Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during the second month of 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of February and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status and on the...
Here's a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court of India proceedings during the second month of 2024. This monthly digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the month of February and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status and on the Validity Of Subclassifications Within SC/STs, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
As per this law, a divorce can be sought without making any grounds, and there are no pre-conditions. Pertinently, this law applies to Non-Muslim UAE nationals and Non-Muslim foreigners residing in the UAE. Further, this decree under the no-fault clause can be implemented and enforced in India under 'the Bilateral Treaty 1999', where the UAE is treated as a reciprocating territory.
Case title: Hemant Soren v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 48 of 2024
Coram: (Special Bench) Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with an alleged land scam case. The court asked Soren to approach the Jharkhand High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, adding that Soren was at liberty to seek expeditious listing of his petition before the high court.
Case Details: KULDEEP MISHRA vs. BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH W.P.(C) No. 000024 - / 2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition filed by a law graduate challenging the enrolment fee charged by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council. The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, told the Bench that the present fee cited by the State Bar Council is Rs. 16,665 for lawyers to be enrolled at the U.P Bar. An additional sum of Rs. 5000/- would be charged for those wishing to expedite the processing within a single day. The petitioner challenged this fee as "exorbitant".
Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT LTD VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS., Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 968-969/2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court refused to transfer the criminal appeal pending against Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited (MCFPL) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court to the Telangana High Court.
CASE TITLE: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS BINEESH KODIYERI, SLP(Crl) No. 3155/2022
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to Bineesh Kodiyeri, actor and son of former Kerala State Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), in a money laundering case.
While refusing to entertain the agency's plea, the Bench noted that there was no allegation against Bineesh that he had misused the relief of bail. Although, it was clarified that the impugned order of the Karnataka High Court shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
Case Title: BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that if there is a repugnancy between the earlier and later clauses of a deed, whereby a later clause destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, then the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant to the earlier clause and the earlier clause prevails.
Case Title: GANESHKUMAR RAJESHWARRAO SELUKAR & ORS. v. MAHENDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court raised doubts about the viability of its earlier directions which mandate that retired judges should appear in a written examination for appointment as President and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.
Supreme Court Asks Litigant To Approach High Court For Preservation Of Protected Monument In Goa
CASE TITLE: THE GOA FOUNDATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a public interest litigation initiated for protection of a monument of national importance in Goa, the Supreme Court today granted liberty to the petitioner/Goa Foundation to move the concerned High Court.
Union & Tripura Govts Settle Dispute Over Assam Rifles Land; Supreme Court Disposes Of Suit
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. STATE OF TRIPURA., Diary No.- 11922 – 2015
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In a land dispute (The Assam Rifles Ground) between the Union of India and the State of Tripura, the Apex Court was informed that a settlement has been reached between the parties. Accordingly, the Division Bench disposed of the matter.
The Supreme Court recently quashed an FIR against a Belgian citizen over the death of 13 trekkers due to a forest fire which took place at the Kerala-Tamil Nadu border in 2018.
This trekking expedition was organized and arranged through a website owned by the Belgian citizen, Peter Van Geit. Based on this, the appellant was also embroiled in the matter. Pertinently, he was accused under Sections 304 A (Death by negligence) and 338 (Grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) IPC.
Declaration Of Title Can Be Sought Based On Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Reiterates
Coram: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for declaration of title based on the plea of an adverse possession can be filed by the plaintiff. Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench, while referring to the Judgment of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur, observed that it is a settled position of law that a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title by adverse possession.
Constitution Bench Hearing- on the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Case Title: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma
In the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Union Government submitted before the Supreme Court that an institution of national importance must reflect that national structure.
Stressing that AMU is an institution of national importance, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested the Court to analyse the issue from the angle of social justice, so that students belonging to SC/ST/SEBC sections can also gain access to it. The SG underscored that about 70-80% of the students in AMU are Muslims at present.
The issue whether a group constitutes a 'minority' must be decided on the basis of present-day standards and not based on the situation which existed before the commencement of the Constitution of India, observed the Supreme Court during the hearing.
The observation of the seven-judge Constitution Bench came in response to an argument made by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that Muslims were not a minority at the time of the establishment of AMU in 1920 during the British rule. Dwivedi is appearing for one of the petitioners who had approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the minority status of AMU.
On the 7th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court discussed whether an institution of national importance can have a minority status as well. As per Entry 63 of List 1 of the Constitution, institutions such as the AMU, Benaras Hindu University, Delhi University etc., are declared to the institutions of national importance.
On the 7th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court sounded a word of caution to the respondents on making arguments which may limit the law-making powers of the Parliament.
Senior Advocate Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul expressed, “By a legislative fiat or legal fiction you cannot take away a historical legislative fact, you cannot alter history” The CJI was however quick to remind the senior counsel of the serious repercussions such an argument may have. He cautioned Mr NK Kaul to not assert anything that may impact the unfettered law-making powers of the Parliament and the prospective bearing such a contention would have.
On the final day of hearing, the 7-judge Constitution Bench and petitioners dwelled to see whether the Amendment Act of 1981 restored the position of AMU as it was before 1951 or was amendment done “half-heartedly”.
The 1981 Act amended Section 2(l) of the AMU Act to state that “University” means the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University.
Case Title: MAMTA SHAILESH CHANDRA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that if the charge sheet is filed against the accused during the pendency of the petition for quashing of the FIR, the High Court is not restrained from exercising its inherent jurisdiction and could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., charge sheet,Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up and other documents.
Case Title: MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs. THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI W.P.(C) No. 73/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court adjourned by two weeks the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member Shelly Oberoi, the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking to allow the Corporation to exercise the functions of the Standing Committee.
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1627 of 2024
Coram: Justice PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court issued notice on the State of Haryana's plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order declaring the 75 percent domicile reservation for locals in the private sector with a monthly salary below Rs 30,000 as unconstitutional.
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) adjourned until March 5 a plea by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh, challenging his arrest and remand on charges of money laundering over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in Delhi. Singh has been in custody since October, when he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In the matter pertaining to a Single Judge of Madras High Court taking suo motu revision against the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in a corruption case, the Supreme Court observed that the judge ought to have ideally placed the matter before the Chief Justice of the court prior to the passing of the order.
After hearing submissions addressed on behalf of Ramachandran and seeing the report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Bench left it for the Chief Justice of the High Court to take a call on who shall hear and decide the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Single Judge.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India., 23592 – 2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court sought a detailed status report from the Union Government regarding the future planning of the implementation of the anti-collision 'Kavach' system in the Indian Railways. The Public Interest Litigation filed by an Advocate Vishal Tiwari, raises issues regarding safety/protection measures with respect to the train accidents in India. It is pointed out that the Government of India has approved the Kavach System to prevent train accidents. However, the said Kavach system has yet not been implemented in all trains.
Case Title: Suneetha Narreddy v. YS Avinash Reddy & Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 7449/2023 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file digital copies of the case diaries related to the murder of former Andhra Pradesh minister YS Vivekananda Reddy.
Supreme Court Sentences Man Who Raped 7 Year Old Girl In Temple To 30 Years Imprisonment
Case Title: BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 87
Coram: Justices C.T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
In a horrifying incident where a 40-year-old man raped a seven-year-old Child (victim), the Supreme Court imposed the sentence of 30 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees One Lakh.
The trial court awarded him the capital punishment under Section 376 AB (rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the Delhi High Court commuted the same to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Top Court.
Case Title: UTTAM KUMAR HALDER vs. ANIRUDHA ALAM., C.A. No. 000932 - / 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court declined to interfere in the civil appeal preferred by an advocate who has registered a complaint against the local bar association member for allegedly beating and assaulting him and restraining him to practice at the local court.
Case Title: HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction in a murder case observing that the ocular evidence given by the eye witness can't be discredited merely because the expert opinion supplied by the doctor suggests the use of different weapons in causing injuries.
Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, the Bench observed that when the ocular piece of evidence is available to sufficiently prove the guilt of the accused, then the conviction can not be set aside just because the expert evidence of the doctor suggests otherwise.
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. WP(Crl) No. 204/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a plea challenging the premature release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in a case against mob lynching of a District Magistrate in 1994, the Supreme Court directed that Mohan shall immediately deposit his passport with the local Police Station and report there on a fortnight basis.
Customs Act | Claimant Entitled To Interest On Delayed Return Of The 'Duty Drawback' : Supreme Court
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. B. T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD. CIVIL APPEAL NO.7238 OF 2009., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court observed that if there is a delay in refund of the 'duty drawback' to the claimant under the Customs Act, 1962, then the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback at the rate of interest which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time.
Case Title: ATUL @ ASHUTOSH vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 41305 – 2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 93
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court reiterated that Courts should normally suspend sentences and grant bail in cases where an appeal challenging the conviction is unlikely to be heard before the completion of the entire sentence.
Supreme Court Redirects Applications Seeking Permission For Surrogacy To High Courts
Case Title: Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 756 of 2022 and connected cases
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In a significant development, the Supreme Court this week directed new applicants seeking permission to undergo surrogacy to approach the jurisdictional high courts. The Court clarified that the pendency of the petitions challenging the provisions of the surrogacy law in the Supreme Court will not bar the High Courts from entertaining applications filed by individuals seeking permission to undergo surrogacy.
The applications were filed after the Supreme Court in October 2023 passed an interim order granting permission for a woman diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome to pursue surrogacy utilising a donor egg, staying the implementation of a recent amendment to the Surrogacy Rules, which had barred the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy by intending couples.
Case Title: Veena Gupta and another v. Central Pollution Control Board and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 97
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court voiced its discontent with the National Green Tribunal's practice of passing ex parte orders and imposing damages. The judgment, authored by Justice PS Narasimha, has marked that such unilateral decision-making 'has regrettably become a prevailing norm.'
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 13381/1984
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure at private parties seeking permission to fell trees for industrial projects without first approaching the custodian of subject land (ie State) and/or providing a concrete plan for compensatory afforestation.
Case Title: VELTHEPU SRINIVAS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 94
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court recently, while affirming the life imprisonment of three accused/appellants for murder, modified the sentence of another accused (A3) to culpable homicide and sentenced him to ten years.
The Division Bench opined that the Trial and the High Court convicted A3 based on Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was present near the scene of offence and had familial relations with the other accused. However, the Court noted that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder. Thus, the Court opined that the inference was drawn mechanically under Section 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused.
Punjab Pre-Emption Act | Supreme Court Explains Difference Between 'Land' & 'Immoveable Property'
Case Title: JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS BADRI NATH AND OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.18612 of 2015)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 95
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court held that a tenant can claim the right to pre-emption in the 'urban immovable property' under the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913, and the claim of the tenant cannot be discarded by the subsequent purchaser of the urban immovable property on the ground that the notification issued by the state government bars the tenants right to file a suit for pre-emption for the land situated in the municipal limits.
Case Title: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. SURENDER KUMAR PARMAR., SLP(C) No. 018286 / 2018
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court on dismissed the plea of the Himachal Pradesh Government challenging the grant of two promotions to an employee in the next higher scale of pay upon his completing 12 years and 24 years in service.
The Bench affirmed the decision of the High Court directing the State to provide two promotions to an employee in the absence of any promotion avenues for the post.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
Case Title: Sutherson v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 422 of 2024
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging a directive issued by the Madras High Court to conduct trial proceedings within prison premises. This case originated from an appeal filed by one Sutherson against the rejection of his bail plea by a Thoothukudi special court. He was arrested for the murder of an advocate over suspected business rivalry and property disputes. Motivated by apprehensions relating to witness safety and the potential for witness intimidation, the Madras High Court not only denied bail to the accused, but also directed the trial proceedings to be conducted in jail.
Case Title: Case Details: VISHAL NOBLE SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 96
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih.
Expressing concerns about the misuse of the criminal justice machinery by certain persons to achieve their oblique motives, the Supreme Court recently urged that the Courts have to be vigilant against such tendencies.
The Supreme Court said that that the High Courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings in such cases where the uncontroverted allegations prima facie don't establish the offence, and the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by the continuation of criminal prosecution.
Case Title: Sunder Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.10756/2023
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 98
In a dowry death case, the Supreme Court recently allowed a witness cited by prosecution to be examined by the defence, considering that he was discharged by the former without being called to depose.
"...the prosecution has consequentially chosen to discharge the said witness and, therefore, he has not been put in the witness box to depose on behalf of the prosecution. In such view of the matter, there is no bar in the law for examining the said witness as defence witness", said the Division Bench.
Case Title: SUDHIR VIKAS KALEL vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 99
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Vishwanath
The Supreme Court has held that Panchayat members in Maharashtra, who got elected from a seat reserved for SC/OBC, will stand automatically disqualified if they fail to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee regarding their Caste Certificate within 12 months from the date of election.
This is because of the operation of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959.
UAPA | Mere Delay In Trial No Ground To Grant Bail When Grave Offences Are Involved : Supreme Court
Case Title: Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar
While denying bail to a man charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA") for allegedly promoting Khalistani terror movement, the Supreme Court held that mere delay in trial is no ground to grant bail in grave offences.
Notably, the Bench also observed that under the UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail an exception".
Case Title: NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL v. THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court dispelled a challenge to a rule under Chartered Accountants' (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, which allows the Board of Discipline to refer a complaint for misconduct to the Disciplinary Committee despite opinion of the Director (Discipline) that the person/firm accused of misconduct is not guilty, as well as to advise the Director to investigate further.
Case Title: ENFORCEMENT OF DIRECTORATE vs. BHUPINDER SINGH @ HONEY., Diary No.- 33730 - 2022
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court confirmed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order allowing the bail to former Punjab Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi's nephew Bhupinder Singh. Singh had moved the bail application before the High Court in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act arising out of an alleged illegal sand mining case.
Case Title: G Niranjan v. Nitesh Kumar Vyas & Ors., Diary No. 3333 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking contempt action against the Election Commission of India (ECI) for not changing the forms which ask for Aadhaar numbers to enrol new voters. Despite the ECI's assurance last year that Aadhaar numbers were not obligatory for new voter registration, the forms remained unchanged, according to the petitioner.
However, a bench comprising declined to initiate contempt proceedings, noting the ECI's statement that it was addressing the issue.
Case Title: DR. SHEKHAR SESHADRI AND ORS vs SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL AND ORS.CURATIVE PET(C) No. 106/2014 and MR X. vs SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL AND ORS.CURATIVE PET(C) D 26029/2014
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the curative petition filed against the 2013 judgment, which upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (which criminalised homosexuality), has become infructuous in the light of the 2018 judgment which decriminalised homosexuality.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court expressed disinclination to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's request for 'necessary action' against Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, judge of the Calcutta High Court, for 'politically motivated' interviews.
At the same time, it agreed to consider the other relief prayed for by the Trinamool Congress national general secretary in his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, for a transfer of the cases concerning him from the present high court bench to a special bench.
Case Title: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and ors v. State of Telangana and ors., Diary No. 4895-2024
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued a notice (returnable after four weeks) in a petition seeking transfer of the impending trial in the 2015 cash-for-votes against the present Chief Minister of Telangana, A Revanth Reddy.
Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. THOTA SURESH BABU., Diary No.- 162 – 2021
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court expunged the controversial observations made in a judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2020 against the Supreme Court collegium's transfer proposals.
The Validity Of Subclassifications Within SC/STs
Case Title: The State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors. C.A. No. 2317/2011
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also comprises Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.
A 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the referred matter on the permissibility of sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SC)& Scheduled Tribes (ST).
The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be reconsidered.
The arguments were opened by Gurminder Singh, the Advocate General of Punjab who engaged the bench in socio-legal nuances of the deeply rooted caste system in India. Highlighting the two perspectives on reservations, firstly of those who think they are entitled and secondly, those who are actually in need, Singh expressed that reservation cannot be seen as an act of benevolence.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench while hearing on the validity of subclassifications within SC/STs deliberated upon the notion of homogeneity of class and what Article 341 of the Constitution meant in light of communities designated as a “Scheduled Caste”.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing from the petitioner's side, argued that there were two key mistakes in the decision of Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that subclassification was not permissible within SC/ST categories. Firstly, it considered the SCs as a homogenous group without any factual data overlooking the inherent heterogeneity within the SCs; secondly, it correlated the Presidential Order with a limited purpose of providing reservation.
While reserving judgment on the validity of subclassification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes(STs) for reservations, the Supreme Court observed that subcategorization could be a measure to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the more backward categories within the reserved classes. The bench observed that if only certain castes are cornering the reservation benefits, it can lead to inequality.
Case Title: Arha Media and Broadcasting Private Limited v. Google India Private Limited & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2711 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court issued notice to Google India on petitions filed by tech start-ups challenging Google Play Store's billing policy as exploitative.
However, the bench refused to immediately stay Google's decision to remove apps from its Play Store over non-compliance with its billing policies.
Case Title: K. Babu V. M. Swaraj, SLP (C) No. 15320/2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by K Babu, Congress MLA from Kerala, challenging the maintainability of the election petition filed by CPI(M) leader M Swaraj in the Kerala High Court challenging the former's election from Thrippunithura constituency in the 2021 assembly elections.
Babu had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's order, which rejected his preliminary objections to Swaraj's petition.
Case Title: PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNI VERSUS MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 107
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should not give a hypertechnical interpretation to the clause(s) that would nullify the effect of the corrigendum/instructions.
Case Title: VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 108
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court, while granting a pension to a government employee under Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022, observed that a government servant earns a pension in lieu of tireless service by him/ her. Further, pension is often an important consideration for the person(s) seeking government employment.
Case Title: PRABHU VERSUS THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 112
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court observed that merely advising a partner to marry as per the advice of parents would not attract the penal provisions of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal.
Appointment Of Deputy Chief Ministers Not Unconstitutional : Supreme Court
Case Title: PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000090 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers in various states as being violative of Article 14. The Court opined that the Deputy Chief Minister was firstly a minister within the state government and the position was merely a label and nothing more.
Case Title: Internet Freedom Foundation & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors., Diary No. 53491 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and the attendant rules, but granted the organisation liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court.
Case Title: NAVEEN PRAKASH NAUTIYAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1079/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a plea against limitation of the number of times a candidate can contest Students Union elections for office bearer and executive posts, the Supreme Court issued notice.
Case Title: Samvidhan Bachao Trust v Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1228/2023 PIL-W
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, taking note of the response of the Election Commission of India, closed the proceedings relating to the issue of duplication of names in electoral rolls. The bench noted that there exist adequate measures for the aggrieved voters to approach the Registration Officer in the event of any error or deletion of their names in the voters' list.
Case Title: SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 109
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, then it would be impermissible for the High Court to alter the selection criteria for the appointment of District Judiciary Judges.
Application Seeking Further Investigation Can Be Treated As Protest Petition : Supreme Court
Case Title: XXX VERSUS THE STATE REPRESENTED THR. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking further investigation can be treated as a protest petition if the application prima facie establishes the commission of the offences, and such an application can't be technically rejected because procedural recourse of filing a protest petition is not followed.
Case Title: Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, TP(Crl) No. 846/2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court quashed the complaint of criminal defamation filed against former Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar Tejashwi Yadav over alleged "Gujarati hi thag hai ho sakta hai (only Gujaratis can be cheats)" remark made by him during a media address.
Case Title: GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS PRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court observed that the claim submitted by the Resolution Applicant (RA) under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be rejected/overlooked merely on the fact that the claim submitted appears to be in a different form other than the form in which the claim needs to be submitted.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Shiv Sena (UBT) Member Sadanand Kadam In Money Laundering Case
Case Title: SADANAND GANGARAM KADAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).815 OF 2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court granted bail to Sadanand Kadam, a close associate of Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab, accused in a money laundering case in connection with the construction of an allegedly illegal resort named 'Sai Resort' in Dapoli, situated in Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 87/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to stay the operation of Section 7 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 in a fresh petition challenging the Constitutionality of the provision. However, the Bench has issued notice in the plea.
Case Title: Dr.Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Diary No(s).508/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court upheld a criteria set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that judicial officers seeking promotion to the post of District Judges should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interviews.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs. NIRAJ TYAGI., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 114
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale
The Supreme Court set aside the interim protection granted to Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. officers in an FIR registered against on a complaint by the Director of Shipra Estate and the consequent investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: KRISHNA & ORS. VERSUS TEK CHAND & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 116
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that the family of a deceased in a motor accident cannot seek "double benefits". If the family has received benefits from the State Government on account of the death of the deceased, then such benefits are liable to be deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Case Title: MALLAPPA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that if the appellate court, while appreciating the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, finds that two views are plausible, then the view favouring the innocence of an accused must be taken.
Principles Of Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117
Coram: Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol
Recently, while deciding the suit for declaration of title, the Supreme Court reiterated some important factors related to the principle of adverse possession. The Court recalled that the plea of adverse possession is a blend of fact and law.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme As Unconstitutional, Asks SBI To Stop Issuing EBs
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court delivered its highly-anticipated judgment in the electoral bonds case, holding that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the scheme has been struck down as unconstitutional.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of West Bengal & Ors. | Diary No. 51357 of 2023
In a significant development, the Supreme Court stayed the ongoing proceedings in various trial courts across the state related to incidents of alleged violence following the 2021 state assembly polls.
The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Karol in response to a transfer petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), seeking to relocate the cases outside of West Bengal due to concerns of witness intimidation and threats to the course of justice.
Case Title: RAJESH VIREN SHAH VERSUS REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 119
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court observed that the Director of the company wouldn't be held liable for the dishonor of a cheque issued by the company pursuant to the retirement of the Director unless some credible evidence is brought on record proving the guilt of the director.
Case Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-established position of law that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession. In this regard, the Court also stressed that a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second appellate stage.
Case Title: CHATRAPAL VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. | C.A. No. 002461 / 2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 120
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court observed that an employee could not be terminated from the post merely because he sent a representation to his superior officers flouting the proper channel.
In the instant case, an appellant class-IV employee employed in the Bareilly Judgeship was transferred and posted as a Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court of Baheri, District Bareilly. The employee was denied the allowance as a Process Server. Against the denial of allowance, the appellant employee has made representations to superior authorities such as the Registrar General of the High Court and other officials of the State Government, including the then Chief Minister, without routing the same through proper channels.
Case Title: PALANI vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE, Criminal Appeal No. 887 / 2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 121
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court recently set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on a doctor for the offence under Section 18(A) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for not disclosing the name of the manufacturer/persons from whom the medicines in his clinic were procured.
Considering that the doctor possessed only small quantities of medicine not meant for distribution/sale purposes, the Court held that the sentence of imprisonment would be unjustified.
Case Title: Rita Dwivedi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 124
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
In a habeas corpus case filed by a woman for the production of her younger sister, the Supreme Court recently held that an elder sister does not have a legal right to exercise guardianship except when there is an order by a competent Court.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and A Amanullah
The Supreme Court resumed its hearing in the matter relating to conditions in prisons. Last week, the Court had taken suo motu notice of the alarming number of pregnancies occurring among women inmates in prisons across the country.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. VERSUS BABLU SONKAR & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 123
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Court, in this instant order, expanded the scope of the district-level committees, which are to be constituted by the States/ UTs to alleviate the issue of overcrowding of prisons in India. Now, the committee is also required to address the aspect particularly related to female inmates holistically.
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a Bench, after releasing the case, is not competent to re-hear the case unless the case is assigned back to the Bench by the Chief Justice as the master of the roster.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
While setting aside the impugned order passed by the NGT, Delhi, the Supreme Court held that a bank cannot be held responsible for illegal activities carried out by the borrower on mortgaged premises. The Division bench said that this position is not only unacceptable but also not maintainable in law.
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, and no resolution could be passed by the Bar Association to forbid other members of the bar to appear on behalf of the petitioner who appeared in person to defend its case.
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs only) on the State of Rajasthan for harassing the poor litigant, who was compelled to file repeated litigation to get the fruits of the award of the Labour Court.
Case Title: BHAGWATI PRASAD GOPALIKA & ORS. v. LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT (PRIVILEGES AND ETHICS Respondent(s) BRANCH) & ORS., Writ Petition (Civil) No.116/2024
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privilege committee against the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and three other officials of the State of West Bengal initiated on a complaint filed by BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar over alleged mistreatment against him during the protests at Sandeshkhali region on February 13 and 14.
Case Title: SIDDARAMAIAH Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 2292/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the criminal case against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over a protest march conducted by him in 2022 demanding the resignation of then Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister KS Eshwarappa.
Case Title: Alakh Alok Srivastava v. State of West Bengal and others., W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2024
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL which sought a CBI/SIT investigation into the reports regarding the sexual assault of women in Sandeshkhali in West Bengal.
Case Title: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Sharad Pawar challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to recognize Ajit Pawar's faction as the authentic Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). In a temporary relief to the former, the court also directed that the commission's February 7 order granting name of 'Nationalist Congress Party-Sharad Chandra Pawar' for the faction led by the veteran politician will continue till further orders.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164 of 2023
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing that States and Union Territories must act as per the definition of "forest" laid down in the 1996 judgment in T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India while the process of identifying land recorded as forests in Government records is going on as per the 2023 amendment to Forest (Conservation) Act.
Case Title: DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 129
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that police should exercise "heightened caution" while registering a criminal case over a dispute involving unethical transactions between parties in which civil remedies are barred. The police should ensure that the parties are not resorting to criminal law remedies to achieve unscrupulous results in cases where civil remedies are barred.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. EX. LT. SELINA JOHN., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 135
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a case where a woman nursing officer was terminated from the Military Nursing Service on the grounds of marriage, the Supreme Court firmly termed the same to be a 'coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality'.
The Division Bench also reiterated that rules, on the basis of which such women officers were terminated because of their marriage, are unconstitutional.
Coram: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State of Madhya Pradesh for not filing the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with Challan in an NDPS case.
In view of this, the Bench directed the Additional Director General of the Police (Narcotics Wing) to file an affidavit outlining how many matters the FSL report was not filed along with the challan. This only concerned the State of MP.
Case Title: FARHANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 131
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that to prosecute the accused under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act (“Act”), the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being a member of the gang, should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the predicate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: State through CBI vs Naresh Prasad Agarwal., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 133
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court recently quashed a judgment of the Madras High Court on the sole ground that the judge released it after retirement.
Observing that a judge retaining the case file after demitting office is a gross impropriety, the bench remitted the appeal to the High Court for its fresh consideration.
Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 10 lakhs compensation to a patient who developed hoarseness in his voice due to medical negligence committed by doctors while administering anaesthesia.
Apple Has No Duty To Trace Stolen iPhone Using Unique Identity Number: Supreme Court
Case Title: Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court obliterated an observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace a stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number provided by it.
The Supreme Court stated that the observation made by the Consumer Commission was "unwarranted".
Case Title: KULDEEP KUMAR vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH SLP(C) No. 002998 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
In a significant development, the Supreme Court declared Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Kuldeep Kumar as the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.
Setting aside the election results and declaring Mr. Kuldeep Kumar of the AAP-INC Alliance as the rightful mayor of Chandigarh, the Court also initiated criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Mr. Masih for making false statements before the Court.
Case Title: Dr. Mohit Dhawan Vs Rakesh Asthana., Diary No.- 4870 – 2021
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale.
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the prosecution of former Special Director of the CBI, DG of BSF, and former Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition was filed by Chandigarh-based dentist Mohit Dhawan, who made allegations of extortion against Asthana.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS GOPAL K. VERMA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court has asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the advocates representing the State Government are not forced to file petitions in Courts to recover the fees due to them.
Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SWARN SINGH @ BABA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to compel the production of things/documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.
NEET-MDS 2024 | Looking Into Issue Of Internship Cut-Off Date, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Aditya Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The union government told the Supreme Court that it is looking into the grievances of NEET-MDS candidates regarding the extension of internship deadline.
Case Title: CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. TARSEM LAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person with the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State cannot claim the same benefit in another State or Union Territory where he/ she has eventually migrated, where the tribe is not notified as ST.
Supreme Court Surprised At State Opposing Maintenance Plea Of Wife By Siding With Husband
Case Title: Asiya Khan & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 140
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In a wife and minor daughter's plea for maintenance, the Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at State's conduct of siding with the husband.
Case Title: MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale
The Supreme Court held that the delay that occurred in preferring an appeal against the acquittal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Concurring with the decision of the High Court, the Bench observed that if there is a delay in filing an appeal against the acquittal of the accused then the delay can be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court Has No Power Of Superintendence Over High Courts : SC
Case Title: Ganpat @ Ganapat v. State of Uttar Pradesh., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Coram: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court stated that it has no power of superintendence over the High Courts.
The bench made this observation while refusing to direct a High Court to expeditiously decide a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution aggrieved by the delay in the hearing of his criminal appeal in the High Court.
Case Title: State U.P v. Ramadhar Kashyap (Minor) Thru.Brother Divyanshu., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 148
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's direction asking the Uttar Pradesh police to conduct the medical examination of the person called in the police station after their release.
Up To States/UTs To Explore Option Of 'Community Kitchens' : Supreme Court
Case Title: Anun Dhawan and others versus Union of India and others, WP(c) No.1103/201
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court left it open to the States and the Union Territories to explore the option of 'community kitchens' as a means to achieve the objectives of the National Food Security Act, 2013.
Case Title: Kalinga @ Kushal Versus State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli, Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that when the case of the prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession being circumstantial in nature then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence unless the chain of circumstances is completed by the prosecution.
Police Doesn't Have Power To Recover Money Or Act As Civil Court For Money Recovery : Supreme Court
Case Title: LALIT CHATURVEDI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 150
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court reiterated that the contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to the initiation of a criminal proceeding.
CaseTitle: THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANR. VERSUS GANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 153
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court held that the suit for injunction may not be maintainable against the defendants if the plaintiff fails to prove the title of the property while praying for the injunction.
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 151
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has, recently (on February 13), directed the High Courts to inform whether the decisions taken in Siddharth v. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation have been included in the curriculum of judicial academy.
Supreme Court Records SOP Suggested By Union Govt To Support Poor Prisoners
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 151
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
Recently, in a significant order, the Supreme Court has recorded a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to implement the scheme for support to poor prisoners. The Union proposed this procedure while the Court was ascertaining compliance with the directions in the landmark decision of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation.
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
The Supreme Court has directed the Animal Welfare Board of India to decide a representation filed by the Bombay Natural History Society on framing guidelines with respect to the management of feral, free-ranging, and domestic dogs in wildlife and protected areas.
Case Details: K Annamalai v. V Piyush | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2323 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court stayed the trial against Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K Annamalai over his alleged remarks against a Christian missionary non-profit.
Case Title: AMOL VITTHAL VAHILE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 159
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to convey its request to all the Judges of the Bombay High Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to bail/anticipatory bail as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the argument of the Union Government that there are functional differences in the Indian Coastguard because of which women officers cannot be given permanent commission there unlike the Army, Navy or Air Force.
Case Details: RAM NATH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 of 2012
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court observed that if a case is registered against an accused for food adulteration under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), then by virtue of the overriding effect of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSSA”), the proceedings under IPC cannot be continued against the accused.
Case Details: Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses to refresh his memory.
Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count.
Case Details: GYAN PRAKASH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 164
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Expressing concern over the non-removal of unauthorized occupations/encroachments on the national highways, the Supreme Court directed the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”), to come out with a scheme that will provide for firstly, regular inspection of the highways, secondly, the establishment of grievance redressal mechanism and thirdly taking prompt action based on the complaints reporting unauthorized occupations/encroachments.
Sale Agreement With Minor Void, Not Enforceable In Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: KRISHNAVENI VERSUS M.A. SHAGUL HAMEED & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 165
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court reiterated that the contract entered by the minor is not enforceable under law. "There is no dispute on the contention raised by the defendants in the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement dated 03.09.2007. Therefore, such contract with a minor, was rightly found to be a void contract by the High Court.", the Bench said.
Case Title : INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures, despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be made.
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court suspended the operation and execution of an interim order issued by the Madras High Court staying the summonses issued to district collectors in Tamil Nadu in connection with alleged illegal sand mining-money laundering cases. The top court today granted interim relief in response to a special leave petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against a November 28 ruling of the high court staying the operation of these summonses issued by the central agency under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but allowing the investigation to continue.
Case Title: M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 163
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by one of its Registrars, vide which registration of a curative petition was declined because the underlying review petition was dismissed after open court hearing (not by circulation). The Court held that the order was contrary to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the power being judicial in nature ought to have been exercised by a Bench of the Court.
Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State | Diary No, 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, while hearing an application for NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's release on medical grounds, directed a board to be constituted by All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) to conduct an independent medical evaluation. The court also categorically stated that the State would have to bear the expenses for such evaluation.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 166
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man convicted for abetment to suicide of his wife, almost after 30 years of initiation of trial.
While doing so, the Court lamented that the criminal justice system of India can itself be a punishment for the accused if it took 30 years for the criminal justice system to acquit the accused.
Case Details: SUDHA BHALLA ALIAS SUDHA PUNCHI & ORS. VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS., CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1278 OF 2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 174
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
Recently, the Supreme Court held that the State cannot deprive the citizen of using the land for years and then paying compensation to show graciousness.
"Though, the Right to Property is no more a Fundamental Right, still it is recognized as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable," observed the Bench.
Case Details: WILLIAM STEPHEN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Recently, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code i.e., kidnapping for ransom, after finding that the prosecution failed to establish that there was an instant threat of death to the kidnapped from the accused.
In the same case the Court also remarked that the state government (Tamil Nadu) should impart proper training to police officers on obtaining certificate for electronic evidence as stipulated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Case Details: Shiv Jatia versus Gian Chand Malick & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the magistrate couldn't issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 170
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The interim order passed by a bench led by the Chief Justice of India restricting the establishment of zoos/safaris within forest areas will operate only till the final judgment on the very same issue is pronounced by another coordinate bench.
Case Title: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.
The Court also issued guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by high courts in passing interim orders of stay of proceedings and dealing with applications for vacating such stays.
Case Details: RAMJI LAL JAT Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL No.2744 OF 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Rajasthan Government to disqualify a candidate from applying to a police constable post for having more than two children.
The Court held that Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which provides that “no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002" is non-discriminatory and does not violate the Constitution.
'Distributor Not Agent, Independent Contractor': Supreme Court Elaborates Law On Agency
Case Title: Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, Civil Appeal No. 7257 of 2011 (and connected matters)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 176
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
While deciding the question of cellular mobile service providers' liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court recently summarized aspects that must be kept in mind by Courts while examining whether principal-agent relationship exists in particular case.
Case Details: Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10159-10168 of 2020
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Citing 'repeated breaches' and 'serious violations' on the part of Vedanta, the Supreme Court refused to grant it permission to reopen its Sterlite copper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu's Tuticorin.
News Update
Case Title: Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 9388 of 2022
The Gyanvpai mosque committee made an unsuccessful attempt to get an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court for their application challenging the Varanasi District Court's order which allowed Hindus to perform prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque. Few hours after the District Court passed the order on January 31 afternoon, the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi filed an urgent application seeking status quo at the mosque site. The lawyers of the mosque committee approached the residence of a Supreme Court registrar yesterday night seeking an urgent hearing at night itself, raising the apprehension that poojas will be performed inside the mosque during the night.
AAP Councillor Moves Supreme Court Against HC's Refusal To Stay Chandigarh Mayor Election
An Aam Aaadmi Party(AAP) councillor has approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to stay the Chandigarh Mayor polls. AAP councillor Kuldeep Kumar has filed the Special Leave Petition aggrieved by the decision of the High Court to list his petition after three weeks without granting an immediate stay of the results.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud agreed to consider a request for urgent listing of the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Kuldeep Kumar challenging the Chandigarh Mayor election result.
Can Dismissal Of 6 Women Judges Be Reconsidered? Supreme Court Ask Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Junior Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Services., SMW (Civil) No. 2 of 2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court orally asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court if it could reconsider the decision to terminate the services of six women judges.
The bench was considering a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court over the termination of these judges by the Madhya Pradesh government in June last year. Last month, the Court had issued notice to the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the suo motu case.
Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001405 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the treatment meted out to a transgender teacher who had been terminated from her appointment by two private schools in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner addressed the issue of social stigma that the teacher had been facing in the women's hostel and how the school environment has been unwelcoming of her sexual identity.
The Supreme Court agreed to list the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy case.
The Supreme Court agreed to list the petition filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), challenging the refusal of the Maharashtra Speaker to disqualify the MLAs of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Sunil Prabhu, mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud that the petition has not been listed today, although it was supposed to come up today. Following this, CJI Chandrachud agreed to list the matter.
Supreme Court Schedules Final Hearing Of Pleas Challenging Bihar Govt's Caste Survey In April
Case Title: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
The Supreme Court scheduled in April the final hearing of a clutch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the State of Bihar.
Case Title : KULDEEP KUMAR vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH SLP(C) No. 002998 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Presiding Officer who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections by orally saying, "It is obvious that he defaced the ballot papers." "Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is a murder of democracy. This man should be prosecuted," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked after seeing the video of the controversial election, in which a BJP candidate was declared the winner after the votes of 8 councillors of the Congress-AAP alliance were declared invalid.
Case Title: MOHD. IQBAL AHANGAR vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR., SLP(C) No. 002748 - / 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the termination of the term of the President Municipal Committee, Dooru-Verinag, Anantnag District by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (“UT”).
How Duplicate Voter Entries Are Determined? Supreme Court Asks Election Commission Of India
Case Title: Samvidhan Bachao Trust v Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1228/2023 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court sought the response of the Election Commission Of India(ECI) on certain specific queries regarding the deletion of duplicate entries from the electoral rolls.
'BRS MP K Kavitha Avoiding Summonses' : ED Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha has been 'avoiding' the central agency's summonses, at the Supreme Court hearing of the legislator's plea in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The probe agency is currently investigating her role in influencing the now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital and related bribery allegations.
Supreme Court Posts SNC Lavalin Case For Final Hearing On May 1, 2024
Case Title: Kasthuri Ranga Iyer v. State represented by Addl. Superintendent of Police CBI and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7801/2017 (and connected cases)
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court posted the appeal filed by Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and certain officials in the SNC Lavalin case for final hearing on May 1. Connected appeals filed by accused officials who seek discharge in the case will also be heard along with the CBI's appeal.
The Attorney General for India has filed a written note in the suit filed by the State of Kerala against the Union of India over the limits imposed on borrowing capacities.
The AG's note stressed that public finance management is a national issue. "Debt of States affects the credit rating of the country. Moreover, default by any State in debt servicing would create reputational issues and will have domino effect endangering the financial stability of the whole of India," stated the note.
In a significant move, Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code Bill was tabled in the State Assembly during its special session. This Bill, presented by Uttarakhand's Chief Minister, Pushkar Singh Dhami, aims to incorporate several changes to establish consistent laws for personal issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and so on.
One of the crucial changes proposed by the instant Bill is the mandatory registration of live-in relationships. The registration is supposed to be made to the registrar within one month from the “date of entering the relationship.” Notably, on failure to do so, the Bill also prescribes punishment of 3 months of maximum imprisonment or a fine up ₹10,000 or both.
ECI Recognizes Ajit Pawar Faction As Nationalist Congress Party, Allots Official Symbol To Them
The Election Commission of India has recognized the Ajit Pawar faction as the official Nationalist Congress Party. The ECI held that the Ajit Pawar faction will be entitled to use the "clock" symbol, which is the reserved symbol for the NCP faction.
The ECI passed the order allowing the application filed by the Ajit Pawar faction under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 seeking to use the official symbol of the NCP.
Case Title: Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4999 of 2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih
Former Nagpur University professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen defended her bail plea in the Supreme Court by alleging a lack of evidence connecting her to the case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or establishing her purported links with the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist).
In a public interest litigation filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeking to delete the words "Socialist" & "Secular" from the Preamble to the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court today asked if the Preamble could have been amended while keeping the date intact.
Lawyers Should Have Compulsory Training Program Like Judges : Supreme Court
Case Title: SOUVIK BHATTACHARYA vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOLKATA ZONAL OFFICE II., Diary No.- 45620 - 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court, while hearing a bail application, remarked that lawyers should undergo a compulsory training programme. The Court made this remark after noticing certain lapses on the part of the lawyer in handling the bail application before the trial court.
Case Title: Tushar Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a plea concerning the Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident, the Supreme Court today expressed displeasure with the State of Uttar Pradesh for not complying with the suggestions given by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in its Report for counselling of students involved in the act (other than the victim).
Directing the State to immediately implement TISS' suggestions regarding counselling of the other children, who were participants/witnesses of the incident, the Bench orally told UP AAG Garima Prashad that the suggestions have to be implemented in letter and spirit.
Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. GMR Airports Limited & Anr., Curative Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2022
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and JK Maheshwari
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a curative petition filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against the multinational conglomerate GMR Group concerning the operational management of Nagpur's Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Pregnancies In Women's Prisons Across Country
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the alarming number of pregnancies occurring among women inmates in prisons across the country. This development comes one day after a significant plea was brought before the Calcutta High Court, drawing attention to a troubling trend of women prisoners becoming pregnant while in custody within correctional homes across West Bengal.
Stop Referring To 'Trial Courts' As 'Lower Courts': Supreme Court Tells Registry
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court has categorically asked its registry to stop referring to the Trial Courts as 'Lower Courts'.
“Even the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR).,” the Bench added.
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Sandeep Mehta
Recently, the Supreme Court has observed that a mere delay in complying with the order of the court would not amount to committing contempt of court.
“We are of the view that mere delay in complying with the order, unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged contemnors would not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.” the bench observed .
ED Withdraws Petition Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Transfer Of Coal Scam Accused From Chhattisgarh
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a recent development in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy Scam case, the Directorate of Enforcement has withdrawn its plea to transfer 2 accused out of the State of Chhattisgarh, which was pending before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Extends Interim Bail Of Union Minister's Son Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Case
Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted earlier to Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri case concerning the killings of four farmers in October 2021.
Case Title: PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Delhi-1, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., SLP(C) No. 28533/2023
Coram: BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court allowed the company running the news portal “NewsClick” to withdraw its appeal against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting a stay on the income tax demand. The Division bench granted it the liberty to move before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. While doing so, the Court also recorded that the Tribunal shall decide the same expeditiously in case of a request for early consideration for interim relief.
Case Title: Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024
The Supreme Court deferred the petition filed by a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) member challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's refusal to disqualify the MLAs belonging to Eknath Shinde group.
Case Details: The National Investigation Agency v. Gautam P Navlakha & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court extended until March the stay on the bail granted to journalist and activist Gautam Navlakha in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case, following a petition filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Can Divorced Muslim Woman File For Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 1614/2024
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In a Muslim man's plea against direction to pay interim maintenance to his divorced wife, the Supreme Court is set to consider the question whether a Muslim woman is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court adjourned until February 26 the hearing of a plea by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the regular bail granted to N Chandrababu Naidu, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) supremo and former chief minister of the state, in the skill development scam case.
Case Title: Dr.Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Diary No(s).508/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court asked if a High Court is required to consult the State Government for laying down the criteria for the selection of District Judges.
This question arose in a batch of petitions challenging the direction issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Haryana Government to accept the recommendations to appoint 13 District Judges.
Sharad Pawar Moves Supreme Court Challenging ECI Decision Recognizing Ajit Pawar Faction As NCP
Sharad Pawar has approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India to recognize Ajit Pawar faction as the Nationalist Congress Party.
The petition challenges the order passed by the ECI on February 6 by which the official 'clock' symbol of NCP was allotted to the Ajit Pawar group. The Special Leave Petition challenging the Election Commission's order was filed yesterday evening.
Supreme Court Extends Stay On Trial Against Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Over 'Khuda Believers' Remark
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State of UP and Anr., SLP(Crl) No.1898/2023
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the Special Leave Petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's seeking discharge in a criminal case arising out of his alleged 'Khuda believers' remark during a 2014 political rally.
Centre Open To Talks With Kerala On Issue Of Borrowing Limits : AG Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 1 of 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani on Tuesday (February 13) told the Supreme Court that the Central Government was open to talks with the Kerala government on the issue of the limits placed by the Centre on the State's borrowing limits. In turn, the state government also agreed to send a delegation tomorrow to Delhi to conduct a dialogue with representatives of the central government.
Case Title: Anamika Jaiswal v. Union of India & Ors.
In the latest development in the Adani-Hindenburg row, a review petition has been filed challenging the recent Supreme Court verdict that dismissed pleas for a probe into allegations of stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies.
Case Title: MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANR. V. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
The Supreme Court expressed shock and surprise that a "political party" has encroached upon a land in Delhi which was allocated for the Delhi High Court.
A visibly surprised CJI DY Chandrachud asked how the political party could occupy the land meant for the judiciary. "How can there be a party office? You can't take the law into your own hands."
Bilkis Bano Case : Gujarat Govt Files Review Petition Against Supreme Court's Adverse Remarks
In the latest development in the Bilkis Bano case, the Gujarat government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking certain critical remarks made by it regarding the conduct of the state government with respect to the premature release of the 11 convicts to be expunged.
In a dramatic development, the majority of members of the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association have disagreed with an earlier letter sent by SCBA President Senior Advocate Adish C Aggarwala to the Chief Justice of India seeking suo motu action against "erring farmers" in the context of the farmers protest.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea of a woman Short Service Appointment (SSA) Officer, engaged with Indian Coast Guard (ICG), over denial of consideration for Permanent Commission despite 14 years of service.
Umar Khalid Withdraws Bail Petition In Supreme Court, To Seek Bail From Trial Court Afresh
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6857 of 2023
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn the petition filed former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid's bail plea in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the transfer of Justice Anu Sivaraman from Kerala High Court to Karnataka High Court on her request.
The Supreme Court's collegium agreed to the request of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of Calcutta High Court regarding her transfer to a different Court. The transfer was sought for personal reasons.
In the latest development, the Supreme Court's collegium has agreed to the request of Justice Sujoy Paul of Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding his transfer to a different Court. The request was made on 12th February on the ground that his son is practicing in the same High Court.
Case Title: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors., Diary No. 6711 of 2024
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to protect the centuries-old religious structures including the 13th Century Ashiq Allah Dargah (1317 AD) and Chillagah of Baba Farid near Mehrauli in Delhi.
Can Advocate Be Held Liable Under Consumer Protection Act? Supreme Court StartsHearing
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
The issue, which is relevant for members of the Bar, emerged from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007. The Commission had ruled that the services rendered by lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Needless to say, the said provision defines Service.
Case Title: Vedanta Limited v The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors SLP(C) No. 10159-10168/2020
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge to the permanent shut-down of the Sterlite copper plant of Vendata Limited in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu, suggested the proposal to have an oversight of an expert committee to find a viable middle ground to ensure a balance between the private corporate interests and the public interest at large.
Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Petitions Challenging UAPA Provisions
Case Title: Amreen v. Superintendent of Police., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2022 and connected matters
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court allowed pleas challenging provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to be withdrawn. The Bench granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has decided to intervene in an ongoing matter where the Supreme Court is deciding whether Advocates would come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case Title: M/S EXCEL RASAYAN PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3112/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a plea filed against the Delhi High Court order upholding the constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions under the CGST Act and Rules.
Passing the order, the Bench clarified that the issuance of notice shall not be construed as a restraint on the High Court for disposing of the main petition pending before it.
Case Title: DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. CURATIVE PET(C) No. 000108 - 000109 / 2022
The Supreme Court, while hearing a Curative Petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation challenging the Court's 2021 decision of upholding an arbitral award of Rs 72000 Crores won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), analysed the strictly high threshold to reopen a case through Curative Jurisdiction under Article 142.
The CJI noted that when curative petitions are filed concerning commercial issues, the threshold for consideration is aggravated.
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a CBI/SIT investigation into the reports regarding sexual assault of women in Sandeshkhali in West Bengal.
Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, the petitioner, alleges complicity and dereliction of duty on the part of the West Bengal police and that the state police is acting "hand in gloves" with the main accused Trinamool Congress leader Shajahan Sheikh.
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Senior Advocate Mr Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Sharad Pawar had today requested the Chief Justice of India for an urgent listing of their Petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI) which recognised the Ajit Pawar's Faction as the real Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).
Highlighting the urgency in the matter, the senior advocate informed the bench that there is a likelihood that Sharad Pawar may face a whip issued by Ajit Pawar since the Maharashtra Assembly Session would commence next week.
Supreme Court Tags Petition Challenging Criminalisation Of Triple Talaq With Pending Petitions
Case Title: AMIR RASHADI MADANI vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000096 - / 2024
The Supreme Court tagged a fresh petition challenging the criminalisation of Triple Talaq along with the petitions already pending before the Court on the same issue.
The lawyer appearing for the petitioner contended that the provisions for punishment of a Muslim husband conducting triple talaq were "anti-men and violative of their rights."
After SCAORA, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has resolved to intervene in an ongoing matter where the Supreme Court is considering whether advocates would come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and A Amanullah
An application filed by Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal revealed that there were 62 children born in the jails in West Bengal during the last four years. However, the application added that most of these women inmates 'were already expecting at the time when they were brought to the jails.'
Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 1614/2024
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a case raising the issue of whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
The Supreme Court pulled up the Central Government over the denial of the Permanent Commission for women officers in the Indian Coast Guard (ICG).
The bench, hearing a plea of a woman officer in the Short Service Commission, asked if the Union was taking "a patriarchal approach" despite the extensive rulings by the Apex Court on the issue of granting a Permanent Commission to women officers in defense services.
Will Allow Additional Borrowing By Kerala If They Withdraw Suit, Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was informed that talks to resolve the deadlock between the Centre and the State of Kerala over the former's curbs on the state's borrowing limits has not yielded any results.
Case Title: NITISHA vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE MA 000219 - / 2024
The Supreme Court, while hearing an application seeking directions for proper implementation of the judgement in Lt. Col Nitisha v. UOI, was informed by the Centre that a new policy is in progress which shall ensure that both male and female officers of the Indian army empanelled in permanent commission are rotated adequately in regular units.
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State., Diary No. 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court adjourned until February 27 (next Tuesday) the hearing of a plea by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha challenging his arrest/remand in the UAPA case.
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Ex-JNU Professor's Defamation Case Against 'The Wire'
Case Title: Amita Singh v. The Wire Through its Editor Siddharth Bhatia And Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 6146/2023
Coram: Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel made several allegations against the respondent. Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the respondent news organization, also submitted that there was a solitary reference to the petitioner in the questioned article. She also averred that, at the time of article publishing, the respondents, JNU professors, and even the petitioner understood that such a dossier was submitted. However, when the petitioner wrote to the respondent, a rejoinder was published stating that she had nothing to do with the dossier.
Case Title: DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. CURATIVE PET(C) No. 000108 - 000109 / 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Court reserved judgment on the Curative Petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) challenging the Court's 2021 decision of upholding an arbitral award of Rs 72000 Crores won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL).
Case Title: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus M/S ACZET PRIVATE LIMITED, C.A. No. 3743/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and KV Viswanathan
In a crucial development, the Supreme Court took up for consideration the issue of whether Tribunals/Commissions across the country, like the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), shall comprise a Judicial Member who shall also be the Presiding Member.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
In a matter where the Supreme Court is hearing whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the Consumer Protection Act of 1986., arguments were advanced where an attempt to distinguish the legal profession from that of the medical profession was made.
Case Title: Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra | SLP [C] No. 7776/2021
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge against the setting aside of MP Navneet Kaur Rana's cast certificate, asked the counsel for the petitioner to examine what would be the procedure laid down by law when a certificate that is granted after verification is to be canceled.
Case Title: GAYATRI BALASAMY VERSUS M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Coram: Justices Dipankar Dutta, K.V. Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court has referred to the larger bench the question of whether the courts have the power to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
In a pivotal hearing on whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 1986., the Supreme Court, inter-alia, deliberated on whether a consumer under the Act can be equated with the client. Additionally, the Court delved into whether negligence on the part of a lawyer can result in deficiency of service as given under the Act.
Is New Bail Law Under Preparation? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Coram: comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to inform whether it is contemplating to introduce a new Bail Law as per the recommendation made by the Court in its 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
Case Title: Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra., SLP [C] No. 7776/2021
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court, resuming its hearing on the issue of cancellation of the caste certificate of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana, dwelled into the aspect of the purpose and scope of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and how the designation of Scheduled Castes in different states varied on sociological basis.
Earlier this week, a Supreme Court bench led by the Chief Justice of India passed an interim order that zoos/safaris should not be allowed within forest areas without prior obtaining prior permission from the Court.
However, another bench led by Justice BR Gavai had earlier reserved judgment on the very same issue. Today, Justice Gavai asked the Additional Solicitor General of India, Aishwarya Bhati, if she had informed the CJI's bench about this fact.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court questioned the Tamil Nadu government's standing to file a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the district collectors in connection with the alleged illegal sand mining- money laundering cases.
Case Title: ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN PURNIMA BHAT Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 3932/2024 (and connected cases)
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a set of cases against the Madras Bar Association ("MBA"), the Supreme Court asked the parties concerned to inform by next date of hearing if they have any objection to Justice KV Viswanathan hearing the matter, in light of the fact that he had attended an event at MBA after his elevation.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent., SMW (Civil) No. 3 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court questioned the remit of the high court to set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, merely on the basis that the sexual intercourse was with 'consent', when a minimum punishment has been prescribed under the statute, in the absence of a constitutional mandate to do 'complete justice' that is enjoyed by the top court.
Will Publish Review Committee's Orders On Internet Shutdown: Jammu & Kashmir UT Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2020
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir agreed before the Supreme Court to publish the orders passed by the review committees regarding internet shutdown in the region, except for the internal deliberations.
Case title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has issued notice to Google India Private to get information on the working of Google PIN in the context of conditions put in certain bail orders that the accused must share the live mobile location with the investigating officer throughout the period of bail.
One Bench Of High Court Cannot Cancel Bail Granted By Another Bench : Supreme Court
Case Title: Himanshu Sharma v. Union of India., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 157
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge of the High Court in canceling the bail granted to the accused by another Single Judge of the same High Court and that too, by examining the merits of the allegations tantamounts, to judicial impropriety/indiscipline.
Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).26568/2023
Coram: Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta
In a 83-year-old retired Constable's plea for authorities to act on his recommendation for the Gallantry Award, the Supreme Court recently called for the State of Uttar Pradesh's response.
Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2558 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
The Supreme Court sought the Directorate of Enforcement's (ED) response to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh's bail plea in a money laundering case connected with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.
Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
During the Supreme Court hearing of Andhra Pradesh's plea against former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's regular bail in the skill development scam case, the state government levelled allegations against the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) president and his family, accusing them of making 'disturbing' and 'threatening' statements against state officials.
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. State (National Capital Territory Of Delhi) & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2413 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court directed the trial court proceedings in a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to be temporarily halted. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief has approached the top court challenging summons in a defamation case lodged against him for retweeting a video on social media platform 'X' making certain allegations related to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell.
In a notable development, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has written a letter to the Secretary-General, Supreme Court, citing concerns with regard to the latest designation of 56 advocates as senior advocates.
Case Title: RANBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 4498/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the trend of Special Leave Petitions being filed against High Courts which merely issue notice or grant adjournments.
While dismissing a petition filed against a High Court order posting a matter to April, the Court imposed a token cost of Rs.1 lac to "send a message" to Advocates-on-Record (and Counsels engaged by them) that frivolous petitions should not be filed.
Case Details: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001022 / 1989
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,
The Supreme Court while hearing the matter of the pension scheme for judicial officers, flagged concerns on the plight of the retired district judicial officers who were getting inadequate financial support through the present pension policies. The Court urged the Union to find a 'Just Solution' for the officers who have substantially contributed to the cause of Justice.
Case Details: ARUSHI SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024
A specially-abled woman has approached the Supreme Court complaining of the humiliation she had to face at the Kolkata airport where she was allegedly asked to stand up by the security personnel.
The Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society has undergone a shift in its leadership with the recent appointment of advocates-on-record Vanshaja Shukla and Ravi Raghunath to its Executive Committee.
Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and others v. Army College of Medical Sciences | W.P.(C) No. 730/2022
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale
The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the complaints of MBBS interns that medical colleges are not adequately paying them stipend. Justice Dhulia orally voiced his discontent with how medical colleges are charging such hefty fees and are not prepared to pay the stipend.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has written a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud calling for fixing of the final daily list at the supplementary stage and disallowing any alteration thereafter.
Case Title: IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE, SMW(C) No. 2/2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih
In a suo motu writ petition registered wrt simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges in Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court was recently apprised that the Administrative Committee of the State High Court has resolved to not re-consider its earlier decision.
Petition Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Demolition Drive In Lucknow's Akbar Nagar
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the demolition of commercial spaces in Lucknow's Akbar Nagar, after the Allahabad High Court dismissed the pleas of 24 occupants yesterday, paving the way for the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) to demolish allegedly illegal establishments in the area. Following the high court's order, the LDA wasted no time in commencing the demolition process on Tuesday evening, targeting shops and other commercial buildings along Ayodhya Road in Akbar Nagar.
Case Title: Potluri Vara Prasad & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2213 of 2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court called for a response from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the issue as to whether bar imposed by the Court's earlier decision, of any prayer for stay/impeding progress of investigation/trial in Coal Block Allocation cases being maintainable only before it, is applicable to orders passed on complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as well.
Case Details: Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life Through Its General Secretary Wing Commander (Retd) Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Union of India
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court criticised the Central Government's failure to specify the range of rates within which private hospitals and clinical establishments can charge for their treatment services. Although a rule in this regard was framed twelve years ago, the Court noted that it has not been enforced yet.
Case Details: Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2741-2743/2024
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
In a plea over the cancellation of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana's 'Mochi' caste certificate, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which has intervened in this matter, brought out four important aspects to argue that these services would not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. One of the aspects was that lawyers do not have control over the environment in which services are rendered. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the advocates' body, explained this by saying how the same can be controlled in other professions.
Case Title: Meena v. State of UP, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9265/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a swift response to the recent demolitions of commercial spaces in Lucknow's Akbar Nagar, multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the demolition orders.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of services. The Bench heard the matter. On the final day, Senior Advocate V Giri, the amicus curiae in the matter, addressed the bench.