall be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions. The dedicated cell shall be responsible for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih also held that Sessions Court on receiving order confirming death penalty must immediately issue notice to the public prosecutor seeking information on pending appeals, review/curative petition or mercy plea and periodically monitor pending proceedings to ensure timely issuance of execution warrants once all legal avenues are exhausted.
The Court held that inordinate delay in execution of death sentence have a dehumanizing effect on convicts and when such delays are caused by factors beyond the prisoners' control, the death sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment.
S. 300 IPC | Lacking Intention To Commit Murder Irrelevant If Bodily Injury Is Caused With Lethal Weapon, Likely To Cause Death: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 964
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for committing murder who, out of a scuffle, inflicted serious injury on vital parts of the deceased body with lethal weapons.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale rejected the accused-appellant's argument that his act to commit murder was not intentional and premeditated, hence he cannot be punished for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation4
Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 965
The Supreme Court observed that a deputation service could not be treated as a regular service for promotion if there was no continuity or a gap in the employee's deputation service.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) against the High Court's decision directing the NHAI to consider an employee's (respondent no.1) un-continued deputation service for promotion.
Hindu Succession Act | Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Conflicting Opinions On Female Hindu's Rights Under S.14
Case Details: Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 966
The Supreme Court highlighted the inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations surrounding the interplay between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”) which deals with the rights of Hindu females in property inherited or possessed by them.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta dealt with the inconsistencies occurred in the judicial precedents where one line of precedents advances the cause of the female Hindu, recognizing her absolute right to ownership over the property received by her in recognition of her pre-existing right in the property under Section 14(1) of the HSA, and on the contrary, another line of precedents, basing its reliance on Section 14(2) of the HSA, do not recognizes her absolute ownership over the property received in recognition of her pre-existing right unless the property received by her was before or at the time of the enactment of HSA.
S. 58(c) TPA | Mere Possession Of Property By Mortgagor Wouldn't Make 'Mortgage By Conditional Sale' A 'Simple Mortgage': Supreme Court
Case Details: Leela Agrawal v. Sarkar & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 967
The Supreme Court observed that allowing a mortgagor to stay in possession does not make the transaction a 'simple mortgage' if the deed specifies that the mortgagor's default in redeeming the property within the stipulated time would lead to transfer of the mortgage property to the mortgagee under 'mortgage by conditional sale' as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was deciding a civil appeal filed by the defendant against the High Court's decision affirming the Trial Court's decision allowing the respondent-plaintiff's suit seeking redemption of the mortgaged-suit property.
S.498A IPC Often Used Against Husband & His Family To Meet Wife's Unreasonable Demands, Growing Tendency Of Misuse: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 968
While quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case against a husband and in-laws of the wife, the Supreme Court again cautioned about the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord.
Also, the Court criticized the growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family.
Last month also, the Court expressed a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of a wife alleging domestic cruelty.
The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that the provision of Section 498-A IPC has become the legal weapon for the wives/ her relatives to settle scores with the husband/ his family without understanding the true purpose of the provision brought to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
Permanent Alimony Shouldn't Penalize Husband But Should Ensure Decent Living For Wife: Supreme Court Lists Out Factors
Case Details: Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969
The Supreme Court directed a husband to grant permanent alimony of Rs. 5 Crores to the wife as a one-time settlement upon dissolution of the marriage.
While directing the same, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale stressed the father's obligation to maintain and care for his child and directed the husband to make a provision of Rs. 1 Crore for his major son's maintenance and financial security.
S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Arbitration & Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kirpal Singh v. Government of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970
The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to challenge an arbitral award.
'Contempt Power Can't Be Used To Execute Orders': Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Contempt Jurisdiction
Case Details: Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr. v. P Ravikumar and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 971
The Supreme Court held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute a decree or implement an order. The contempt power can be invoked only if it is established that there was a wilful disobedience.
Even while exercising such power, the Court has to restrict the scope of its enquiry to the directions which are explicitly specified in the judgment/order, a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed.
POSH Act | Inquiry Report Copy Must Be Given To Complainant; Supreme Court Imposes Penalty On BSF
Case Details: Ms. X v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284/2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 972
The Supreme Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) for failure to provide a copy of the inquiry report to a complainant who initiated proceedings against an officer under the the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act (POSH Act), 2013.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the BSF constable, who complained of sexual harassment would fall under the term 'concerned parties', under S.13(1) of the POSH Act.
Supreme Court Prescribes Declaration To Be Made By Applicant To List Miscellaneous Applications In Disposed-Of Matters
Case Details: Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 973
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing the Miscellaneous Application in the disposed of Proceedings based on the fresh cause of action arising subsequently having a remote connection with the main proceedings.
The Court directed “the Registry to not circulate any miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature and have become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.”
The Court asked the Registry to insist every litigant who wishes to file the Miscellaneous Application in a disposed of matter for such a declaration as above on solemn affirmation.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the matter where the applicant wanted to revive the proceedings in the disposed of writ proceedings and filed a Miscellaneous Application.
S. 19 PC Act | Irregularity In Sanction Order No Ground For Acquittal Unless Failure Of Justice Is Shown: Supreme Court
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram, Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 974
The Supreme Court clarified that an irregularity in obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“Act”), does not justify an acquittal unless it causes prejudice to the accused.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing a criminal appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision. The High Court had overturned the conviction of a public servant, citing procedural lapses by the CBI, including their failure to examine the official who granted the sanction for prosecution.
The Court took note of Section 19(3)(a) of the Act which says that no finding, sentence, or order by a Special Judge shall be reversed by a court of appeal on the ground of absence, error, omission or irregularity in the sanction.
Caste-Based Insult In Backyard Of Private House Not “Within Public View”, No Offence Under S.3 SC/ST Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court held that alleged caste-based insult or intimidation that occurred in the backyard of a private house does not qualify as being “within public view” under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discharged a man from the charges alleged against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 observing –
“The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent (complainant) were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”
Specific Performance Decree For Agreement To Sell Can Be Executed Without Separate Relief For Possession: Supreme Court
Case Details: Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976
The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not be necessary for the decree-holder seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simpliciter to file a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”) for claiming possession of suit property.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the civil appeal filed by the subsequent purchasers of the suit property challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which held in favor of the plaintiff noting that the executing court committed an error in denying the possessory right to the plaintiff when a specific performance suit was decreed in plaintiff's favor.
The short question that falls for the Court's consideration was whether the executing court could grant possession if a decree only orders specific performance without explicitly mentioning possession of the property.
Answering positively, the court said that the decree-holder of the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell need not be required to file a suit seeking possession of the suit property under Section 22 of the Act.
The legal position as flowing from the aforesaid observation is that when the transfer of property's possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed, then there's no need to separately claim relief of possession under Section 22 of the Act.
Maintenance Right Of Wife & Children Overrides Creditors' Claims Under SARFAESI/IBC On Husband's Assets: Supreme Court
Case Details: Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 977
While giving precedence to the maintenance rights of a man's wife and children over the rights of creditors under recovery proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right and shall have an overriding effect over statutory rights of creditors, etc. under business laws.
“the right to maintenance is commensurate to the right to sustenance. This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a way, the right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws”, said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Motor Accident Leaves 7-Year-Old Girl Mentally Disabled: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To Rs 50.8 Lakhs
Case Details: Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 978
The Supreme Court awarded Rs 50,87,000/- as compensation to a claimant for the mental and physical disabilities suffered by her due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred when she was just 7 years old.
The accident occurred in 2009 when a high-speed car, which was driven negligently, hit her when she was crossing a zebra-crossing with her mother and brother. As a result of the accident, she suffered head injuries, which led to moderate mental retardation and difficulties in walking.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,90,750 in 2009, which the Delhi High Court enhanced to Rs 11,51,000 in 2017. The Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation allowing the appeal of the claimant.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan took into account the deposition of a doctor who stated that due to the retardation, the victim can only learn skills up to the level of a 2nd Standard child and can live only under adult supervision throughout her life. Although as per the disability certificate, her disability was to the extent of 75%, the Court said that her functional disability should be treated as 100% for all practical purposes.
Merely Because Wife Didn't File Complaint Under S.498A IPC For Many Years Doesn't Mean There Was No Cruelty By Husband: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 979
The fact that a wife did not make any complaint regarding cruelty for many years would not make a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code unsustainable, held the Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of a husband for discharge.
In this case, the wife killed herself after 12 years of marriage, following which her father filed a complaint under Section 498A and 306 IPC against the husband. It was alleged that a year before her suicide, the husband had sold off her gold ornaments, given as streedhan and that she was physically and mentally tortured when she demanded them back.
The Supreme Court noted that there were sufficient averments in the complaint to the effect that the wife had complained of cruelty by her husband on many occasions.
“The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment,” observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.
Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, held the Court while discharging the husband in a case related to the suicide of his wife.
“Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life.Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide,” held the Court.
“If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation,” the Court stated.
“For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide,” the judgment authored by Justice Nath stated.
Gift Deed Condition Requiring Donee To Give Perpetual Services Without Remuneration Is Forced Labour & Unconstitutional: Supreme Court
Case Details: Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 980
The Supreme Court has held that a gift deed which is conditioned upon perpetual rendering of services, without any remuneration would amount to a “begar” or forced labour, even slavery and therefore it is not just wrong or illegal but even unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale while considering an oral gift deed of 1953, which had a condition requiring donees and their successors to render services. In 1998, the successors of the donors filed a suit to reclaim the possession of the property on the ground that the donees (and their successors) had stopped rendering the services.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the decree passed by the trial court allowing the suit. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).
Preventive Detention A Harsh Measure, Permissible Only When 'Public Order' Disturbed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12516/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 982
While quashing a preventive detention order, the Supreme Court observed that preventive detention is a harsh measure, which cannot be invoked against every alleged breach of peace. Rather, the power can be invoked only when the act of the proposed detainee had a tendency of disturbing “public order”.
“The distinction between public order and law and order has been succinctly discussed by Hidayatullah J (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar...Constitution Bench of this Court has held that every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. It has been held that when a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the one which have a tendency of disturbing the public order, resort to preventive detention, which is a harsh measure, would not be permissible”, said a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
S. 197 CrPC | Sanction For Prosecution Needed When Alleged Offence Was Connected To Discharge Of Official Duties: Supreme Court
Case Details: Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 983
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case and summoning order against a District Town Planner, ruling that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was obtained for prosecuting her demolition actions, which were part of her official duties carried out under senior's instructions.
“we observe that the first respondent herein ought to have sought sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC in the instant case. The same, not having been done vitiated the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the Trial Court pursuant to the said summoning order are liable to be quashed and are thus quashed. Insofar as the very initiation of the complaint is concerned, we observe that since there was no prior order of sanction passed under Section 197 of the CrPC, the initiation of the complaint itself, is non-est.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh heard the criminal appeal filed by one Gurmeet Kaur, a District Town Planner (as then she was) against the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal case and summoning order issued against her for carrying out demolition exercise of a private college based on the instructions of the superior officials.
'Land A Precious Resource, State Must Be Transparent In Distribution': Supreme Court Quashes Maharashtra Govt's Land Allotment To Pvt Doctors
Case Details: Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 984
Citing arbitrariness in the allotment process, the Supreme Court (Dec.12) set aside the allotment of land made by the Maharashtra Government in favor of the Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (“MRCHS”) to provide housing facilities to the doctors working at Tata Memorial Hospital.
While doing so, the Court underscored the need to maintain transparency in the distribution of 'land' by the State where it is recognized as a precious community material source.
“Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution. In our opinion, therefore there has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS. As far as the present appellant is concerned, its case for allotment of a plot is a matter which is yet to be decided by the authorities, but the allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.
Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise: Supreme Court
Case Details: Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 985
The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The Court emphasized that the validity and legality of a compromise agreement can be challenged even after a decree is passed.
The Court rejected the argument that recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal. Instead, it said that the right to file a restoration application is a statutory right under the CPC which cannot be curtailed merely because the compromise doesn't grant liberty to restore the appeal.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the appeal filed against the Rajasthan High Court's decision wherein the recall application seeking restoration of the compromise proceedings challenging the compromise recorded between the parties in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was dismissed by the High Court noting that recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal.
S. 58 NDPS Act | Proceedings Against Police Officials For Alleged Misconduct In Investigation Ought To Be Tried Summarily: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 986
The Supreme Court granted relief to a retired IPS Officer, quashing a summons issued by a Special Judge and the subsequent proceedings under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (“NDPS”) Act, 1985 over allegations of misconduct during her tenure as SP, Kurukshetra, in a narcotics case investigation.
The Court said that the Special Judge is not empowered to issue a notice under Section 58 of the NDPS Act because the proceedings commenced under Section 58 are summary in nature and ought to be presided over by the judicial magistrate.
In this regard, the Court took note of Section 36-A (5) of the NDPS Act which provides that the offences punishable under the NDPS Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years may be tried summarily to be presided over by a judicial magistrate.
Partha Chatterjee's Bail: Supreme Court Sets Deadline For His Custody In ED Case As Feb 1, 2025; Expedites Trial
Case Details: Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 13870/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987
The Supreme Court directed that former West Bengal Education Minister and MLA Partha Chatterjee can be released on bail on or before February 1, 2025, in the money laundering case arising out of a recruitment scam.
The Court directed the trial court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of winter vacations or before December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The Court further directed the trial court to record the statements of prosecution witnesses who are most material and vulnerable in the second or third week of January 2025. Subject to the completion of these steps, Chatterjee can be released on bail. In any case, he cannot be kept in custody beyond February 1, 2025.
Husband's Girlfriend Or Romantic Partner Can't Be Made Accused In S.498A IPC Case: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dechamma IM @ Dechamma Kaushik v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 988
The Supreme Court held that a criminal case for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained against a woman with whom the husband had an extra-marital affair. Because, such a woman would not come within the ambit of the term “relative” under Section 498A IPC.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan quashed a criminal case against a woman who was named as an accused on the allegation that she was a romantic partner of the husband of the complainant-wife.
The bench observed that “a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative.”
Courts Must Avoid Premature Staying Or Quashing Of Criminal Trials At Preliminary Stage: Supreme Court
Case Details: Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should avoid prematurely staying or quashing criminal trials, as this could harm the evidence that needs to be presented during the trial.
“Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial court.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra overturned the MP High Court's decision to quash the criminal case against police officials accused of fabricating alibi documents to shield the accused in a murder case. The High Court quashed the case noting that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained before prosecuting the respondent-police officers.
The Court held that a police official who is accused of lodging a false case cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protection of Section 197 CrPC is available only for acts discharged in the course of official duties.
The Court summarised the principles relating to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which hold that public servants cannot be prosecuted in respect of acts done in the discharge of their official duties without sanction from the government.
UAPA | Error In Order Extending Time For Investigation No Ground For Default Bail When Chargesheet Has Been Filed: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 990
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 12, 2023, for granting default bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967 (UAPA) on grounds that the accused persons should benefit from default bail in the absence of lack of competent order whereby time was extended for the investigation agency to file chargesheet.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale observed that although the High Court was right in holding that the order for extension was passed by a Court which was not jurisdictionally competent, however, since the application for default bail was preferred 4 months after the chargesheet was filed, no such right sustained.
It held: The benefit of default bail can only be conferred before a chargesheet is filed, which was not applicable in this case. Therefore, the High Court had wrongly granted such benefit to the accused-Respondents by blatantly ignoring the fact of presentation of chargesheet being much prior in time to the application for default bail.”
Though S.52 TP Act Doesn't Make Pendente Lite Transfer Void, Court Can Invalidate Such Sale Exercising Contempt Power: Supreme Court
Case Details: Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991
The Supreme Court has held that the Courts can set aside a sale transaction, which was carried out in violation of its directions, as void in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
The Court held that although a sale transaction carried out during the pendency of court proceedings (pendente lite) would not become void due to the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court can reverse such a sale transaction if it was done in contempt of judicial directions.
Accordingly, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra the assignment deed executed by a borrower transferring a secured asset in favour of a third party ignoring a judgment of the Supreme Court which confirmed the auction sale of the very same property under the SARFAESI Act.
The Court observed that contempt jurisdiction is not confined only to violation of express judicial directions but also extends to acts which are intended to frustrate court proceedings or bypass the eventual judgment.
The Supreme Court explained the circumstances under which a sale of property by auction or other means under the SARFAESI Act can be set-aside after its confirmation.
The Court held that mere procedural irregularities or deviation from rules are not grounds to set aside a confirmed sale unless such errors are fundamental in nature, such as fraud, collusion, inadequate pricing or underbidding.
ED Can Instruct Prosecutors On Facts, But Cannot Instruct How Prosecutors Should Act In Court: Supreme Court
Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 992
The Supreme Court held that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its director can give instructions related to facts of a case to prosecutors, they cannot dictate the prosecutors' actions in court.
“We may also note here that the Enforcement Directorate and its Director can give instructions to public prosecutors on facts of the case. However, the Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any instructions to the public prosecutor about what he ought to do before the court as an officer of the court”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified the trial court's order directing the Director of the ED issue instructions to public prosecutors not to oppose bail applications when trial delays were caused by the ED's actions.
The Court clarified that this order should not be interpreted to prevent public prosecutors from opposing bail applications when delays are not the fault of the ED.
“However, this observation will not prevent public prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that act or omissions on the part of Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for delay of trial. Therefore, this order cannot be read to mean that the public prosecutors are not entitled to oppose the bail petitions”, the Court held.
Supreme Court Awards Rs.5 Lakhs Honorarium To 83-Yr Old Ex-Constable Who Saved Lives By Killing Dacoit In 1986
Case Details: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26568/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993
The Supreme Court awarded Rs.5 lakhs as honorarium to an 83-year-old retired Constable, who approached it seeking direction to UP authorities to act on his Gallantry Award recommendation. Reportedly, the retired cop saved members of public by killing a dacoit 38 years ago.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with petitioner-Ram Autar's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order, which denied his prayer on the ground that he had approached belatedly.
Supreme Court Refuses To Give Scheduled Caste Benefit To 'Tanti' Caste Person In Bihar
Case Details: Union of India v. Rohit Nandan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 994
The Supreme Court refused to extend the benefit of Scheduled Caste reservation to a Central Government employee who belonged to the 'Tanti' caste, which is notified as Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in Bihar.
Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Re-determination Of Compensation Under S. 28A Can Be Sought Based On High Court's Enhancement: Supreme Court
Case Details: Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 995
The Supreme Court ruled that a claim for re-determination of enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be denied merely because it was based on the High Court's decision to enhance compensation instead of the Reference Court's decision under Section 18 of the Act.
The Court clarified that to claim re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A, it is not necessary to rely solely on the Reference Court's decision. A party can also seek re-determination based on a High Court decision that increases the compensation.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision dismissing the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation. The bench noted that an application for enhanced compensation was not based on the Reference Court's decision but the High Court's decision making him ineligible to claim enhanced compensation.
Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause.
Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice.
“In our view, it cannot be said that the arbitration clause is optional in the sense that the arbitration clause is non-existent or that the matter would be referred to arbitration only if all the parties to the dispute agree to refer the dispute to arbitration.”, the court said.
The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the appeal filed against the M.P. High Court's decision refusing to appoint an arbitrator on the note that the invocation of the arbitration clause was 'optional', and the matter would be referred to the arbitration after both the parties mutually agree to resolve the dispute via arbitration.
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Death Penalty Execution & Mercy Petitions To Avoid Delay In Process
Case Details: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 997
The Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to constitute a dedicated cell for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions by death row convicts within the timeline laid down by the respective governments.
“A dedicated cell shall be constituted by the Home Department or the Prison Department of the State Governments/Union Territories for dealing with mercy petitions. The dedicated cell shall be responsible for the prompt processing of the mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih also held that Sessions Court on receiving order confirming death penalty must immediately issue notice to the public prosecutor seeking information on pending appeals, review/curative petition or mercy plea and periodically monitor pending proceedings to ensure timely issuance of execution warrants once all legal avenues are exhausted.
The Court held that inordinate delay in execution of death sentence have a dehumanizing effect on convicts and when such delays are caused by factors beyond the prisoners' control, the death sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment.
Mere Delay In FIR Registration No Ground To Reject Motor Accident Claim; But Delay Can Become Relevant Depending On Evidence: Supreme Court
Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 998
The Supreme Court observed that although the delay in lodging an FIR would not be a ground to reject a Motor Accident Compensation claim, it gains relevance in cases where other evidence does not support the claimant's allegations.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the Madras High Court's decision setting aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to reject the respondent claimant's claim against the injuries sustained to the claimant due to skid and fall from the scooter.
Supreme Court Flags Expanding Drug Trade, Urges Youth To Resist Peer Pressure & Stop Emulating Addicts
Case Details: Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 999
The Supreme Court held that the National Investigation Agency while investigating a scheduled offence can also investigate a non-scheduled offence or a person involved in a non-scheduled offence provided there is a nexus with the scheduled offence. In the judgment, the Court made certain observations on the ripple effect of illicit drug trade and drug abuse.
It held that the arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India while laying down some suggestions for parents and other stakeholders to ensure that drug abuse is no longer treated as a taboo and that rehabilitation should be the centre of focus.
While upholding the rejection of bail of a person accused of cross-border drug trade,b ench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh observed that despite the best efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of coordination and profit-seeking has sustained the menace of drug trade and abuse, so hard-hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting across age groups, communities, and regions.
'Dearth Of Super-Speciality Doctors In Dental Science Field': Supreme Court Regularises MDS Admissions
Case Details: Irfan Akbani & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| SLP(C) No. 26511/2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
The Supreme Court while directing the issuance of pending degrees to graduates of MDS(Master of Dental Surgery), observed the 'dearth of Super-Speciality Doctors' in the field of dentistry.
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed by MDS graduates, the batch of 2016-19 in the dental colleges of Madhya Pradesh who challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelling their admissions taken in 2016.
'Nobody Can Be Condemned Unheard': Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks Made By HC Against Advocate Without Opportunity Of Hearing
Case Details: Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1001
The Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks against an advocate recorded by the Uttarakhand High Court without providing opportunity of hearing.
Also, the Court set aside the High Court's direction to the State Bar Council to initiate misconduct proceedings against the advocate without affording him an opportunity of hearing to respond to the allegations labeled against him.
“We are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed by Dushyant Mainali, a practicing lawyer. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital made adverse observations against him in a civil case. The appellant was neither a party to the case nor representing any litigant in the matter.
Mandatory To Hear Informant/Victim Before Granting Bail In Rape Offences, SC/ST Act Cases: Supreme Court
Case Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC)1002
Affirming the importance of victim participation in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a person accused of serious offences where the bail proceedings were conducted in the absence of the victim.
The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the criminal appeal filed by a victim against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the accused who neither impleaded the victim in the bail application, nor the public prosecutor informed the victim or her representative about the proceedings before the High Court.
Companies Act | Approval Of Shareholders Mandatory For Listing Shares On Stock Exchange: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jyoti Limited v. BSE Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1003
The Supreme Court ruled that, without in-principle approval from the company's shareholders, debt-to-equity converted shares issued in favor of any person cannot be listed on the stock market.
In other words, the Court stated that obtaining in-principle approval from the company's shareholders, as required under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, is mandatory before allotting shares to any person. Without this approval, the allotted shares cannot be listed on the stock market.
Moreover, the Court stated that even if the company's shareholder approves the allotment of the company's share to a person, the shares would not automatically become eligible for listing unless the listing is approved by the recognized stock exchange as per Regulation 28 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal filed by Jyoti Ltd.
'Possibility Of Reformation Can't Be Ruled Out': Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Murder & Sexual Assault Of 4 Year Old
Case Details: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat| Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, considering the possibility of reformation as per behavioural and mental assessment reports, converted the death penalty of a convict guilty of sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child, to an imprisonment sentence.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge to the Gujarat High Court's order confirming the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
While the Court upheld the conviction, it referred to (1) the 'Mitigation Investigation Report' by Project 39A; (2) a report of the Superintendent of Vadodara Central Jail and (3) a Report by the Hospital for Mental Health to consider social, psychological and behavioural aspects of the accused.
The court reduced the death sentence of the accused to a sentence of imprisonment for 25 years as “the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.”
High Court Cannot Seek Explanation From Judicial Officer By Judicial Order: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
A higher court cannot seek an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order, stated the Supreme Court, while expugning the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a District & Sessions Judge.
The explanation can be sought only on the administrative side, the Supreme Court stated.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by a judicial officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against him.
The expressed disapproval of the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court that the Trial Courts should incorporate in a tabular chart the criminal antecedents of the accused while deciding bail applications. The Court observed that High Cours cannot direct the Trial Courts to write bail orders in a particular manner.
'Allegations Not Prima Facie Correct, Long Pre-Trial Custody': Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused In Case Over PFI-Links
Case Details: Athar Parwez v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked for alleged involvement with the Popular Front of India (“PFI”) in causing disturbance during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to Patna in 2022.
The Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of the accused in draconian statutes like the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) would make him eligible for a grant of bail despite the rigours of Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA.
The Court also observed that there were no materials indicating that the allegations were prima facie correct, which would attract the UAPA.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih heard the bail application filed by one Athar Parwez against the Patna High Court's decision denying bail to him on the allegation of involving in terrorist activities to cause disturbances in PM's Patna visit in 2022.
'A Synopsis Can't Run Into 128 Pages!': Supreme Court Asks Registry To Ensure Synopsis Is Trimmed Down
Case Details: Deepti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1007
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at a synopsis of a petition running into 128 pages. Since the petition was filed by a party-in-person, the Court said that the Registry should have advised the litigant to trim down the synopsis.
“The appellant, who has appeared in person, has filed a synopsis running into 128 pages, loaded with details much of which is not relevant for our purposes. We understand that the appellant is not a trained lawyer, but it is for the Registry to have asked the appellant to trim down the synopsis. A synopsis cannot run into 128 pages!,” observed a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Right To Protect Private Property Can't Be Brushed Away Merely Due To Delay & Laches: Supreme Court Condones 21-Year Delay In Land Acquisition Case
Case Details: Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
The Supreme Court observed that while delay in approaching the court is a significant factor, the right to property of an individual cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay and laches.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra condoned of delay of 21 years by original landowners (respondents) in challenging land acquisition proceedings on the ground that significant illegalities were alleged in the acquisition process.
“The decisions of this Court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A. The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches”, the Court observed.
Illegal Constructions Can't Be Regularised Irrespective of Long Occupancy & Investments: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1009
The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.
“we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.”, the Court said.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to demolish structures purchased by the appellants.
The Supreme Court has issued a set of guidelines to curb unauthorised constructions. The Court said that these directions are in addition to the directions issued in an earlier case regarding the demolition of structures.
The Court directed that it would be mandatory for the builder to display the approved plan during the period of construction, and no building completion certificate be issued unless the officer inspecting the building is satisfied that the building is constructed as per the building planning permission. Moreover, the Court directs departmental actions against the erring officials who grants wrongful building permission in violation of the law.
S. 33 Arbitration Act | Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio: Supreme Court
Case Details: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010
The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether post-award interest under Section 31(7)(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be calculated on the principal amount plus pre-award interest.
UP Amendment To S.106 TP Act Inoperative After Parliamentary Amendment Of 2003: Supreme Court
Case Details: Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1011
The Supreme Court has held that if the Parliament amends a law which is on a subject in the Concurrent List, then an earlier State amendment to the same provision would become inoperative.
Holding so, the Court held that the Uttar Pradesh amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which was carried out in 1954, would become inoperative after the Parliament amended Section 106 in the year 2003.
Writ Court Cannot Make Out A Third Case, Not Pleaded By Parties, Based On Arguments Made During Hearing: Supreme Court
Case Details: Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1012
The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the Writ Courts should be based on the case pleaded and evidence adduced by the parties.
“Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court's enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that it was not open for the High Court to adjudicate on that issues which was never averred or pleaded by the party in its pleadings.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Protect 'Sacred Groves', Lauds Rajasthan's Piplantri Village Initiative To Plant 111 Trees For Every Girl Child Born
Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1013
While pronouncing judgment on an application in the TN Godavarman case, the Supreme Court lauded Rajasthan's Piplantri village for its initiative to plant 111 trees for every girl child born.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, SVN Bhatti and Sandeep Mehta, conveying its appreciation for the initiative, which was led by the village's “visionary” Sarpanch Shyam Sunder Paliwal, said,
“This initiative transformed environmental damage not only of the village but also of nearby areas. This phenomenal effort also gave positive impetus to the efforts for reducing societal biases against women. The Piplantri model has had many positive effects. Environmentally, over 40 lakh trees have been planted, which has helped raise the water table by about 800-900 feet and cooled the climate by 3-4 degrees. These efforts have improved the local biodiversity and protected the land from soil erosion and desertification. Economically, the planting of indigenous species...has created sustainable jobs...providing work especially for women...Socially, the model has helped eliminate harmful practices like female foeticide. The village now has rare distinction of a higher female population ratio ie 52% and ensures that all girls receive education. Financial support through Kiran Nidhi Yojana has empowered girls and their families in creating a community that celebrates and rejoices the birth of a girl child rather than resenting it.”
The application on which the judgment was rendered related to “sacred groves” in Rajasthan. Pursuant to orders passed by the Court, Rajasthan government started notifying sacred groves as forests through district-wise notifications, but there was a delay in the process.
The Court directed the state's Forest Department to carry out detailed on-ground and satellite mapping of each sacred grove. The process of surveying and notification was directed to be completed in all districts, after which the same shall be classified as forests (as recommended in the Centrally Empowered Committee report of 2005), regardless of the size and extent of the groves.
Coconut Oil Classifiable As 'Edible Oil' For Central Excise Tariff; If Sold As Cosmetic, Taxable As 'Hair Oil': Supreme Court
Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s Madhan Agro Industries (Pvt) Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1014
The Supreme Court has held that pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as 'Edible oil' for the purposes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It will be classifiable as “hair oil” if it is packaged and sold as a cosmetic.
“we are of the opinion that pure coconut oil sold in small quantities as 'edible oil' would be classifiable under Heading 1513 in Section III-Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, unless the packaging thereof satisfies all the requirements set out in Chapter Note 3 in Section VI-Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, read with the General/Explanatory Notes under the corresponding Chapter Note 3 in Chapter 33 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, whereupon it would be classifiable as 'hair oil' under Heading 3305 in Section VI- Chapter 33 thereof,” the Court held.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the legal issue of whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as 'Edible oil' or as 'Hair Oil' in terms of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
When Defendant Can Be Asked To Begin Evidence In Suit? Supreme Court Explains Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC
Case Details: Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Anr v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
The Supreme Court explained the circumstances under which a defendant gets the right to begin in a suit hearing as per Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
As per the CPC, the plaintiff has the right to begin. However, if the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and argues that plaintiff is no entitled to relief due to certain additional fact or any point of law, then the defendant gets the right to begin.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by a plaintiff in a specific performance sought who sought that the defendant should begin, since he admitted the existence of the agreement. The High Court and the Trial Court had rejected the plaintiff's prayer by holding that the defendant, though admitted the agreement, took the plea that it was a sham transaction. Hence, the Courts were of the view that the defendant's stand cannot be construed as an admission as such.
While agreeing with the view of the High Court, the Supreme Court expounded the law on the subject.
Subsequent Change Of Law By Itself Not A Ground To Reverse Acquittal: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hyder v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1016
The Supreme Court ruled that a delay condonation application with an appeal against an acquittal cannot be allowed because the prosecution's case is supported by a subsequent change of law. According to the court, a change of law would not justify re-opening a case that has already been decided.
“Change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal judgment,” the Court observed.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the criminal appeal filed against the Kerala High Court's decision allowing the State's plea against the appellant's acquittal because a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court favored the prosecution's case.
Eviction Proceedings Of Unauthorized Occupants Of 'Public Premises' Should Be Conducted Under Statutory Provisions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Vivek v. Gawde Etc. Etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1017
The Supreme Court observed that the eviction proceedings of unauthorized occupants of 'public premises' ought to be carried out under the statutory provisions.
The Court added that the eviction proceedings initiated under the statute must continue without any interference unless the proceedings violate principles of natural justice.
The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against the High Court's interference in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers of the Inquiry Officer who is authorized to conduct an inquiry into the eviction proceedings under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (“Act”).
While Acquitting, Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation Against Acquitted Accused For Same Offence: Supreme Court
Case Details: P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1018
The Supreme Court ruled that a Court, while acquitting the accused, cannot order that he must be subjected to re-investigation for the same offence.
The Court set aside the Madras High Court decision which directed a de-novo investigation against the accused for offences in which he was already acquitted, stating that it would amount to a violation of the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Madras High Court decision refusing to quash the fresh case registered and re-investigation carried by the CBI upon the direction of the High Court to conduct a de-novo investigation against the appellant for the offences in which he was acquitted.
'Blot On Constitutional Spirit': Supreme Court Aghast At Attack & Disrobing Of Woman Over Witchcraft Allegations
Case Details: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1019
The Supreme Court expressed its shock at a case where a woman was physically abused and disrobed in public over allegations of witchcraft. “The reality that such acts are still a part of 21st century life is a fact that has shaken the conscience of this Court,” the Court said.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing a petition challenging the Patna High Court's order staying the investigation in the case.
Although the quashing petition filed in the High Court was withdrawn making the stay order inoperative, the Supreme Court decided to pursue the matter, given the seriousness of the allegations.
Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Woman's Inheritance Rights; Urges Parliament To Extend Hindu Succession Act To Scheduled Tribes
Case Details: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020
The Supreme Court again urged the Parliament to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female Tribals by making necessary amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”).
The Court referred to the Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) judgment where it was noted that ”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.”
A bench consisting of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which granted property rights to the respondents (tribal women) from the 'Sawara Tribe', a notified scheduled tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Ex-Husband Can't Be Expected To Maintain Ex-Wife As Per His Present Status All Life; Alimony Not To Equalise Wealth: Supreme Court
Case Details: Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021
The Supreme Court has observed that a divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony just to attain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. The Court expressed reservtions with tendency in matrimonial proceedings to seek maintenance or alimony as an “equilisation of wealth with the other party.”
While the wife is entitled to be maintained, as far as possible, to the same standards of life to which she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, the husband can't be expected to maintain her as per his present status in life. Merely becasue the husband has moved on and attained better financial status after separation, the divorced wife cannot seek a higher alimony.
“We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?” the Court asked.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal cautioned women not to abuse the laws which are meant for their protection..
Full Refund Of Court Fee On Mediation Settlement Not Possible Unlike Lok Adalat Without State Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1904 of 2015
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1022
The Supreme Court on December 19 held that a dispute amicably settled by mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should not be confused with the settlement of a dispute through Lok Adalat in terms of the repayment of Court fees where the latter provides 100% refund in the administration of justice. This is so because in the settlement of disputes by alternative dispute mechanisms, the refund of Court fees, if any, is incidental.
In this case, a dispute was settled through mediation and the appellant was refunded 50% of Court fees in accordance with the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. However, this was challenged on grounds that it went against the Central Court Fees Act, 1870 which stated that matters referred to Lok Adalat and settled shall be refunded with 100% Court fees.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar held that Court fees are specifically governed by Entry 3, List II (State List). Therefore, it is not a matter of incongruency between the Centre and the State legislations.
Partition Of Property During Owner's Lifetime Impermissible In Mohammedan Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023
The Supreme Court reiterated that the partition of a property via gift deed during an owner's lifetime cannot be validated under Mohammedan Law.
The Court stated that the concept of partition is not recognized under Mohammedan Law, and thus, a 'partition of property' through a gift deed cannot be upheld as valid due to the absence of a clear and unequivocal 'declaration' by the donor of the intention to make a gift.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision that affirmed the trial court's decision to not recognize the partition done by one Sultan Saheb during his lifespan in their favour.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the registration of gifts (Hiba) is not required under Mohammedan Law.
Employee Cannot Remain Absent From Work Citing Pending VRS Application: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024
The Supreme Court observed that an employee cannot remain absent from service merely because its Voluntary Retirement Service (“VRS”) application is pending.
The bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing the State of U.P.'s appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision directing the reinstatement of the respondent employees who were terminated from the service because of their absenteeism from the service under the garb of pending VRS application.
Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Filed By Wife Against Parents-in-Law 'With Ulterior Motive' To Force Husband To Consent For Divorce
Case Details: Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1025
The Supreme Court quashed a domestic cruelty case under Section 498A IPC against the husband's parents which was registered with an ulterior motive by the daughter-in-law to force their son to consent to divorce.
“These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the Appellant's challenge to the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench decision which refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants.
'Ensure Trials Aren't Delayed Due To Non-Production Of Accused': Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt & Bombay HC
Case Details: Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026
The Supreme Court granted bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial due to the State's failure to produce the accused on most dates out of 102 dates in the last six years.
Noting that this was not a solitary case and was happening in many cases, the Court issued a general direction.
The Court directed ”the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra to sit together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons.”
Taking note of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement's decision, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that it would be a travesty of justice if the accused is being forced to remain in jail without getting the trial started, as prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial.
'Defrauding Public, NOIDA's Agreement Arbitrary': Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Levy Toll On Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway Commuters
Case Details: Noida Toll Bridge Company v. Federation of Noida RWA, SLP(C) No. 33403/2016
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. to impose tolls on the commuters of Delhi Noida Direct (DND) flyway.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the company's appeal against Allahabad High Court's judgment of 2016 which struck down the concessionaire agreement in its favor, on the ground that it had recovered its costs and made sufficient profits. The High Court's ruling came in a PIL filed by Federation of Noida Resident Welfare Association.
Concurring with the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court ruled that ”NOIDA overstepped its authority by delegating the power to levy fee to NTBCL through the concession agreement and regulations, exceeding the scope of its power” and that there was ”unjust enrichment of NTBCL at the cost of public suffering”.
The Court observed that no entity can be allowed to profit unjustly at the cost of public suffering.
S.20 Specific Relief Act | Defendant Can Raise Plea Of Hardship Only If It Was Unforeseeable At Contract Formation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (Das) and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028
The Supreme Court observed that a defendant could raise the ground of 'hardship' in performing the contract only if it is established by cogent evidence that she was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract.
The Court further stated that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) would not apply if the defendant/seller failed to provide evidence showing that the hardship was unforeseeable when entering into the contract.
Before the 2018 amendment to SRA, the Courts had the discretion to grant or not to grant specific performance of a contract, however, the amendment had made specific performance as the rule, and refusal is an exception, provided the contract meets the enforceability criteria under the law.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal challenging the Tripura High Court's decision, which had overturned the trial court's ruling that decreed specific performance in favor of the appellant-plaintiff. The trial court had directed the respondents to execute the sale deed, rejecting their claim of hardship due to the suit property being their sole residence, as evidence showed they were not residing there during the seller's lifetime but elsewhere.
IBC | Financial Creditor Can Submit Claim Even If There Is No Default Of Debt: Supreme Court
Case Details: China Development Bank v. Doha Bank OPSC and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1029
The Supreme Court has observed a default is not necessary for a debt to become a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held that under Section 5(7) of the IBC, any person to whom financial debt is owed becomes a Financial Creditor even if there is no default in payment of debt. “Therefore, for submitting the claim by a Financial Creditor, there is no requirement of actual default,” the Court held.
The Court was deciding the matter China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors and the connected appeals where the question was whether the appellants could be regarded as financial creditors.
The Supreme Court has held that a moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will not extinguish a claim.
Marriage Built On Mutual Trust, Companionship; When These Missing, Marital Bond Becomes Mere Legal Formality: Supreme Court
Case Details: Amutha v. AR Subramanian
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030
The Supreme Court has observed that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcline, can be a relevant factor to decide matrimonial disputes, when marriage has become a mere legal formality dovid of mutual trust and companionship.
“Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes,” observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.
The Court made these remarks while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a High Court's judgment granting a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
The Court observed that maintenance can be granted despite the financial independence of a party if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post- divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.
“The financial independence of a party does not preclude the High Court from granting maintenance if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.”
In Suit For Declaration Of Title With Further Relief Of Possession, Limitation Period Of 12 Years Applies; Not 3 Years: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1031
The Supreme Court held that while the limitation period in a suit typically follows the main relief, this does not apply when the main relief is a declaration of title, as there is no limitation for such declarations. Instead, the limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief sought.
Therefore, the Court said that when along with a relief for declaration of title, a relief for possession is also claimed, then the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the possession of immovable property based on title.
“In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist,” the Court observed.
The Court followed the decision in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa reported in AIR 1961 SC 808, where it was been laid down that in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court decision that affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to allow the Respondent-plaintiff to make an amendment to the original suit (plaint) to claim possession of the suit property along with the declaration of title of the property.
Govts Engaging Temporary Workers For Long Periods Unfair; 'Uma Devi' Judgment Being Misapplied Against Long-Serving Workers: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jaggo v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032
The Supreme Court has criticised the practice of government institutions engaging workers on a temporary basis for a prolonged period, which results in the infringement of various labour rights. The Court reminded that government entities must indulge in fair and just practices and refrain from exploitative employment practices.
While allowing the regularisation of certain workers who were employed on a temporary basis for about 14-20 years by the Central Water Commission (CWC), a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed:
“..it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.”
The rise of the gig economy in the private sector has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, observed the Supreme Court while advising the government departments from misusing the practice of engaging temporary workers.
The Court appealed to the Government departments from adopting the detrimental practices found in the gig economy.
Non-Compliance Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Ground For Bail; Irregular Seizure Won't Make Evidence Inadmissible: Supreme Court
Case Details: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, SLP(Crl) No. 12120/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that the procedure mandated under Section 52A is mandatory. The Court held that the purpose of the insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances was to ensure the early disposal of seized contraband and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and give effect to the international Conventions.
The Court stated: “Sub-section 2 of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section 1. Therefore any lapse or delay would merely be a procedural irregularity. Any procedural irregularity found to be in conducting search or seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter would not by itself make the entire evidence inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all circumstances...Any prima facie delay or lapse in compliance of Section 52A by itself would not be a ground to release the accused on bail unless the conditions mandated under Section 37(1)(b) have been found to have been satisfied.”
It also held that while granting bail to the accused, the Court must consider the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, which are mandatory in nature.
“Recording of findings as mandatory in Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involving in the offences under the Act,” the Court said.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment in an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the May 18 order of the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Judgment Barring Banks From Charging More Than 30% Interest On Credit Card Dues
Case Details: Hongkong Andshanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Awaz . and Ors., C.A. No. 5273/2008 & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1034
The Supreme Court set aside an order dated July 7, 2008, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Awaz & Ors v. RBI, whereby it held that charging of interest between 36% per annum to 50% per annum from the credit card holders is usurious/excessive rate of interest. The Commission set up a cap of 30% as the rate of interest on credit cards.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the 2008 order, and allowed the present batch of civil appeals preferred by Hong Kong Shanghai Corporation, Citibank, American Express Banking Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank, along with the Intervenor, Housing Development Finance Corporation. The Appellants argued that determining the reasonability and 'fixing of the maximum or the minimum rates of interest', is the exclusive function of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
S.138 NI Act | Director Who Signed Cheque Not Liable For Dishonour When Company Hasn't Been Added As Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
The Supreme Court reiterated that the authorised signatory of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque drawn on the company's account unless the company is arraigned as the principal accused.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of a man convicted for dishonoured cheque on the ground that the cheque was issued on behalf of a company, which was not arraigned as an accused. The Court rejected the argument that there was no occasion to implead the company as the cheque was drawn in discharge of personal debt of the accused, who signed the cheque as the company's director.
No Registration Or Stamp Duty Required For Compromise Decree Acquiring Property With Pre-Existing Right: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1036
The Supreme Court ruled that if a person already has a right to a property and acquires it through a compromise decree, they don't need to register it under the Registration Act of 1908. The Court also clarified that no stamp duty would be charged on such a decree, as it doesn't create any new rights and therefore doesn't qualify as a 'conveyance' under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed against the MP High Court's Indore Bench decision upholding the Collector of Stamps decision determining stamp duty at Rs.6,67,500/- payable by the Appellant for acquiring the subject matter property in the compromise proceedings in which he had pre-existing rights.
Not Necessary To File Separate Application For Delay Condonation Along With Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1037
The Supreme Court ruled that a separate application seeking condonation of delay is not necessary to be filed along with an application seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the application sufficiently explains the delay.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision, which upheld the First Appellate Court's ruling that overturned the trial court's order allowing the restoration application filed by the Appellant-Defendant for restoration of the ex-parte decree passed against him. The First Appellate Court overturned the trial court's decision citing that a separate application as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed along with the Order IX Rule 13 application.
Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038
The Supreme Court observed that the transferee cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”) if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed.
The Court also explained the conditions to invoke Section 53A.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the plea filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision that approved the First Appellate Court and Trial Court's decision decreeing the suit for the declaration of title and recovery of possession in the plaintiff's-Respondent favor.
Economic Offences Involving Corruption & Loss to Public Exchequer Cannot Be Quashed Based On Settlement : Supreme Court
Case Details: Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1039
Observing that the economic offences stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications, the Supreme Court refused to quash the corruption case based on the settlement arrived between the accused and the bank.
Noting that the Bank has suffered a loss of approximately Rs. 6.13 Crores, the Court ruled that the settlement terms recorded by the parties at the DRT proceedings cannot erase the offence committed by the person.
“In the instant case, it is on record that consent terms were submitted by the parties before the DRT. It is admitted that the bank had suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 6.13 Crores approximately. Hence, a substantial injury was caused to the public exchequer and consequently it can be said that public interest has been hampered. Keeping in view the fact that in the present case a special statute i.e. PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act has been invoked, we are of the view that quashing of offences under the said Act would have a grave and substantial impact not just on the parties involved, but also on the society at large.”, the court said.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale was hearing the appeal filed against the Bombay High Court decision dismissing the quashing petition filed by the Appellants for quashing the fraud, cheating, and corruption case against them.
Central Govt Employee Can't Take Benefits Of Both MACPS & Time-Bound Promotion : Supreme Court Issues Directions On Recoveries
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. NM Raut & Ors., SLP (C) No. 8015 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1040
The Supreme Court held that a central government servant was not entitled to the benefit of both time-bound promotion scheme as well as the benefit of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme.
"Grant of financial upgradations as well as promotions are to be duly accounted for and taken into consideration in the MACPS," the Court observed.
Holding so, the Court issued directions regarding the recoveries from employees who were given double benefits under the MACPS as well as the grade pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
At the same time, the Court directed the Union Government to not recover arrears from retired Government Employees and those set to retire within 1 year of this judgment who were given benefit by the Central Government of revised pay on the implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar pronounced the judgment in civil appeals concerning the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008 (MACPS). The MACPS allows every government servant to get upgradation on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service from the date of Joining.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Where It's Glaring From Averments That Suit Is Hopelessly Time-Barred, Plaint Is To Be Rejected : Supreme Court
Case Details: Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Ors v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, Arising out of SLP (C) No.18977 of 2016)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated April 26, 2016.
While reiterating the position of law that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question for rejecting the plaint on that has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that in cases where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by the limitation, the "Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the Trial Court".
Visitation Rights Of Parent Cannot Be At Cost Of Child's Health & Well-Being : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042
Observing that the health of a child cannot be compromised while deciding the disputes between the parents, the Supreme Court modified the directions allowing interim visitation rights to a father.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale allowed an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court to a limited extent of modifying the place of visitation for the father to meet his 2-year-old daughter at a place where the mother along with the minor daughter resides.
"The interest of the minor child is paramount. In the process of adjudicating upon the rights of the parents, her health cannot be compromised," the Court observed while holding that the visitation rights of the parent cannot be at the cost of health and well-being of the child.
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation -Conferring Power To Execute Partition On Revenue Authorities Doesn't Bar Civil Court's Jurisdiction To Decide Rights : Supreme Court
Case Details: Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1043
The Supreme Court ruled that even though a statute vests an exclusive jurisdiction with the revenue authorities to enforce and execute the partition, it cannot limit the civil court's jurisdiction to decide the contentious issues regarding the declaration of rights, title, and interest over the suit property.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court decision concerning the partition of the suit property as per the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation).
'Blatant Medical Negligence': Supreme Court Directs Surgeon To Pay Rs 3.5 Lakh To Patient Who Developed Infection After Cataract Operation
Case Details: Bherulal Bhimaji Oswal (D) By Lrs v. Madhusudan N. Kumbhare, Arising Out of SLP (C.) Nos. 11716-11717 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1044
The Supreme Court restored the findings of the State Consumer Commission of Maharashtra which found that the present Respondent, an eye surgeon, had failed to diagnose and also further failed to take corrective steps after the Appellant developed an infection and abscess following a cataract operation.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale held that this amounted to medical negligence and overruled the finding of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that there was no negligence.
"It was a blatant result of medical negligence by the respondent in post-operative care wherein corrective steps could have been taken, if the most reasonable and basic skills which were expected from the respondent-doctor, were applied," the Court held.
The Respondent is now directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000 to the Appellant within 2 months, failing which the amount shall carry an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the judgment till its realisation.
Summons Under PMLA Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Accused Was Discharged In Predicate Offence : Supreme Court
Case Details: Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo, SLP(Crl) No. 15189/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1045
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court which quashed summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) to investigate proceeds of crime involved money laundering on grounds that the Respondent was discharged in scheduled offence (offences related to property in this case).
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated January 3, whereby the summons issued under Sections 50(2) & (3) of the PMLA for money laundering were quashed against the present Respondent after it was found that a Special Court discharged the Respondent in connection with the scheduled offence.
The Court ordered: "What has been issued to the respondent is summons. Merely because he or she is discharged in the predicate offence, the Court cannot quash the summons. The question of whether the respondent will be arraigned as accused or not is a matter which is to be decided at a later point in time. In that eventually, it is open to the respondent to raise all contentions including the submission that predicate offence quashed in the subsequent action of the appellant arraigning him as accused in the PMLA proceedings does not sustain in the eye of law...the impugned proceedings have been quashed and the appellant is able to proceed in pursuant to the summons issued."
Supreme Court Dismisses HPCL's Plea Against Bombay HC Order Quashing Pension Cuts For 269 Retired Employees
Case Details: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1046
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) against the Bombay High Court's decision to quash two notifications that reduced/discontinued pensionary benefits to 269 retired employees.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said that the notifications were issued without following the principles of natural justice.
“As noted earlier, the decision was taken belatedly on 14th March, 2016. As far as the second letter is concerned, we find that some of the employees had retired way back in the year 1994 and 1995. Many of them had taken VRS. Part of the pensionary benefits have been withdrawn admittedly without following principles of natural justice and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Same is the case with 40 employees who are subject matter of first letter dated 14th March 2016. Now it is too late in the day to direct the petitioners to give them opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the issue relates to only 269 retire employees. So, on the limited grounds indicated earlier, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
Routine Transfer Of Cases To CBI Overburdens It, Demoralises State Police Officers : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1047
The Supreme Court observed that routine transfer of cases from state authorities to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) overburdens 'premier investigating agency' of the country and has a 'very serious demoralizing impact' on officers of the state police.
The observation came while the Court was dealing with State of West Bengal's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order, which directed CBI probe into the allegations of custodial torture of 2 women arrested amid protests that took place in West Bengal after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder incident.
"Routine entrustment of investigation of matters to CBI not only leads to burden on the premier investigating agency of the country, it has very serious demoralizing impact on the officers of the state police", recorded the bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan in its order, constituting a Special Investigation Team of senior state police officers not belonging to the state to proceed further with the investigation.
'Classic Case Of How System Operates & Delays Trial': Supreme Court While Allowing Accused To Recall Witness After Over 3 Years
Case Details: Nadeem v. State of UP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1048
The Supreme Court lamented systematic delays in trial after noting that the trial court illegally recorded the complainant's evidence in a POCSO case in the absence of the accused and his advocate and then both the trial court and the High Court rejected a recall application to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant.
“This is a classic case that indicates how the system operates and trial is delayed…The trial court could not have recorded evidence of PW1 in the absence of the appellant and his advocate. After noting this illegality in the order dated 30.05.2023 the trial court rejected the application…This was a case where there was a clear prejudice to the appellant and therefore the trial court itself should have allowed the application”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further criticised the public prosecutor and the government lawyer for opposing the recall application before the trial court and the High Court respectively.
“Even the public prosecutor ought to have taken a fair stand and ought not to have objected to the application. It is a duty of the public prosecutor to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair manner. The matter did not rest here. When 482 petition was heard by the High Court, the High Court has noted that the government advocate vehemently opposed the application. Even the High Court has missed the very important point that the evidence of PW1 was recorded in absence of the appellant and his advocate”, the Court observed.
Registry Cannot Refuse Listing Of Case Citing Procedural Defects When There Is A Judicial Order To List: Supreme Court
Case Details: Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1049
The Supreme Court held that the Registry cannot defy specific order of the Court and refuse to list a case on the ground of procedural non-compliance.
“When there is order of the court directing listing of the cases specifically assigned to this bench the registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the case on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that no rule under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, prohibits listing of a case solely due to non-compliance with Rule 2 of Order 15. The Court clarified that in urgent cases, the Registry must list the matter while noting procedural lapses in the office report.
“We do not find any rule in the Supreme Court Rules 2013 which records that notwithstanding failure to comply with requirement of Rule 2 of Order 15 a case cannot be listed before the court. There may be cases of extreme urgency. In such cases the registry cannot rely upon Rule 2 of Order 15 and refuse to list the case”, the Court observed.
Orders
'We Grant Bail & Next Day You Become Minister!': Supreme Court To Examine If Witnesses Against TN Minister Senthil Balaji Are Under Pressure
Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. The Deputy Director and Anr. MA 2454/2024 in Crl.A. No. 4011/2024
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the fact that Senthil Balaji was appointed as Minister in Tamil Nadu soon after he was granted bail in the money laundering case related to the cash-for-jobs scam.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea seeking to recall the judgment which granted bail to Balaji on the ground that witnesses would be under pressure since Balaji was appointed Minister after his release.
The bench however said that it would not recall the judgment as the law laid down in there as it was benefitting several other persons. Saying that it would limit the scope of enquiry to whether the witnesses were under pressure, the bench asked Balaji's counsel to get instructions and posted the matter to December 13.
Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings In Gujarat High Court Against Judicial Officer
Case Details: AM Bhukharee v. Kshitijkumar Satishbhai Banker and Ors. SLP (C) 27304/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings in the Gujarat High Court initiated against a judicial officer, an Additional Senior Civil Judge.
The judicial officer approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Gujarat High Court which allowed his addition as a respondent in a contempt petition filed by a person who alleged that he was illegally arrested in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case.
'We're Concerned No Voter Should Be Troubled': Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission's Explanation On Increasing Voters Per Polling Station From 1200 To 1500
Case Details: Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024
The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to increase the voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL challenging Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station have been increased from 1200 to 1500.
The CJI asked the ECI how the situation would be handled if more than 1500 people arrive at one polling station.
The bench then ordered the ECI to file a short affidavit within 3 weeks.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Journalist Mamta Tripathi In UP Police FIR Over Alleged Defamatory Video Report
Case Details: Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No.44584/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim protection against coercive steps to journalist Mamta Tripathi booked over an alleged defamatory video report dated September 23, 2023 published by Dainik Bhaskar.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, stating, “The matter stands deferred to...In the meantime, coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner on account of FIR No. 281/2023”.
Supreme Court Stays Arrest To YSR Congress Party's Social Media Head For 2 weeks, Asks him To Approach Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Details: S. Bhargav Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 476/2024
The Supreme Court granted protection from arrest to YSR Congress Party's social media head, Sajjala Bhargav Reddy to approach the Andhra High Court for appropriate remedy.
As per Reddy's writ petition, he has challenged Sections 111 and 113, BNS, which he argues has introduced the offences of the Organised Crime and Terrorist Act. He has also claimed that the ruling Chandrababu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party is misusing these provisions against members of Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) to stifle dissent.
Various FIRs have been filed against the present petitioner under Section 111 of the BNS.
Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Dave (for petitioner) submitted that in all First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against the accused, the incident took place prior to coming of the criminal laws. All three criminal laws were enforced from July 1 onwards.
'They Have To Be Given A Chance': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging SC/ST Reservations In Punjab's Gram Panchayat Posts
Case Details: Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 28828/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes in Gram Panchayat elections in village in Ferozepur, Punjab.
The bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea challenging the two circulars issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Ferozepur through which the seat of the sarpanch of the village as three wards were reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Tribes.
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To File Report On Suggestions Given By Petitioner For Effective Implementation Of Domestic Violence Act
Case Details: We The Women Of India v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021
The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories to file a status report in response to the suggestions filed by the petitioner 'We The Women of India', a non-governmental organisation, for the effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh passed the order after being informed by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta (for petitioner) that suggestions have been filed in response to the Court's last order.
Protest Peacefully, Don't Cause Inconvenience To Public: Supreme Court While Closing Habeas Petition Against Custody Of Farmers' Leader
Case Details: Jagjit Singh Dallewal Thr: Guninder Kaur Gill Next Friend of Jagjit Singh Dallewal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 491/2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal custody of farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal by Punjab police, noting that he has been released and joined the farmers' protest.
As per allegations, Dallewal was to begin a fast-unto-death on November 26 in support of farmers' demands. But he was forcibly removed from the protest site on Khanuari border and taken to a hospital in Ludhiana (from where he was released later).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. Without commenting on whether the farmers' protests are right or wrong, the bench orally expressed, “In a democratic setup, you can engage in peaceful protests but do not cause inconvenience to people...the Khanauri border is a lifeline for Punjab”.
It was also noted that the issues raised are pending before the Court in another matter.
Kerala Church Feud: Supreme Court Says Jacobite Members Are In Contempt, Asks Them To Hand Over 6 Churches To Malankara Group
Case Details: v. Venu and Ors. v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli) | SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
The Supreme Court observed that the members of the Jacobite Syrian Church are in contempt for “wilfully disobeying” the judgments regarding the entrustment of Churches to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per the 1934 Constitution.
The Court directed the members of the Jacobite church to hand over the administration of three churches each in Ernakulam and Palakkad districts in Kerala to the Malankara faction and file an affidavit to that effect. Failure to do so will result in initiation of contempt proceedings, the Court warned.
At the same time, the Court also directed the Malankara faction to ensure that the common amenities in these churches, such as burial grounds, schools, hospitals etc. can be enjoyed by the Jacobite faction in conformity with the 1934 Constitution. The Court posted these matters for further consideration on December 17
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the officials of the Kerala Government, Kerala Police and also certain members of the Jacobite Church against the directions passed by the Kerala High Court on October 17 to the District Collectors of Palakkad and Ernakulam to take possession of six churches under the control of the Jacobite faction.
Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of Engineering Student
Case Details: Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj @ Raj Srivastava @ Rocky Raj @ Aryan @ Ankit v. State of Jharkhand, Diary No. - 56166/2024
The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old engineering student in Jharkhand.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, in the convict's challenge to a Jharkhand High Court order whereby his death sentence was confirmed.
'You Deserve No Sympathy': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Advocate Who Contested Bar Elections While Under Suspension From Practice
Case Details: Akshaya Katiyar v. Ajay Kumar Sahu | C.A. No. 007313 - / 2022
The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Bar Council of India which suspended an advocate for 5 years over misconduct. The Court also took a serious view of the fact that the advocate contested Bar Association elections in Uttar Pradesh during the suspension period.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by an advocate who was suspended for 5 years by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in an order dated March 11, 2022 on account of misconduct.
The bench noted that while the advocate was under suspension, he had participated and fought the Bar Association Elections. The CJI took a stern view of Katiyar's conduct.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere In Kerala HC Order Invalidating 'Compassionate Appointment' To Late MLA's Son
Case Details: R. Prashanth v. Ashok Kumar M. | SLP(C) No. 020871 - / 2021
The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of the Kerala High Court which had set aside the appointment of late MLA Ramachandran Nair's son in the State's Public Works Department under 'compassionate employment'.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge against the Kerala High Court order which cancelled the compassionate appointment of R. Prasanth, son of late CPI(M) MLA K.K. Ramachandran Nair in the Public Works Department, ruling that such appointments are only open to kith and kin of government servants, and not MLAs.
Supreme Court Seeks Union's View On Bihar Election Commission's Plea Against Election Of Nepali Citizen As Panchayat Mukhiya
Case Details: State Election Commission of Bihar, Patna & Anr. v. Biltu Ray @ Bilat Ray @ Bilat Prasad Yadav & Ors., SLP(C) No. 27280/2024
The Supreme Court called for Union's response on Bihar State Election Commission's plea challenging a direction that citizenship issue of a Mukhiya in the state be referred to the Union. The said Mukhiya was disqualified by the Bihar SEC on a view that he was a Nepali citizen when the elections took place.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order for impleadment of Union of India, taking into account a submission that it is the competent authority to grant citizenship.
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Supreme Court Urges Punjab Govt To Consider Relief For 39 Families Unable To Prove They're Genuine Riot Victims
Case Details: Harbhajan Singh (Dead) & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors., SLP (C) 9948/2018
The Supreme Court directed the Punjab State to explore the possibility of providing alternative accommodation to 39 families occupying flats in SAS Nagar Mohali Phase-XI for the last 40 years, meant for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots victims, as they do not have red cards given to identify the genuine victims of the riots.
A special leave petition has been filed claiming that 39 families have been evicted by the authorities. It is their case that they were the residents of Jahangir Puri, Delhi and had to flee from there due to the riots.
On the other hand, the authorities claim that the families are not genuine riots-affected victims but have trespassed into the premises and have been in unlawful occupation for 40 years. It is there case that there are many other genuine families of the economically weaker section group, who need shelter.
Can NCDRC Technical Member Sitting Singly Preside Over Bench? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: S S v. Rajat Gupta & Ors., Civil Appeal No.13447/2024
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a consumer case pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on challenge to an order passed therein by a Technical Member alone.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta granted stay upon hearing Senior Advocate Trideep Pais for the appellant, who contended that the impugned order suffered from the vice of “corum non judice”. Pais conceded that the ground had not been raised in the petition, however, he referred to an order passed by another bench of the Court (Ref: State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Travels Kokks International), wherein Rajasthan High Court's view that a technical member sitting singly cannot preside over a bench of the NCDRC was upheld.
Supreme Court Asks 6 Women Navy Officers Granted Permanent Commission To Approach Armed Forces Tribunal For Promotion-Related Reliefs
Case Details: Union of India v. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja, Executive Officer, Diary No. 23843-2023
While disposing of Indian women navy officers' plea seeking promotion-related reliefs consequent to the grant of permanent commission to them, the Supreme Court said that the Armed Forces Tribunal would be the appropriate forum to address the mixed questions of fact and law involved. It granted liberty to the officers to move the Tribunal which, considering that the officers' have been agitating the issues for about 2 decades, shall preferably decide their applications within 4 months of filing.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in miscellaneous applications filed by 6 Indian Navy women officers in the Union of India v. Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja case, seeking promotion-related reliefs.
Supreme Court Awards Rs.5 Lakhs Honorarium To 83-Yr Old Ex-Constable Who Saved Lives By Killing Dacoit In 1986
Case Details: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26568/2023
The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as honorarium to an 83-year-old retired Constable, who approached it seeking direction to UP authorities to act on his Gallantry Award recommendation. Reportedly, the retired cop saved members of public by killing a dacoit 38 years ago.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with petitioner-Ram Autar's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order, which denied his prayer on the ground that he had approached belatedly.
Supreme Court Stays Criminal Trial In Case Where Allahabad HC Failed To Pronounce Decision After 14 Months Since Reserving Orders
Case Details: Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.11919/2024
The Supreme Court stayed criminal trial against an accused, taking into account his grievance that the High Court reserved judgment on his plea for quashing but did not deliver the same despite lapse of 14 months since the orders were reserved.
“We do not know the exact reason as to why the learned Judge of the High Court, despite lapse of 14 (fourteen) months since judgment was reserved, could not deliver the judgment and dispose of the petition one way or the other...we request the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months from date upon hearing all the parties”, said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta.
'What Is Defamatory In Saying MLAs Were Ready To Switch Parties?' Supreme Court Rejects AIADMK MLA's Plea Against TN Speaker
Case Details: R.M. Babu Murugavel v. Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M. Appavu, SLP(Crl) No. 16265/2024
While refusing to entertain AIADMK's Babu Murugavel's challenge to quashing of a defamation complaint against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu, the Supreme Court observed that imputation in respect of political leaders crossing-over from one party to another can't be said to be defamatory.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Murugavel's challenge to a Madras High Court order, whereby the defamation complaint against the TN Speaker over his alleged statements in respect of MLAs crossing-over from AIADMK to DMK, was quashed. The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that Murugavel, who was not an 'aggrieved person', filed the complaint in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity.
'Didn't Intend To Lower Murasoli Trust's Reputation': Union Minister L Murugan Says; Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Him
Case Details: Dr. L. Murugan v. Murasoli Trust, SLP (Crl) No. 12091-12092/2023
The Supreme Court quashed the defamation case filed by the trust managing DMK mouthpiece Murasoli against Union Minister and former Tamil Nadu BJP Head Dr L Murugan over his alleged defamatory statements during a press conference in 2020.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon Murasoli Trust's expression of intention to not continue the prosecution, after Murugan made a statement that he did not intend to hurt the sentiments of the Trust and/or cause harm/injury to its reputation.
Supreme Court Adds ASI, INACH As Parties In Plea To Restore Mysuru's Heritage Buildings
Case Details: G. Satyanarayana Gouri Satya v. State of Karnataka., SLP(C) No. 26848/2023
The Supreme Court on December 4 impleaded Archaeological Survey of India and the UNESCO's Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) in a plea filed by journalist G. Satyanarayana Gouri, a veteran journalist based in Mysuru, for the restoration of two heritage buildings in Mysore city.
The Special Leave Petition challenges the order of the Karnataka High Court whereby on August 8, 2023, the Court dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Karnataka authorities from demolishing or reconstructing 19th-century Devaraja Market building and Lansdowne Building of Mysore city. Reportedly, the buildings are to be demolished for the purpose of redevelopment project.
A bench of Justices Sudhandhu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanuallah stated that the structures were not colonial-era buildings but those that belonged to the princely State of Mysuru. An attempt must be made to restore it.
Medical Negligence: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Of Doctor Held Liable For Surgery On Wrong Leg
Case Details: Rahul Kakran v. Ravi Rai | C.A 13659/2024
The Supreme Court on December 2 dismissed an appeal filed by a doctor challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding him liable for medical negligence for conducting the surgery on the wrong foot of a patient.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by Dr Rahul Kakran, who worked as an Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Fortis Hospital in 2016.
The consumer complaint was based on the allegation that the surgery was performed on the patient's left leg instead of his injured right leg.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Manipur HC's Direction To CBI To Trace Absconding Rape Convict Within 3 Months
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Manipur., SLP(Crl) No. 9379-9380/2024
The Supreme Court set aside suo moto directions passed by the Manipur High Court in October 2023 directing the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) to speedily track and produce Timothi Changsang, a Northeast child-home Administrator convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for raping minor girls within 3 months before the High Court.
The convict has been absconding since 2018 and is yet to be found.
Delhi Air Pollution: Supreme Court Allows GRAP-IV Restrictions To Be Relaxed Up To GRAP-II
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court allowed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to reduce the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) Stage-IV restrictions in Delhi to GRAP-Stage II in view of the betterment in the Air Quality Index (AQI).
The Court advised the CAQM to also consider adding certain measures under GRAP-Stage III. If the AQI crosses 350, GRAP-III should be imposed and if it crosses 400, GRAP-IV must be imposed, the Court said.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the submission of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the average AQI levels have been below the 300 mark since November 30.
The Court directed the NCR states - Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana- to convene a meeting with all workers' Unions and appeal to them to get the workers registered in the online portal so that they become eligible to receive the subsistence allowance paid during the period when they remain unemployed due to the ban on construction activities.
Supreme Court Grants Relief To Disabled Candidates For AIBE; Express Surprise At NLU Consortium Having No Policy For CLAT
Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
After the Supreme Court allowed a 100 percent blind law student to avail the assistance of a scribe, as appointed by the Consortium of the National Law Universities, to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25, the Court granted relief to the other two petitioners seeking the use of computers to write answers and soft copies of Bare Acts for the upcoming the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition filed by three law students with benchmark disabilities seeking reasonable accommodation to appear for CLAT-PG and AIBE respectively.
Supreme Court Asks Chief Secretaries Of States/UTs To Designate Senior Officer To Supervise Compliance With RPwD Act
Case Details: Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998
In a PIL seeking implementation of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court called on non-compliant states/Union Territories to file by February, 2025 their response/affidavits on further steps taken to comply with the provisions of the Act.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti further asked Chief Secretary of each state/UT to designate a senior officer to supervise the process of compliance with the provisions.
'Nothing Wrong In Having Political Ideology': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea That Politicians Shouldn't Become Office Bearers Of Bar Bodies
Case Details: C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 795/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought directions that persons who are members of political parties should not hold become the office-bearers of Bar Associations and Bar Councils.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that there was nothing wrong in persons with political ideologies holding positions in the bar bodies.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP Police Officers Convicted For Hashimpura Massacre
Case Details: Sami Ullah and Ors. v. Zulfikar Nasir and Ors. Crl.A. No. 1547-1549/2018 and connected cases
The Supreme Court granted bail to the members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel who were convicted by the Delhi High Court in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih passed the order considering that the convicts have been undergoing imprisonment for over six years since November 2018. The bench directed that the convicts be produced before the Trial Court within a week for the execution of bail bonds.
Supreme Court Allows Medical Student With 70% Hearing Impairment To Appear For PG Admission Counselling
Case Details: Tina Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 735/2024
The Supreme Court issued a notice returnable 4 weeks in a petition filed by a medical student with a benchmark disability, having a 70% hearing impairment, challenging the disability clause under the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 whereby a person with a hearing disability of 40 % or more shall be ineligible for admission to Post-Graduate (PG) Medical Courses.
The petitioner has challenged the disability clause on grounds of being discriminatory and arbitrary in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution and Sections 3, 32, 33, 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Shelter Homes For Urban Poor From States/UTs Amid Winter Season
Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003
While hearing the PIL seeking adequate shelters for homeless persons, the Supreme Court called for an affidavit from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) which shall detail inter-alia the number of persons who can be accommodated in existing shelters and how the Board proposes to address deficits (if any).
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter and ordered that the affidavit be filed through a Senior Officer giving following details:
(i) Facilities available with DUSIB for accommodating persons without shelter;
(ii) Number of persons who can be accommodated in such facilities;
(iii) The estimated number of persons requiring such facilities;
(iv) If there is any deficit in the facilities available, then the number of persons requiring such facilities and how DUSIB proposes to deal with such a situation.
As per the order, the DUSIB affidavit shall also specify as to whether the persons living in the temporary shelter at Yamuna Pusta and Sarai Kale Khan have been accommodated.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Plea Challenging Gujarat Gov's Extended Ban On Fishing Activities In Arabian Sea
Case Details: Manojbhai Varjangbhai Mori v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27622/2024
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the Gujarat High Court which dismissed a writ petition challenging the imposition of an extended ban on fishing activities in the Arabian Sea for 15 days under the State Rules. It granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government's appropriate department to seek relief.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a challenge to the legality and validity of the Gujarat Fisheries (Amendment) Rules, 2024. It was brought into effect vide Notification dated July 31 issued by the Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Cooperative Department.
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Supreme Court Seeks CBI's Response To Former Congress Councillor Balwan Khokhar's Plea To Suspend Sentence
Case Details: Balwan Khokhar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Crl.A. No. 1665-1666/2019
The Supreme Court on December 6 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file counter affidavits within 2 weeks on a plea filed by one of the former Congress Councillor Balwan Khokhar, one of the convicts in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, seeking suspension of life sentence.
In 2013, Khokar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. In 2018, the Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court in an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
UPSC Aspirants' Death | Supreme Court Seeks States/UTs Response On Draft Model Rules For Regulation Of Private Coaching Centres
Case Details: Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., SLP(C) No. 18653/2024
In the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court called for states/UTs response on Model Rules on Infrastructure, Safety and Regulation of Private Coaching Institutes, 2024 crafted by the Amicus Curiae in the matter.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave's (acting as Amicus) submission that the draft rules have been circulated among the states/UTs.
In Plea To Apply POSH Act To Political Parties, Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Election Commission
Case Details: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India | Diary No. 48246/2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking the application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to political parties by asking the petitioner to first approach the Election Commission of India.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan passed the order on a PIL filed by Supreme Court lawyer Yogamaya M G.
Manipur Crisis | Supreme Court Asks State To Furnish Details Of Buildings Burnt, Looted & Trespassed And Action Taken Against Violators
Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei | Diary No. - 19206/2023
The Supreme Court asked the Manipur Government to furnish in a seal cover a list of properties which have been burnt, looted or encroached upon amidst the ongoing ethnic clashes in the State.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter relating to the Manipur Ethnic Violence Crisis.
CLAT-PG 2025| Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging CLAT-PG 2025 Results; Asks Candidates To Move HC
Case Details: Anam Khan and Another v. Consortium of National Law Universities | Diary No.56811/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the CLAT-PG 2025 Results. The Court however granted liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition challenging the provisional answer key released for the held Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for PG admissions.
The CJI, seemingly declined to issue notice in the matter, noted that the Apex Court cannot be made the Court of first instance and the petitioners should first move the High Court. He also flagged how intervention by the Top Court has led to immense delays in the release of exam results.
'No Fresh Petition For Same Issue': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Raising Grievances Related To Farmers' Protest
Case Details: Gaurav Luthra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 802/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation raising grievances related to farmers' protests, observing that another case on the same issue is pending before the Court, wherein certain initiatives have been taken.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan passed the order, with liberty to the counsel for petitioner to assist the court on the next date fixed in the pending case.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC's Imposition Of Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Advocate Mehmood Pracha, Expunges Adverse Remarks Made Against Him
Case Details: Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024
The Supreme Court set aside Allahabad High Court's imposition of Rs.1 lakh cost on Advocate Mehmood Pracha over a petition filed by him concerning videography during the electoral process. Personal remarks made against the counsel in the impugned High Court order were also expunged.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan passed the order, upon Election Commission of India taking a stand that the aspects for which notice was issued (ie imposition of cost and adverse remarks) were between the Court and Pracha.
Supreme Court Seeks Responses From 6 States & HCs In Suo Motu Case Over Stay Orders Affecting Trials & Delay In Prosecution Sanctions
Case Details: In Re: Adverse Effect of Stay Orders Granted By Appellate Courts On The Pace of Trials, Despite Parameters For Grant of Such Stays, Laid Down By This Hon'ble Court | W.P.(Crl.) No. 494/202
The Supreme Court sought the response of 6 State Governments and their High Courts on the issue of adverse effects of stay orders in criminal trials and the delay in granting sanctions for criminal prosecution.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing the Suo motu case regarding the adverse effect of stay orders passed by appellate courts on criminal trials.
The Court noted that the present matter is on two aspects, (1) the sanction to prosecute not being granted on time; (2) stay orders passed by High Courts on criminal trials.
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To DoPT Secretary For Not Appointing Blind Candidate As Per Judgment
Case Details: Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
The Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for non-compliance with its judgment directing the appointment of Pankaj Srivastava, a 100 percent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008.
“There is hardly any compliance made by the Union of India with the judgement of this court dated 8th July, 2024. We direct the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi to file his personal affidavit showing cause why action against the under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 should not be initiated against him. Affidavit to be filed on or before 19th of December”, the Court ordered.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pulled up the Union of India for its failure to implement the court's direction within three months. In its July 8 ruling, the Supreme Court had noted that the Union of India had failed to implement reservations under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act), in civil services between 1996 and 2009.
Will Pay Tea Garden Workers' Dues Of Rs. 70 Crores Within Two Years: Assam Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed the Assam government to file an affidavit detailing its plan to pay the balance dues of Rs. 70 crores to plantation workers employed in the 15 tea estates managed by the Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL), a state-owned entity.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih recorded the statement of the counsel for Assam that the payment will be made in two yearly instalments. This decision comes after the Court expressed its intention to liquidate the assets of ATCL to pay the dues.
WB Universities' VC Appointments | '11 Appointments Approved By Governor', AG Says; Supreme Court Gives 3 Weeks' Time For The Remaining
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
In the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court was informed that the Chancellor (Governor) has cleared the names of 6 VCs and 5 more names shall be cleared (taking the number to 11).
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan adjourned the matter to January 8, in light of Attorney General R Venkataramani's request to grant some more time to the Chancellor (West Bengal Governor) to clear the names of Vice-Chancellors for remaining Universities.
Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation
Case Details: National Highways Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024
The Supreme Court observed that a deputation service could not be treated as a regular service for promotion if there was no continuity or a gap in the employee's deputation service.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) against the High Court's decision directing the NHAI to consider an employee's (respondent no.1) un-continued deputation service for promotion.
Supreme Court Criticizes Delhi Government's Green Cover Efforts, Proposes to Appoint External Agency To Suggest Measures
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Delhi government's progress in implementing measures to enhance green cover in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih decided that it will appoint an external agency to suggest and oversee necessary measures. The amici curiae were asked to suggest appropriate agencies for the task.
Ayurvedic/AYUSH Doctors Can't Seek Parity With Medical Doctors: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: Dr. Solamon A v. State of Kerala, SLP(C) No. 3946/2023
While dismissing a special leave petition, the Supreme Court reiterated that Ayurvedic/AYUSH doctors cannot seek parity with medical doctors. The order was passed noting the qualitative distinction between the academic qualifications and standard of imparting of the respective degree courses.
“we are satisfied on facts that the Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors serving in the State of Kerala, having regard to the qualitative distinction in the academic qualifications and the standard of imparting respective degree courses, cannot seek parity with medical doctors”, said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
'Can't Waste Court's Time': Supreme Court Dismisses FCI's Petition With Rs 50K Cost
Case Details: The Food Corporation of India and Anr v. Namita Paul Diary No. 50350-2024
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Divisional Manager each, while dismissing its special leave petition. It also orally remarked that the filing of SLP should not have been advised.
The SLP came before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma which at the outset remarked that they would impose a cost on the petitioners. The Court found the present petitioners had sought a review of the common impugned order dated October 19, 2023, passed by the High Court of Tripura, Agartala, which was earlier challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing SLP.
Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Plea Against Setting Aside Of Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh's Compulsory Retirement
Case Details: Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24779/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's challenge to the setting aside of an order of compulsory retirement against Chhattisgarh IPS Officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who faced allegations of corruption, extortion and sedition.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order in Union's challenge to a Delhi High Court order, whereby the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside Singh's compulsory retirement was upheld.
RG Kar Rape-Murder Case Trial Likely To Be Over In One Month, Says Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The trial in the case relating to the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata is likely to be over within a month, observed the Supreme Court, after taking note of the latest status report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Court noted that the trial is being conducted on a day-to-day basis from Monday to Thursday at the Special CBI Court at Sealdah and that the statements of 43 witnesses have been recorded. A total of 81 witnesses are to be examined from the prosecution side.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar recorded these observations in the order passed in the suo motu case taken over the rape-murder case.
Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Several Temples In UP Coming Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Report From Mathura District Court
Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., Diary No. 52096/2024
Taking note of issues surrounding temple administration in Uttar Pradesh, and the “vested interest” of Advocates appointed as Receivers in keeping litigations around such issues pending, the Supreme Court called for a report from Principal District Judge, Mathura.
The report sought from the District Judge shall specify the following:
i. List of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which the litigations are pending and in which the Receivers appointed by the Courts.
ii. Since when such litigations are pending and the status of such proceedings.
iii. The names and status of the persons, particularly of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as Receivers.
iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid to the Receivers appointed in such proceedings.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, while dealing with the plea of petitioner-Ishwar Chanda Sharma, appointed by a Mathura Court as member of a Committee for management and operation (ie Receiver/Manager) of a temple. His grievance is that the Mathura Court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
'Circular Relied Upon By DK Shivakumar Not Applicable', IT Dept Says In Tax Evasion Case; Supreme Court Calls For Formal Affidavit
Case Details: D.K Shivakumar v. The Income Tax Department, SLP(Crl) No. 3128/2020 (and connected cases)
In the plea filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar seeking dismissal of charges against him in a tax evasion case (and connected matters), the Supreme Court called on the Income Tax Department to file a formal affidavit with regard to its claim that the circular(s) relied upon by Shivakumar is not applicable to the case.
For context, the Congress leader relies on a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular of 2019, wherein it is stated that prosecution for concealment of income may be initiated only if a penalty for concealment has been imposed and that penalty has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, on hearing Additional Solicitor General N Venkatraman (for the IT Department), who submitted that the Circular relied upon by the Assessee (Shivakumar) is inapplicable.
BCI's Draft Rules Inadequate In Preventing Advocates' Strikes: Common Cause Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Common Cause v. Abhijat and Ors., CONMT.PET. (C) No. 550/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 821/1990
The Supreme Court directed that suggestions on the Draft Rules submitted by the Bar Council of India in regard to preventing and prohibiting advocates' strikes could be made by the petitioner along with the amicus and Chairperson of the BCI. After a report is submitted within 4 weeks, the same will be finalised by the Court.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a contempt petition filed by Common Cause inter-alia alleging that the BCI is not taking steps to prevent advocate's strikes and is not looking effectively into its disciplinary control side. It was hearing on the Draft Rules which was submitted by the BCI's Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra in January this year. While submitting, he stated that any suggestions upon the same shall be accepted without any condition.
Supreme Court Directs All States/UTs To Furnish Data On Vacancies In Prison Staff Posts
Case Details: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
The Supreme Court called on States/Union Territories in the country to furnish cadre-wise information on the strength of officers and staff meant to take care of exigencies in jails. Further, the Court sought information on the number of vacancies (in jail posts) and whether any steps have been taken, or are underway, to fill-up those vacancies.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, while dealing with the matter pertaining to overcrowding of prisons in India. Time of 8 weeks has been granted to the states/UTs to file the requisite affidavits.
Delhi Excise Policy Case: Supreme Court Deletes Bail Condition Requiring Manish Sisodia To Appear Before CBI & ED Twice A Week
Case Details: Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, MA 2344/2024 in Crl.A. No. 3295/2024 with Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MA 2345/2024 in Crl.A. No. 3296/2024
In a relief to Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court deleted the bail condition imposed on him in the Delhi Excise Policy case requiring appearance before the Investigating Officers of the ED & CBI twice a week.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, clarifying that Sisodia shall regularly attend the trial. “We do not find the said condition necessary”, it said.
'Pooja Is For Deity, How Can It Be Stopped For Public Convenience?': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Guruvayoor Temple Dewaswom
Case Details: PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging the decision of the Guruvayoor Sri Krishna Temple administration not to conduct 'Udayasthamana Pooja' on Vrishchikam Ekadasi day, citing public convenience. This decision was earlier upheld by the Kerala High Court in its judgment dated December 7, 2024.
The Court questioned whether the pooja can be stopped on the ground that it will cause inconvenience to the public. Justice Maheshwari observed, “Pooja has been stopped on the pretext of causing inconvenience to the public. Pooja is for the deity. For increasing the divinity of the deity. So, this cannot be as per the public. Management may find a way to manage things. How far this reason is justified, we have to examine this point.”
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal issued notice to the respondents, including the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, Thantri and the State of Kerala, returnable in 4 weeks.
Meanwhile, the Court directed that there should not be any change in the scheduled daily poojas.
No Interim Stay On Bar Association Elections Being Held Strictly As Per Bye-Laws, Policies: Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Re: Strengthening and Enhancing The Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3950/2024
During the hearing of the case concerning strengthening of Bar Associations across the country, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no impediment against Bar Associations holding elections strictly in accordance with their constitutions/bye-laws/policies/rules.
“It is clarified that there is no interim stay passed by this Court against holding of elections of the Bar Associations strictly in accordance with their respective constitutions/bye-laws/policies/rules”, said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, dealing with the application of an advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Supreme Court Asks BCI To Allow Visually Challenged Students To Give Answers In Computer For All India Bar Exam
Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
The Supreme Court warned that if the 5 visually impaired law students, who wish to appear in the upcoming All India Bar Examination scheduled on December 22, are not given adequate facility to answer the questions on a Word document on the computer, it will not let the exam take place. The Court warned the Bar Council of India, the organising body, of contempt action in case of any violation of the direction.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of three law students who wanted to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25, and AIBE respectively.
Plea Seeking Measures To Mitigate Climate Change: Supreme Court Appoints Amici Curiae To Examine Laws Regulating Carbon Emissions
Case Details: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Anr.
Recognizing the importance of the issue of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment, the Supreme Court appointed Advocates Jay Cheema and Sudhir Mishra as Amici Curiae to examine the existing legal framework governing emissions.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra further directed Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi for the Union of India to submit a compilation of all relevant rules and regulations related to carbon emissions.
“The issue arising for consideration is of some importance as it relates to Carbon Emissions affecting the environment which require examination of the legal regime regulating such Carbon Emissions”, the Court observed.
The case stems from an appeal filed by 11-year-old Ridhima Pandey, highlighting the failure of the Government of India to adequately address climate change through effective and science-based measures. The Court kept the case for hearing on December 17, 2024.
Supreme Court Says Centre Can Respond To Plea Seeking Direction To Specify Side Effects Of Covishield Vaccine
Case Details: Rachana Gangu and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1220/2021
The Supreme Court on December 10 said the Union Government may file its response to an amendment application seeking that possible adverse effects of Oxford–AstraZeneca's Covishield should be specified in the vaccines including the treatment for those effects.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale was hearing the amendnment application in the pending writ petition filed by a mother of two daughters who died allegedly after receiving dose of Covishield COVID-19 vaccine. The writ petition states that after taking the vaccination, the deceased girls suffered from severe Adverse Effects Following Immunization ('AEFI').
Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Killing Mother
Case Details: Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. 57476-2024
The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for brutal killing of his own mother and eating her organs.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, issuing notice to the State of Maharashtra.
'You Have So Many Panel Counsels, But No Appearance For Union of India On Many Occasions': Supreme Court To Centre
Case Details: Anmol v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 27632/2024
Expressing displeasure at the frequent lack of appearance of the Union in different matters, the Supreme Court inquired why the Union Government has not appointed specific counsels for different benches despite having so many panel lawyers.
This oral observation was made by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and KV Viswanathan while hearing a matter pertaining to the admission of a student, belonging to the OBC category and with locomotive benchmark disability coupled with speech impairment by birth, to the MBBS Course.
Although notice in this matter was issued on November 25, Union failed to appear. On the previous date, when the matter came up in the afternoon, the Union's counsel failed to appear. This compelled the Court to pass an order: “It is unfortunate that in the matter concerning admission of the petitioner belonging to the Persons with Disability category, in spite of notice being duly served, none appears. Though normally we do not direct the presence of the officers of the Government to remain present in the Court, in view of the casual approach of Respondent No.2, we are compelled to direct the personal presence of the Director General, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi in this Court on 12.12.2024 at 10.30 A.M.”
When the matter was taken up at 10:45 am, Additional Solicitor General Vikram Banerjee appeared for the Union. The Director General of Health Services also appeared as per the Court's order on the last day. In the order, the Court observed that it does not take pleasure in summoning the officers to the court” but was constrained to do so since there was no representation. The Court passed an order allowing the student to be admitted for MBBS course in a college in Rajasthan.
Supreme Court Stops Registration Of New Suits Against Places Of Worship, Bars Passing Of Final/Survey Orders In Pending Suits
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
The Supreme Court ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from the Supreme Court.
The Court also ordered that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), the Courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey. The interim order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and also a petition seeking the implementation of the Act.
The crucial intervention of the Court came amidst rising concerns about the filing of multiple suits in the country claiming ownership of medieval mosques and dargahs. A survey order passed by a trial court against a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal (UP) had triggered violence in November, killing at least four persons.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the following order.
'No Stay On Bar Association Elections', Supreme Court Reiterates; Asks DHCBA To Resolve Issue Of Women Reservation Amicably By Next Week
Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
Hearing the pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi Bar bodies, the Supreme Court reiterated that no stay has been imposed on the elections of Bar Associations across the country (High Court or District). In the context of Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Court asked DHCBA President Mohit Mathur to see that the issue of women reservation is resolved “immediately and amicably”.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and listed it on December 19, stating,
“Mr Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel and President of the DHCBA, assures that various options in order for amicable solution will be put up before senior members of the Bar representing the petitioners by Tuesday. Such options, alongwith suggestions that may come forward from the petitioners' side, will be considered on the date fixed on Thursday.”
Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs GRAP Stage-II With Certain GRAP-III Measures In Delhi
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to continue the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) Stage-II restrictions in Delhi along with certain measures from GRAP III such as water sprinkling, mechanized road sweeping, enhancing public transport and restricting entry of interstate buses.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the CAQM's proposal to implement GRAP Stage-III measures within Stage-II to takle air pollution. The Court issued an order stating that the directions in its previous order dated December 5, 2024, would remain in effect until further orders.
Muzaffarnagar School Slapping | No Quality Education If Students Aren't Taught Values Of Equality, Secularism & Fraternity: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of inculcating constitutional values such as equality, secularism, and fraternity in students while dealing with a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident.
“The state cannot ignore the fact that ultimate object of rendering quality education is to ensure that the children become good citizens in true sense, who are aware about ethos and values of Constitution of India. The state needs to concentrate on this aspect, especially when we have completed 75 long years of existence of our Constitution. We grant time of one month to the state to take appropriate decisions and to place the same on the record six weeks in form of an affidavit”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned why UP government had not complied with its directions in the second paragraph, page four of its order dated September 25, 2023, on the aspect of inculcating the importance of constitutional values in children.
“In our order, we have observed that the object of the state act is to provide quality education. Unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. The state's response is silent on this aspect”, the Court stated.
Year-Round Ban On Firecrackers Required Not Just To Curb Air Pollution But Also To Curb Noise Pollution: Supreme Court
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed Delhi government and NCR states to decide on a complete year-round ban on firecrackers, including manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, and use.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that the ban was necessary to curb both air and noise pollution. It ordered states to place their decisions on record and kept the matter for issuing directions on next Thursday at 2:00 p.m.
Shambhu Border Blockade: Supreme Court Raises Concerns About Health Of Fasting Protester; Committee To Persuade Farmers To Shift/Suspend Protest
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
In the matter related to farmers' protest at the Shambhu border between Punjab and Haryana, the High Power Committee constituted by the Supreme Court agreed to persuade the farmers to temporarily shift the protest venue and clear the National Highway for smooth traffic or temporarily suspend their agitation.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh agreed with the Committee's proposal to persuade the protesters.
The Court also urged the Punjab and Union Governments to ensure proper medical aid to protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, whose health was reported to be deteriorating due to his fast unto death.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns about the health of Dallewal and said that he should be given medical aid, without forcing him to break his fast. During the hearing, the bench was handed over newspaper reports about the hunger fast of Dallewal, a senior citizen.
Plea To Verify EVMs Used In Haryana Polls: Supreme Court Bench Places Matter Before CJI To Decide Appropriate Bench
Case Details: Karan Singh Dalal & Anr. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 822/2024
Hearing the plea filed by Karan Singh Dalal (former Haryana Cabinet Minister and 5-time MLA) and Lakhan Kumar Singla (a candidate in the Haryana Assembly elections) seeking verification and checking of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the elections, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for listing before appropriate bench.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale passed the order and refused to consider the prayer for interim relief (including retention of storage units, etc.). The order was dictated thus:
“To our understanding, the relief claimed by means of this petition would require interpretation/modification/implementation of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 26 April 2024 passed in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. As such, Registry may place the papers before Hon'ble CJI for passing appropriate orders as to whether this petition be listed before the same Bench or before another appropriate Bench”.
'Don't Ask Us To Direct Parliament To Enact Law': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Over Voting Rights Of Expatriate Citizens
Case Details: Savya Sachi Krishnan Nigam v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 45679/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) related to voting rights of expatriate citizens, noting that the petitioner was essentially seeking a direction to the Parliament to enact a law.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan disposed of the matter, suggesting that the petitioner approach the appropriate forum. The order was dictated thus:
“The petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.”
'They Are In Contempt': Supreme Court Pulls Up P&H HC Bar Association Members For Opposing Undertaking Against Strikes
Case Details: M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court pulled up members of the Executive Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association who opposed a resolution to tender an unconditional undertaking that the Bar Association will not indulge in boycott of court work in the future.
“Those who play with litigants must be dealt with firm hands. This must stop. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court every day 5000 to 7000 cases are listed. One day boycott by the lawyers destroys the system. These members who have the audacity to oppose the resolution must learn a lesson of a lifetime…What is this going on? 75 years of existence of Constitution, blatantly lawyers go on strike. This is the third of fourth contempt notice we are continuing to issue to the members of the High Court bar. If High Court Bar Associations are doing this what others must be doing? This must stop. Time has come to send at last one member of the bar to the place which he deserves so that signal will be given loud and clear.”
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that the members who opposed the resolution appear to have no respect for the law laid down in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India prohibiting lawyers' strikes.
“Prima facie it appears to us that opposing the resolution proposed itself indicates that the concerned members have no respect and no regard for the law laid down by this court”, the Court stated in its order.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Raising Issue Of Snake Bites In India
Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 48030-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation assailing non-availability of treatment (anti-venom drugs, etc.) and lack of awareness related to snake bites in the country.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, calling for the response of Union of India as well as the States/Union Territories impleaded as party-respondents.
Supreme Court Stays HC Direction To Punjab & Haryana On VVIP/VIP Security Cover
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Rajan Kapur & Anr. Etc. | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.14734-14736 of 2024
The Supreme Court stayed the direction issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to revoke the security cover given to IAS officers in Haryana dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work.
The Court also stayed the High Court's direction which sought details of the Police security provided to VIPs and VVIPs in Punjab and Haryana.
The bench of Justices AS Oka and AG Masih was hearing a challenge to the order of the Punjab and Haryana High which observed that involving the police personnel in providing security cover to VIPs and IAS officers has a reverse impact on the condition of law and security in general.
Supreme Court Dismisses Rajasthan HC's Plea Against Judicial Service Appointment Of Candidate After FIRs Were Closed
Case Details: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Jubair Bhati & Anr.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Rajasthan High Court judgment that directed the appointment of a candidate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2021. The candidate had been denied appointment based on pending FIRs against him, which were subsequently closed without charges being filed.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti refused to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's decision observing, “Having considered the basis for the impugned judgment of the Division Bench granting relief to the respondents, we see no scope to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
Plea To Use CSR Funds Of Oil Companies On Public Transport: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Make Representations
Case Details: Tsunami On Roads (Registered NGO) Through Dr Sanjay Kulshrestha v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 39633-2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for the public and private sector oil companies to contribute under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the Indian Companies Act, 2013 to public transport services for a few heavily polluted cities to restore and compensate environmental damages occurring due to these companies' fossil fuels.
The writ petition was filed by Dr. Sanjay Kulshretha, who also appeared as petitioner-in-person before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh. The petition states that the plea has been raised to reduce health hazards due to severe air pollution in Delhi and other polluted cities.
Stating that the Court cannot direct how companies need to utilise their CSR funds, the Court rather than dismissing the writ petition, disposed it of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation(s) or endeavour to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities including EPCA vis-a-vis the prayers sought by the petitioner herein.
NIA Can Investigate Unscheduled Offences Connected With Scheduled Offences: Supreme Courts
Case Details: Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024
The Supreme Court held that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has the power to investigate an offence, which is not included in the schedule of the NIA Act, if it is connected with an offence which is included in the schedule of the NIA Act.
The Court clarified this legal position while upholding the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which cancelled the bail of a man accused in a case involving 500 kgs of heroin smuggling from Pakistan, observing that his custodial interrogation would be required to know the “hawala channels.”
Advocate Cannot Do Full-Time Journalism: Bar Council Of India Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that a practicing advocate cannot work simultaneously as a full-time journalist. This is due to the bar under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, which provides an advocate must not engage in full-time salaried employment while practicing law.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan was told by Advocate Radhika Gautam appearing for BCI that an advocate cannot simultaneously be an accredited journalist.
'Ban Free Online Pornography, Castrate Rapists': PIL Seeks Measures For Women Safety; Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & States
Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 43648-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and States on a public interest litigation seeking pan-India guidelines for safety of women. The PIL prays inter-alia for regulation of social behavior in public transport, ban on free online pornographic material and castration of persons convicted for sex offenses (against women and children).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, noting at the outset that some of the prayers sought are ”barbaric” and might not get indulgence from the court. In response, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for the petitioner) conceded that the prayers may be restricted, as deemed fit by the Court.
TM Krishna Shall Not Be Recognized As Recipient Of Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award: Supreme Court's Interim Order
Case Details: V. Shrinivasan v. THG Publishing Private Limited |D No. 58560/2024
The Supreme Court passed an interim order that Carnatic musician TM Krishna should not be recognized as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award given by the Music Academy at Chennai yesterday.
The Court's interim order also restrained TM Krishna from projecting himself as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi award in the name of MS Subbulakshmi.
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the interim order in a petition filed by the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi challenging the Madras High Court's division bench's interim order which allowed the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award, sponsored by the Hindu Group and chosen by The Music Academy, to TM Krishna.
Supreme Court Indicates Transfer Of Amazon, Flipkart Sellers' Petitions Against CCI Probe To Karnataka HC; Stays HC Proceedings Until Jan 6
Case Details: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited
The Supreme Court indicated that it may transfer writ petitions filed in various High Courts by Amazon and Flipkart-associated sellers against Competition Commission of India's (CCI) probe into alleged anti-competitive practices to the Karnataka High Court.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan issued notice returnable on January 6 and stayed the proceedings in the petitions before the Karnataka HC in the meantime.
“Notices are made returnable on 6th of January. In the meanwhile, the writ petitions which are being heard by Karnataka High Court which are subject matter of this petition shall not proceed. Prima facie we are of the view that all cases pending in various High Courts could be transferred to Karnataka High Court for hearing”, the Court stated in the order.
The Court was hearing CCI's plea to transfer 24 writ petitions filed in various High Courts by sellers associated with Amazon and Flipkart, challenging a probe by the CCI into alleged anti-competitive practices.
'Race, Religion, Caste & Language Human Constructs': Supreme Court Says Caste No Bar For Appointment Of Non-Hereditary Temple Trustee
Case Details: Vinod Kumar M.P. & Ors. v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29188/2024
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the selection to positions of non-hereditary trustee of temples cannot be caste-based.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Kerala High Court order which set aside previous appointments of non-hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB). The High Court also laid down directions for fresh appointments as per the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act.
The High Court judgment was challenged by the previously appointed trustees in the present plea.
While refusing to interfere in the said decision of the High Court, the bench clarified that the direction laid down in the impugned judgment “will not have any bearing on the eligibility of the petitioner(s) for being considered for future appointments”.
Malankara Orthodox-Jacobite Church Dispute: Supreme Court Directs Status Quo; Seeks Data On Population & Assets Of Both Denominations
Case Details: V. Venu and Others v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
After a long hearing which went on for over one and a half hours, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing in the dispute between the Malankara Orthodox and Jacobite Churches, directing that the status quo with respect to the management and the administration of the churches, as they exist today, should be maintained till the next date of hearing.
In the event of any untoward incident, the State can intervene, the Court clarified.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posted the matters for detailed hearing on January 29 and 30, 2025. The bench also asked the State of Kerala to furnish the data regarding the population( preferably sub-region/gram panchayat-wise) of both Orthodox and Jacobite denominations; the list of churches under the complete administrative control of both the sections; the list of churches where the management is under dispute and their current status of administrative control.
The bench also granted liberty to both parties to place on record their respective parish registers.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Rajasthan Jal Jeevan Mission Scam Accused Sanjay Badaya In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Sanjay Badaya v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 15953/ 2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to Sanjay Badaya in a money laundering case arising out of Rajasthan's Jal Jeevan Mission scam, in which he is alleged to have acted as a middleman for a Minister.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, taking into account the fact that co-accused Piyush Jain (against whom similar allegations were levelled) has already been granted bail, that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and that charges are yet to be framed.
Farmers Protest | Saving Life Of Fasting Leader Dallewal Priority, It Shouldn't Be Dependent On Fulfilling Farmers' Demands: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
In the matter related to farmers' protest at the border between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court asked Punjab authorities to swiftly tackle the health situation of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal who is on fast-unto-death (at Khanauri border) since 20 days and clarified that the farmers can directly place their demands before the court instead of making representation to the High Powered Committee.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, after Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh informed that pursuant to the last order, meetings were held between Punjab authorities, Union's representative and Mr Dallewal (and other farmers/leaders) and the court's concerns were brought to the latter's notice. However, Mr Dallewal refused to undergo medical tests/receive aid and the farmers declined to interact with the High Powered Committee (constituted by the Court).
No Explanation For Reinvestigation After 3 Years Without Court Permission: Supreme Court Quashes 1998 Booth Capturing Case
Case Details: Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court quashed the case against a man accused of booth capturing in Alwar during 1998 Rajasthan Assembly elections.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan noted that the case was reinvestigated without permission from the magistrate three years after a closure report was filed despite.
“At this stage we may also note that the first final report under section 173(2) was filed on 25.06.1999. 3 years thereafter, at the instance of the Additional SP this exercise of reinvestigation/further investigation has commenced. There is no explanation forthcoming why such an action was taken after lapse of 3 years and that also without seeking permission from the court of the magistrate. Therefore, the appeal succeeds, and the impugned order is set aside”, the Court held.
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Astrologer Accused Of Helping Woman To Poison Husband & Mother-in-Law
Case Details: Pandit Varun Mehta v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 17846/2024
The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to an astrologer Pandit Varun Mehta accused of conniving with a woman, who allegedly administered poison to her husband and her mother-in-law.
Reportedly, both victims were given slow poison and before death, they were given lemonade. Their health continued to deteriorate and eventually, they succumbed to death. It is alleged that the astrologer gave the poisonous substance to the wife to administer it to her husband and mother-in-law.
While denying bail, the Court said: “Not a case for anticipatory bail.”
Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC's Directions On Use Of Elephants For Temple Festivals
Case Details: Thiruvambady Devaswom and Anr v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 30389-30390/2024
The Supreme Court effectively stayed the restrictions imposed by the Kerala High Court for the use of elephants in temple festivals.
The Court ordered that any direction issued by the High Court contrary to the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 would remain stayed.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh passed the order in an appeal filed by the Thiruvambady and Paramekkavu devaswoms, which hold the iconic Thrissur Pooram (festival) in Kerala.
The Court while staying the restrictions imposed by the Kerala High Court dated November 13, including that a minimum distance of 3 meters should be there between elephants during processions in temple festivals, remarked that the High Court should not have exercised suo moto powers and issued directions in “vacuum”.
Supreme Court Reserves 3 Posts For Women Lawyers In Upcoming DHCBA Elections; Treasurer Plus 30% Of Other EC Posts Reserved In District Bars
Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
In a significant development, the Supreme Court directed reservation of 3 posts for women lawyers in the upcoming Delhi High Court Bar Association elections. Further, in the district bar associations, the Court directed that the post of Treasurer plus 30% of other Executive Committee posts shall stand reserved for women lawyers (including those already reserved for women).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.
Reportedly, out of the 3 posts reserved in DHCBA, first is of Treasurer, second is of 'Designated Senior Member Executive' and third is for a member from the senior designation category.
The reservations have been directed on an experimental basis for the upcoming elections only and the elections directed to be held on the scheduled date (whatever may be fixed).
Ensure No Hate Speech In Yati Narsinghanand's 'Dharam Sansad': Supreme Court Tells UP Authorities, Refuses To Entertain Contempt Petition
Case Details: Aruna Roy & Ors v. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors. | Diary no. 58833/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a contempt petition filed against the Uttar Pradesh administration and police for allegedly failing to take steps to prevent the 'Dharam Sansad' which is being organised between December 17 to 21 at Ghaziabad by Yati Narasinghanand, who has a history of making communal statements targeting the Muslim community.
At the same time, the Court asked the Uttar Pradesh district authorities to take all precautionary measures to ensure that there are no hate speeches.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the Uttar Pradesh administration to ensure that the Supreme Court's directions to prevent hate speeches are complied with.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To BMC Commissioner On Contempt Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Mumbai Gurudwara, Directs Status Quo
Case Details: Pravin Jivan Walodra v. Bhushan Gagrani Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Ors., Diary No. 58625-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition filed against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, alleging illegal demolition of a Gurudwara in violation of the Court's stay order on demolitions in the 'bulldozer matter'.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, directing that till the next date, status quo be maintained.
Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs UP And Haryana To Impose Complete Ban On Firecrackers Similar To Delhi
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to implement complete bans on firecrackers similar to that imposed in Delhi.
“We are of the view that this ban will be effective only when other states forming part of NCR region impose similar measures. Even the state of Rajasthan has imposed similar ban in that part of State of Rajasthan which falls in NCR regions. For the time being we direct the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to impose similar ban which is imposed by the state of Delhi under order dated 19 December 2024”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the Delhi air pollution matter, continuing its review of measures to tackle pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR) as part of an ongoing MC Mehta case.
Dehi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs NCR States To Form Teams For Monitoring GRAP Compliance
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed NCR states to form multiple teams of officials to monitor compliance with measures of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), imposed due to the worsening air quality in Delhi-NCR.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the states to constitute multiple teams comprising officials of the police, revenue, and other departments to visit entry points to Delhi and generally monitor compliance with GRAP IV measures. It added –
“Considering the magnitude of the task, all NCR states shall create multiple teams. We also make it clear that the members of the teams so constituted will work as officers of this court and not officers of any government. So long as GRAP III and GRAP IV measures are in force, they shall regularly submit reports regarding compliance as well as breaches to the respective governments and stakeholders and give copies to the CAQM so that immediate action can be taken.”
The Court said that the member of the teams would oversee compliance at entry points of Delhi and within NCR regions and would act as commissioners of the Court.
Delhi Preservation Of Trees Act | Supreme Court Stops Felling Of More Than 50 Trees Without CEC Approval, Orders Tree Census In Delhi
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court directed that whenever Tree Officers grant permission to fell 50 or more trees under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 the permission must be approved by the CEC before it is acted upon.
“We therefore direct that whenever permission is granted by the tree officer for felling of 50 or more trees in accordance with Section 8 read with section 9 of 1994 Act the said permission shall not be acted upon unless the same is approved by the CEC…CEC will consider the application and all other aspects thereof and will decide whether the permission deserved to be granted or whether any modification is required in the permission or terms and conditions imposed under the permission”, the Court directed.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih also directed the appointment of Forest Research Institute Dehradun to conduct tree census in Delhi under the guidance of three experts.
The Court passed a slew of directions to regulate tree felling permissions, conduct tree census and ensure compliance with compensatory afforestation obligations.
'How Temple Ownership Can Be Changed By Minister?': Supreme Court Proposes To Cancel Sale Deed Of Temple Land
Case Details: Arun Baburao Phalke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP(C) No.7278/2020
Surprised at the change in ownership of a temple property facilitated by a Maharashtra Minister in September 2014, the Supreme Court directed a Collector to take possession of the subject land and submit a plan for temporary utilization thereof for the benefit of the temple and village community.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, noting that the ownership of the temple was changed without providing opportunity of hearing to the temple management and/or affected persons.
Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas: SC Again Seeks Affidavits From States/UTs, Warns Chief Secretaries Of Action In Case Of Failure To Furnish Data
Case Details: National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019
In a PIL seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country, the Supreme Court again called on states/Union Territories to furnish affidavits and warned that if the same are not filed, the Court would be constrained to take serious view of the matter as well as take action (as deemed appropriate) against the concerned Chief Secretaries.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, directing the Chief Secretaries of all states/Union Territories to file the affidavits (supplying information as sought in the order) within 12 weeks. The states which had not filed affidavits in response to the court's last order shall also include information which was sought earlier, the order said.
In National Capital, 3000 Tons Of Solid Waste Remains Untreated Daily: Supreme Court Highlights Disastrous Situation In Delhi
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Delhi government for the lack of progress in implementation of solid waste management, highlighting a gap of 3,000 metric tons per day between the waste generated (11,000 tons) and the waste treated in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area.
“With some degree of sadness we are recording that in the capital city everyday 3000 tons of solid waste is being generated which is not capable of being treated and therefore there is illegal dumping. Perhaps someday this court will have to take a call on stopping some kind of development activities in the city so that the generation of solid waste can be controlled”, the Court observed.
“See this is a very disastrous situation in capital city. Therefore no point in having heated debates in court. This is actually to say the least is shameful, in capital city this happens”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih expressed disappointment over the authorities' failure to implement innovative solutions to bridge the waste treatment gap and to implement Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
Summons Under PMLA Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Accused Was Discharged In Predicate Offence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo., SLP(Crl) No.15189/2024
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court which quashed summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) to investigate proceeds of crime involved money laundering on grounds that the Respondent was discharged in scheduled offence (offences related to property in this case).
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated January 3, whereby the summons issued under Sections 50(2) & (3) of the PMLA for money laundering were quashed against the present Respondent after it was found that a Special Court discharged the Respondent in connection with the scheduled offence.
Supreme Court Permits Ex-Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda To Withdraw Plea Challenging His 3-Yr Disqualification By ECI In 2017
Case Details: Madhu Koda v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1340/2019
The Supreme Court allowed former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda to withdraw the plea challenging his 3-yr disqualification by the Election Commission of India in 2017.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Koda's counsel, who submitted that the matter has become infructuous as the 3-yr period has lapsed.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Tamil Nadu In Plea To Recall Senthil Balaji's Bail, Seeks Details Of Cases & Witnesses Against Him
Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu in a plea seeking to recall its judgment granting bail to Minister Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case linked to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the State of Tamil Nadu to give details of the cases pending against Balaji and the number of witnesses against him, distinguishing between public servants and other victims.
“We direct the added respondent to place on record the details about the criminal cases pending against respondent no. 2 (Balaji). The state will also place on record the number of witnesses which are required to be examined in the cases. They will also state how many victims of the offences are witnesses and how many of the public servants who are witnesses”, the Court ordered.
The Court set the matter for further hearing on January 15, 2025.
'Entire Credit Score Outsourced To A Private Entity': Amicus To Supreme Court In Plea Alleging Data Privacy Violation By Foreign Companies
Case Details: Surya Prakash v. Union of India, Diary No. 23982/2023
In a PIL alleging data privacy violations by foreign credit information companies, Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (Amicus Curiae) assailed before the Supreme Court the outsourcing of ”entire credit score” of persons to foreign private organization(s) and lack of statutory framework to regulate the duties of the organization(s).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned the matter, upon being informed that a copy of the Ministry of Home Affairs' affidavit did not reach the Amicus. It also gave 4 weeks' time to respondents, including Transunion CIBIL Ltd., Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt. Ltd., Equifax Credit Information Services, CRIF High Mark Credit Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Bank Bazaar, Paisa Bazaar and My Loan Care, to file their affidavits.
Registry Cannot Refuse Listing Of Case Citing Procedural Defects When There Is A Judicial Order To List: Supreme Court
Case Details: Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India with connected cases
The Supreme Court held that the Registry cannot defy specific order of the Court and refuse to list a case on the ground of procedural non-compliance.
“When there is order of the court directing listing of the cases specifically assigned to this bench the registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the case on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a batch of petitions related to the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan in Kerala.
Farmers' Protest | Supreme Court Asks Punjab Authorities To Take Call On Shifting Jagjit Singh Dallewal To Temporary Hospital Amid Hunger Strike
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024
In the matter related to farmers' protest at the border between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court said in categorical terms that it is Punjab authorities' responsibility to ensure stable health condition of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a fast-unto-death since last 24 days at the Khanauri border.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and called for an affidavit from Chief Secretary, Punjab and Chairperson of the Medical Board (constituted to monitor health of Dallewal) by the next date on the health situation of Dallewal as well as the steps taken to ensure that no harm comes to him.
Punjab & Haryana HC Bar Association Undertakes Before Supreme Court To Abide By SC Judgment On Lawyers' Strikes
Case Details: M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court concluded proceedings against the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association after a fresh undertaking was filed by its acting president, Shri Jasdev Singh Brar that the Association will abide by the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India regarding lawyers' strikes.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the new resolution passed unanimously in a meeting of the Bar Association's executive committee on December 19, 2024.
On December 13, the Court had reprimanded members of the executive committee who opposed a resolution to tender an unconditional undertaking to refrain from strikes.
The bench observed that all members of the executive committee had agreed to the undertaking filed earlier by the acting president
After Supreme Court Summoned DoPT Secretary, Centre Gives Appointment To Blind Civil Services Candidate
Case Details: Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
The Supreme Court disposed of a plea concerning the non-compliance of its earlier judgment directing the appointment of Pankaj Srivastava, a 100 percent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008.
The court had previously issued a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for failing to implement its order.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that the order of appointment had been issued to Srivastava, placing him in the Indian Information Service (IIS), Group A.
Supreme Court Extends NEET-UG Admission Deadline Till Dec 30
Case Details: Era Lucknow Medical College and Hospital v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833/2024
Taking into consideration the number of medical seats remaining vacant despite 5 rounds of counselling, the Supreme Court extended till December 30 the period for NEET UG admissions as a special measure.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, taking into account the submission of Senior Advocate Gaurav Sharma (for National Medical Council) that in view of the number of vacant seats, extension may be granted as a one time measure without it being treated as a precedent.
'Contrary To Statute': Supreme Court Pulls Up ED For Arguing That Stringent PMLA Bail Rigours Will Apply To Women
Case Details: Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court pulled up the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for contending that rigorous bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will apply to women.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition challenging the denial of bail to woman accused of money laundering.
“If submissions are going to be made by Union of India contrary to express statute, we will ask Attorney General to come...We will not countenance such submissions from the Union of India”, Justice Oka said.
'Unheard Of': Supreme Court On Farmers Gathering To Resist Shifting Of Farmers Leader Dallewal; Seeks Compliance Report Again On December 31
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024
The Supreme Court on December 28 recorded "unsatisfaction" with the compliance report filed by the Chief Secretary of State of Punjab and Director General of Police regarding the hospitalisation of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that if the evacuation of Dallewal is not peaceful considering that the farmers are resisting his shifting, there would be "collateral damage" in terms of the loss of lives and property.
Dallewal has been on a fast-unto-death since November 26 at the Khanauri border, demanding the Union Government to accept the demands of farmers including a statutory guarantee for Minimum Support Price for crops. Apart from being a cancer patient, Dallewal suffers from age-related ailments.
The Court ordered the Union Government to provide logistic support, if needed by the Punjab Government to deal with Dallewal's situation at hand.
Farmers Say Dallewal Would Take Medical Aid If Centre Is Ready For Talks : Punjab AG Informs Supreme Court
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024
The Supreme Court on December 31) granted more time to the Punjab Government to comply with the directions on giving medical aid to farmers' protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia posted the contempt petition filed against the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP to January 2, 2024, for further hearing.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh informed the vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia that intervenors and negotiators had gone to the protest site. Efforts for compliance were made by mobilizing about 7000 personnel at the protest site, the AG said. However, he added that due to the Punjab Bandh held yesterday by farmers' organisations, there were traffic blockades and hindrances. He further informed the bench about the protesters' proposal that Dallewal would take medical aid if the Centre was ready to talk to them.