IndexCitationsManish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 849Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd | R.P.(C) No. 359/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 851International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited, Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 852Anoop M. and others v....
Index
Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 849
Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850
Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd | R.P.(C) No. 359/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 851
International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited, Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 852
Anoop M. and others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and others ETC. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 853
Anjum Kadari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 14432-2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 856
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857
Noida Special Economic Zone Authority v. Manish Agarwal & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5918-5919 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 858
M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 841/2018 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860
Nabha Power Ltd and another v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 861
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 862
Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863
Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864
Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865
State Bank of India and Ors. v. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.| C.A. No. 5023-5024/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Commissioner of Customs v. M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd. | R.P.(C) No. 000400 - / 2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 867
Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 20192024 LiveLaw (SC) 868
Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869
M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Ors. | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 870
M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/S Micromax Informatics Fze, Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871
Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023 and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 872
In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services SMW(C) No. 2/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 873
Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 875
Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876
Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 11785 of 2024 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 877
In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash WP(C) No. 1294/2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878
M/S HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, Civil Appeal No. 12233 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879
Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited & Anr v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 880
M/S Crystal Transport Private Limited & Anr. v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7709–7710 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 881
Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883
In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884
Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885
Tinku v. State of Haryana 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886
XYZ v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 887
Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 888
Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 890
GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
Prem Lal Anand and Ors. v. Narendra Kumar and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 892
Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 893
Kavita Nagar & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 894
Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2012 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 895
Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 896
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Sigh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi Ps National Institute of Communicable Diseases., Diary No.- 27751 – 2007 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 897
Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 898
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash, Civil Appeal No. 4393/2010 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899
State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900
State Bank Of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 901
Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, C.A. No. 012546/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902
Hitesh Bhuralal Jain v. Rajpal Amarnath Yadav & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 903
Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904
MR Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 4887/2024 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905
Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906
Arushi Singh v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 907
In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908
M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune | Civil Appeal Nos. 10409-10410 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 909
Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 910
R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. v. TRK Sarawathy & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 911
Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. v. Ved Prakash 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 912
Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 913
Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914
M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., SLP (C) No. 2272 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915
K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, SLP (C) No. 18337/2021 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020 and Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India, MA 835/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 919
State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 920
Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921
Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 922
C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector and Others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923
Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Nanhe Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 925
State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha Criminal Appeal No.2646 Of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 926
Government Of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 Of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928
Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 930
Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 931
Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 934
Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 935
Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936
Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 937
Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 938
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 939
Directorate of Enforcement Etc. v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940
In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
Sidhique Kappan v. State of Uttar Pradesh MA 1929/2024 in MA 1929/2024 in Crl.A. No. 1534/2022
Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Anr. WP (C) No. 701/2024
Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.
Kishore Samrite v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Slp(Crl) No. 9251/2024
Arunkumar Devnath Singh v. State of Maharashtra SLP(Crl) No. 15128/2024
Union of India v. Samuel Miranda, Diary No. 46240/2024
Chhavi Singh v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 50482-2024
National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023
Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992-2023
Vatti Janaiah v. State of Telangana | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12098/2023
Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024
Subhash Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15145/2024
Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 657/2024
Girraj Singh Malinga v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 9528/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) WP (Crl.) No. 446/2024
Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 15292/2024
Jan Suraaj Party v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 742/2024
Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others v. Vivek Krishna Tankha, SLP(Crl) No. 15212/2024
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Beant Kumar and Anr., SLP(C) No. 26468-26469/2024
G. Venkateswarlu v. The Director, CFSL (CBI) & Ors.
Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Karuna @ Manoharan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.
Som Nath Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kuldeep Mishra v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh W.P.(C) No.24/ 2024
Prajwala v. Union of India, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004
Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P.(Crl.) No. 335/2024
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000960 - / 2021
Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
Maganti Gopinath v. Mohammed Azharuddin, SLP(C) No. 26427/2024
Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
Jacob Vadakkanchery v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 48665-2024
Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
Omanakuttan KG v. WhatsApp Applications Services Pvt. Ltd and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 736/2024
Jayanarayan Mishra v. State of Odisha, SLP(Crl) No. 1145/2024
Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
Ajay Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024
State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ MU Henry SLP(Crl.) 8629/2022
Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024
Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors.
Nischay Chaudhary v. Union of India WP(C) No. 740/2024
PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Diary No. 48875-2024
Veerendra Kumar Ram v. Union of India
Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 25527/2024
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP (Crl) No.13463/2024
Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale v. State of Maharashtra., Diary No. 22040-2024
M/S. Power Smart Media Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association
Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 950/2022
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
Union of India v. Rajiv Suri | Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019
Jyoti Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13305/2024
Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh., SLP(C) No. 16864/2021
Surendra Manjhi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 511/2022
Rajkumar Daitapati v. Director Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 9517/2021
Association For The Welfare Of The Handicapped & Ors. v. KP Mohammed & Ors.
Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Victims Mother and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15332-15333/2024
Lawyers Voice v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13/2022
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021
Remo D Souza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15328/2024
Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP (Crl.) No. 104/2024
Voluntary Arunachal Sena v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Rashtrawadi Adarsh Mahasangh v. Union of India | Diary No. - 53278/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 718/2024
National Investigation Agency v. Md. Noor Hussain Tomba Nur Hasan., T.P.(Crl.) No. 502-509/2024
Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
State of Kerala v. KM Shaji with Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. KM Shaji
Sameed Ahmad v. State of Haryana, Diary No.48472/2024
Surya Kant v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) NO. 6469/2024 and connected cases
Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018
Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
Delhi Library Board v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Bombay Natural History Society v. Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 97/2024
Anurag Dubey Alias Dabban v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 46437/2024
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Pooja Thakur and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 990/2024
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Mohd. Jaheer @ Munne and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 13948-13949/2024
Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
K. Shahul Hameed v. State of Kerala
Kuntal Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 13352/2024
O Panneerselvam v. State Rep By Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16221/2024
S. Venugopala Chary v. State of Telangana (Previously State of A.P.), SLP(Crl) No. 15149/2024
State of Chhattisgarh v. Anwar Dhebar
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Preeti Harihara Mahapatra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 780/2024
Reports/Judgments
Supreme Court Validates Different Grade Pay For Artificers III To I; Promotional Hierarchy Justifies Pay Distinction In Navy's Pay Grade
Case Details: Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 849
Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed appeals challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order regarding grade pay disparity between Navy Artificers and Chief Petty Officers. The Court held that despite equivalence in seniority ranking, the difference in grade pay was justified due to the promotional hierarchy within the Navy's technical branch. The judgment reaffirms that promotional avenues and command structure can validly determine pay grades even when positions share equivalent ranks for seniority purposes.
Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Litigant Engaging New Lawyer To Reargue Case After Court Expressed Dissatisfaction On Merits
Case Details: Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850
The Supreme Court criticized a litigant who, through a newly engaged lawyer, tried to reargue a case despite the Court having previously expressed dissatisfaction with the case's merits after hearing arguments but allowed the lawyers to seek further instructions.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih observed –
“It is not the case that the learned senior counsel who argued the matter and who took time to take instructions are not available. There are cases and cases when we are not satisfied about the merits, instead of dismissing the petitions, we grant time to the counsel to take instructions. Members of the Bar very well know what instructions the advocates are supposed to take. Therefore, we do not endorse this practice adopted by the petitioner. Even if due to exigencies, a new counsel is engaged, he ought to state the instructions received. He cannot re-argue the case.”
Supreme Court Recalls Its Judgment Which Struck Down Sections 3 & 5 Of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988
Case Details: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd | R.P.(C) No. 359/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 851
The Supreme Court on recalled its 2022 judgment in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd which struck down Sections 3(2) and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 as unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recalled the judgment allowing a review petition filed by the Union Government against the judgment.
The bench noted that the Constitutionality of the provisions of the unamended Benami Transactions Act was never raised in the original proceedings. The only question which was framed by the bench which originally heard the matter was "whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 , as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, has a prospective effect."
However, the bench in its conclusion held that the provisions (Sections 3 and 5) of the unamended Act were unconstitutional.
Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award: Supreme Court
Case Details: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v. Kamarajar Port Limited, Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 852
The Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of the respondent-entity as a statutory undertaking.
'Public Service Commission Must Not Resort To Falsehoods': Supreme Court Slams KPSC's Inconsistency On LDC Post Qualification
Case Details: Anoop M. and others v. Gireeshkumar T.M. and others ETC.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 853
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) for its inconsistent stances which led to prolonged litigation impacting the hopes and aspirations of nearly twelve hundred candidates who appeared for the recruitment exam for the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) post in the Kerala Water Authority.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar expressed displeasure with the varying stand of the KPSC in ascertaining the essential qualification for the post of LDC. Initially, the KPSC was adamant on its stand that Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) would not be a qualification to be considered eligible for appointment to the subject post, however later on it changed its earlier stand and notified that DCA certificate holder would be eligible for the LDC post.
Disapproving KPSC's inconsistent stand, the Court observed that, when dealing with careers of a large number of candidates, the Public Service Commission's stands have to be consistent.
“We, therefore, have no hesitation in placing the blame for this entire imbroglio on the KPSC as it laid the genesis for this litigation owing to its changing stances at different points of time. A State instrumentality seized of the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain nebulous as to its norms or resort to falsehoods before the Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits. We can only hope that the Kerala Public Service Commission learns from this experience and desists, at least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment.”, the court said.
Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act Except Its Provisions Regulating Higher Education Degrees
Case Details: Anjum Kadari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 14432-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement which had struck it down earlier.
The High Court erred in striking down the Act on the ground that it violated the basic structure principle of secularism, the Supreme Court held. A statute can be struck down only if violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or violates provisions regarding legislative competence. "The Constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. In a challenge to the statute for the violation of the principles of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism. The High Court erred in holding that the statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure," the Supreme Court held.
However, the Court held that the Madarsa Act, to the extent it regulates higher education in relation to 'fazil' and 'kamil' degrees, is in conflict with the UGC Act and to that extent it was unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the challenge to Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional.
Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b): Supreme Court
Case Details: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855
The Supreme Court held by a majority of 7:2 that all private properties cannot form part of the 'material resources of the community' which the State is obliged to equitably redistribute as per the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Court held some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community'.
The 9-judge bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.v. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
The majority opinion was authored by the CJI, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.
Maintainability Of Second Protest Petition Depends On How First Complaint Against Negative Final Report Was Dismissed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 856
The Supreme Court held that there's no bar on the maintainability of the second complaint against the negative Final Report/Charge Sheet if the magistrate believes that the core of both complaints is different.
The Court in Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. settled a position of law that if the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” that were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable.
Taking a cue from Samta Naidu's case, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal clarified that there's no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances i.e., where the earlier dismissal order suffers from any infirmity.
Supreme Court Directs NMC To Issue Fresh Guidelines To Admit Persons With Disabilities Into Medical Courses
Case Details: Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857
In a significant stride towards social recognition of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court stressed the need to give opportunities to PwDs in the medical sector and devise qualitative standards for testing disabilities in the procedure for medical course admissions.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its judgement allowed a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024. In doing so, the Court underlined that Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) needed to be perceived not with an element of sympathy but as an essential part of the society we live in today. It is imperative to further the cause of inclusion of the PwDs to achieve the national project of eradicating all forms of discrimination that the Country is scarred with.
'IBC Prevails Over SEZ Act', Supreme Court Rejects Noida SEZ's Claim
Case Details: Noida Special Economic Zone Authority v. Manish Agarwal & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5918-5919 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 858
The Supreme Court dismissed the Noida Special Economic Zone's (NSEZ) plea challenging the NCLAT's decision to approve a resolution plan that granted Rs. 50 Lacs against NSEZ's admitted claim of about Rs. 6 Crore.
The NCLAT reduced the claim amount, partly due to penalties related to the renewal of the sub-lease and transfer charges.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih ruled that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prevails over the SEZ Act due to Section 238 of IBC's overriding effect, rejecting NSEZ's argument for exemptions from such payments.
Holder Of LMV Driving License Can Drive Transport Vehicle With Unladen Weight Less Than 7500 KG: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 841/2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859
The Supreme Court held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.
If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.
The additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kgs.
Adopting a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court endorsed the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Court also approached the issue from the perspective of livelihood issues of transport vehicle drivers.
Sessions Courts Must Order Victim Compensation In Cases Of Sexual Offences Against Minors And Women: Supreme Court
Case Details: Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860
The Supreme Court mandated that, in cases involving bodily harm, especially in sexual assault cases involving minors or women, Sessions Courts should order victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC(396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
The Court observed that the lack of a compensation order by the Sessions Court delays benefits to victims. This direction must be implemented swiftly by legal services authorities, with provision for interim compensation when appropriate, the Court held.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed this direction while granting bail to the appellant, convicted under Sections 376-D, 354 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Press Release Of Govt Not 'Law' As Per Power Purchase Agreement: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nabha Power Ltd and another v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 861
The Supreme Court held that a press release issued by the Government of India about certain changes in the mega power policy did not constitute 'law' and 'change in law' in terms of a Power Purchase Agreement.
"The press release of 01.10.2009 certainly does not fulfil the meaning of the word “order” as understood in legal parlance," the Court observed.
"In our considered opinion, the press release did not alter/amend/repeal the existing law as on 01.10.2009. It was at best the announcement of a proposal approved by the Cabinet which had to be given shape after fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein...The press release summarizing the Cabinet decision and beset with several conditions created no vested rights on any party to the power purchase agreement vis-a-vis the other party on 01.10.2009. In fact, the press release itself contemplated certain contingencies," the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan held.
S. 56 Electricity Act 2003 | 2 Year Limitation Period Not Applicable To Dues Incurred Before Enforcement Of 2003 Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 862
The Supreme Court held that the liability arising out of the electricity bill dues which accrued before the enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“2003 Act”) would not be barred by the 2-year old limitation period prescribed under Section 56 of the 2003 Act.
The Court held that once a liability is judicially crystallised and remains unchallenged, the person is bound by the principle of estoppel.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal heard a challenge related to the electricity consumption in which Respondent no. 1 had challenged the due raised by the Appellants but the same was held against him by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and then in a miscellaneous petition. However, ignoring the order, the petition was withdrawn and a second round of litigation was invoked on the same issue which ended in his favour as the division bench of the High Court applied the law of limitation.
Doctor Following Accepted Medical Practices Not Liable For Complications That Arise Post-Surgery: Supreme Court
Case Details: Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863
The Supreme Court held that a Doctor who follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of duties would not be liable for the patient's post-surgery complications.
“In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.
The Court clarified that so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in the discharge of his duties, no liability for medical negligence could be imposed on him.
Eligibility Criteria Can't Be Changed After Commencement Of Recruitment Process Unless Rules Permit So: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed midway after the selection process for posts has begun unless the relevant rules expressly permit so.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra had reserved its judgment on July 18, 2023.
Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865
The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher.
"We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed," the Supreme Court observed.
"When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred in a higher secondary school, that too from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence which is purely private in nature and have no serious impact on the society," the Court added.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.
Supreme Court Orders Liquidation Of Jet Airways On Failure Of Resolution Plan
Case Details: State Bank of India and Ors. v. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.| C.A. No. 5023-5024/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 866
The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the liquidation of Jet Airways in view of the "peculiar and alarming" circumstance that the resolution plan has not been implemented for five years.
The Court set aside the NCLAT Order which allowed the cash-strapped Jet Airways' ownership transfer to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) without complete payment in accordance with the resolution plan.
The Court directed the NCLT Mumbai Bench to appoint a liquidator forthwith and commence proceedings for the liquidation of the corporate debtor. The amount of Rs 200 crores already infused by the SRA, Jalan KalRock Consortium (JKC), stands forfeited. The lenders and creditors are entitled to encash the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs 150 crores furnished by the SRA.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had reserved the judgment on October 16. The NCLAT order was challenged by SBI-led lenders of the cash-strapped Airlines.
DRI Officers Can Issue Show-Cause Notices Under Customs Act: Supreme Court Allows Review Against 'Canon India' Judgment
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs v. M/S Canon India Pvt. Ltd. | R.P.(C) No. 000400 - / 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 867
The Supreme Court held that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) have the power to exercise powers under the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show-cause notices and recover duties
The Court held that DRI officers are "proper officers" to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
"Subject to the observations made in the judgment, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionates of Customs-Preventive, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, and Commissionates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are "proper officers" for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act and are competent to issue show-cause notices," the Court held.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed the review petition filed by the Customs Department against the 2021 Supreme Court Judgment in Canon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, which had held that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence do not have powers under the Customs Act ,1962.
Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Details: Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2019
Citation:2024 LiveLaw (SC) 868
The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage.
“In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.”, the court said.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recognized the concerns of the party who is constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings due to the court's limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). According to the Court, “some parties might take undue advantage of such a limited scope of judicial interference of the referral courts and force other parties to the agreement into participating in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process.”
Aligarh Muslim University: Minority Status Not Lost Merely Because Institution Was Created By Statute- Supreme Court
Case Details: Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869
In the case relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:3 majority), overruled the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.
The issue whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench based on this view of the majority.
In Azeez Basha, the Court had ruled that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was established by a statute. The majority led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud overruled Azeez Basha and held that an institution will not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute. The majority held that the Court must examine who established the University and who was the "brain" behind it. If that enquiry is pointing towards a minority community, then the institution can claim minority status as per Article 30. For this factual determination, the Constitution Bench relegated the matter to a regular bench.
"The view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled," the majority stated.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, on his last working day, pronounced the judgment on behalf of the majority (comprising himself, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra)
Justices Surya Kant partially dissented from the majority on certain aspects, however agreed that Azeez Basha view required to be modified and clarified to a certain extent. Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma dissented.
Supreme Court Recalls Judgment Which Held 2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act Prospective
Case Details: M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Ors. | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 870
The Supreme Court recalled its 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).
The Court recalled the judgment in the exercise of its review jurisdiction. The judgment was reviewed on factual points.
The reveiw bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the original judgment erred in not granting the discretionary remedy of specific performance of the sale agreement.
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration: Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
Case Details: M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/S Micromax Informatics Fze, Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871
In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad.
Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the Court observed that “the more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the 'seat' of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of 'venue' in the arbitration agreement.”
In essence, the Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court without specifying any other court, that foreign court effectively gains exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration proceedings i.e., it effectively becomes the 'seat of the arbitration'.
High Court Judges Can't Be Discriminated Based On Source Of Appointment, All Entitled To Same Service Benefits: Supreme Court
Case Details: Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023 and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 872
The Supreme Court held that High Court Judges elevated from the district judiciary would be entitled to service conditions at par with those judges appointed from the bar and that the Constitution does not differentiate between the High Court Judges on the basis of the source of their recruitment.
The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the batch of matters relating to the pending release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges.
'Provide Separate Cut-off': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recruitment Of Persons With Disabilities In District Judiciary
Case Details: In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services SMW(C) No. 2/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 873
The Supreme Court issued several general directions relating to the recruitment of persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) in judicial services. The direction issued would be followed for the selection of candidates to the District Judiciary across the country.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that till the pending orders, the directions issued ought to be adhered to by the High Courts or State Public Service Commissions, as the case may be while carrying out the recruitment exercises in the District Judiciary.
Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels: Supreme Court
Case Details: Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
The Supreme Court ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors.
The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases.
Supreme Court Directs Union To Frame Mandatory Rules Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act For Accessibility Of Public Spaces
Case Details: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 875
In a significant judgment boosting disability rights, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities.
The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the judgment in a PIL filed by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
Supreme Court Reinstates Candidates Who Had CCC Certificate In 2014 As Technical Grade-II (Electrical) Employees In UP Power Corporation
Case Details: Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 876
The Supreme Court found that Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited "grossly erred" in terminating the services of those Applicants who were duly selected and possessed the certificate for computer literacy at the time of interview as required in the advertisement dated 6th September 2014 issued for filling the vacancy of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
As for those candidates who did not possess the certificate even on the date of the interview, the same cannot be accommodated.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.v. Vishwanathan was hearing the present appeal which prayed for a direction for the re-appointment of the applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Respondent). It found that the Respondent had misinterpreted the judgment of the single judge of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Respondent to redraw the Select List restricting it to those candidates who had brought the certificate at the time of the interview.
Courts Should Exercise Caution Before Passing Interim Orders Directing Colleges To Keep Seat Vacant: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 11785 of 2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 877
Coming to the aid of two medical colleges, which were directed to keep a medical seat vacant pursuant to a High Court order but incurred loss as the said seat ultimately remained unfilled, the Supreme Court paved way for monetary restitution through adjustment of the colleges' proposed fees for successive batches.
"considering that it is a case of one seat in each college, we feel that ends of justice will be served if we grant liberty to the appellant colleges to make a representation to the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority of the State highlighting the vacancy caused due to the interim order of the High Court. If such a representation is made, the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority shall, while fixing the fees for college (for future batches) reckon the deficit in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed which will restitute the colleges monetarily", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
'You Can't Bulldoze Houses Overnight': Supreme Court Directs UP Govt To Pay Rs 25 Lakhs Interim Compensation For Illegal Demolition
Case Details: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash WP(C) No. 1294/2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the illegal demolition of residential houses for a road widening project.
The Court was hearing a suo motu writ petition registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in District Maharajganj was demolished in 2019.
During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed serious dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, terming their acts "high-handed."
The Supreme Court while expressing discontent over the 'high-handed' approach of the Uttar Pradesh Government in illegally demolishing houses, laid down measures to be followed by state authorities for clearing areas in road widening projects.
Unconditional Withdrawal Of Arbitrator Appointment Application Bars Second Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, Civil Appeal No. 12233 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879
The Supreme Court observed that when a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator unconditionally withdraws its application, then the subsequent application for an appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action would be barred.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) would be made applicable to applications seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) to restrain the party from filing second arbitrator appointment application when it had abandoned (unconditionally withdrawn the application without leave to file fresh application) the arbitration in its first application.
Computation Of Royalty Within Executive's Domain, Courts' Interference Barred Unless Decision-Making Process Is Illegal: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited & Anr v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 880
Noting that the computation of royalty on minerals is purely a policy decision within the executive's domain, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea challenging the government's change in the royalty calculation method. The Court stated that unless the policymaking authority has overstepped its limits, such decisions cannot be challenged, as they require specialized expertise that judges do not possess.
“it is clear that the whether a particular policy is wise or that a better public policy can be evolved is purely the domain of the executive of the state. Matters such as computation of royalty or the levy of such royalty on different minerals is entirely a matter of policy making which is beyond the expertise and domain of the courts. It is no longer res-integra, that a question as regards the validity of a particular policy is concerned with reviewing not the merits of such decision or policy, but the very policy making process itself.”, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held.
Partnership Act | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Share In Profits Derived From His Share In Assets Of Firm: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Crystal Transport Private Limited & Anr. v. A Fathima Fareedunisa & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.7709–7710 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 881
The Supreme Court held that if a partner is carrying on business with the assets of the firm, till a final settlement is made, the outgoing partner, would have the right to seek accounts and a share in the profits which might be derived from his share in the assets of the firm.
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that when an entity takes over the assets of a partnership without an outgoing partner's consent, the profits earned by the entity using the partnership firm's assets would be proportionally distributed to the outgoing partner.
Offence Within Restaurant Not 'House Trespass' As Per Sections 442, 452 IPC: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 3111 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882
Observing that a restaurant cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or worship or the custody of the property, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a person accused of the offence of "house trespassing after preparation for hurt" under Section 452 of IPC.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that Restaurant does not meet the criteria of a "house" under Section 442 IPC because it is neither a dwelling, a place of worship, nor a place for the custody of property. Thus, the necessary element for an offence under Section 452 was not fulfilled.
Not Every Plaintiff Must Prove Sale Agreement's Execution If Another Plaintiff Having Firsthand Knowledge Proves Execution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 883
The Supreme Court observed that not every plaintiff must prove the execution of a sale agreement if another plaintiff with knowledge of the transaction proves the execution.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that a plaintiff's absence should not be viewed adversely, as testimony from another plaintiff present can substantively support the claims of absent plaintiffs.
“The plaintiffs' interests were represented by their Power of Attorney holders, namely Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari. Shri K.D. Maheshwari is himself one of the purchasers and a plaintiff in his own suit. He appeared as PW-1 in all the suits, either as the plaintiff or as the Power of Attorney holder for the other plaintiffs. He had personal, firsthand knowledge of the execution of the Agreement to Sell, being directly involved in the transaction and present at the time of its execution. His detailed testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims. Similarly, Shri Pankaj Maheshwari acted as the Power of Attorney holder for the plaintiff Bharat Kumar Lathi and also appeared as a witness. He had personal knowledge of the transaction and corroborated the execution of the Agreement to Sell and the payment of the consideration. Both Shri K.D. Maheshwari and Shri Pankaj Maheshwari were intimately connected with the transaction and were competent to testify about the facts in issue. Moreover, one of the plaintiffs did enter the witness box in his own suit, further reinforcing the plaintiffs' case. Unlike in Vidyadhar Vishnupant (supra), where the defendant deliberately avoided the witness box, here the plaintiffs ensured that competent and directly involved witnesses testified on their behalf.”, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed.
The Supreme Court observed that when multiple plaintiffs are involved in an agreement to sell, a power of attorney holder (who is also a vendee and a plaintiff) may testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring his personal knowledge.
The bench reasoned that since the power of attorney, who is also a plaintiff, witnessed the execution of the agreement to sell and had first-hand knowledge of the execution, therefore he can very well testify about matters requiring personal knowledge of the principal, such as the principal's state of mind or readiness and willingness to perform obligations under a contract.
'Bulldozer Reminds Of Lawlessness': Supreme Court Says Properties Can't Be Demolished Merely Because Of Criminal Accusations/Convictions
Case Details: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884
Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.
Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.
The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held accountable.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the judgment in a batch of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners seeking directions to stop the trend of "bulldozer justice".
'Lackadaisical Approach In Implementing Arms Act': Supreme Court Forms Committee In Each State & UT To Curb Illegal Gun Menace
Case Details: Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Miscellaneous Application No. 393/2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 12831/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 885
The Supreme Court constituted a Committee in each State as well as Union Territories after it found that the proliferation of factories, and workshops producing unlicensed arms, which are outside the regulatory framework, resulted in crimes against the Society as well as against the State. It also found that there is a "lackadaisical approach" in the implementation of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.
In light of this, the Court observed that there is a need for strict monitoring of the manufacture, possession, sale, transportation etc., of the unlicensed arms by the State.
Earlier, the Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the aspect regarding the menace of unlicensed firearms and directed the State respondent to file an affidavit regarding the "number of cases it has registered under the Arms Act or under any other law enabling it to do so for the possession and use or any other aspect relating to unlicensed fire arms".
Compassionate Appointment Is Not A Vested Right: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tinku v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 886
The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be granted without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.
The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is always subject to proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih was deciding the appeal filed by a man whose claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father, a police constable, was denied. The petitioner's father died when he was 7 years old in 1997 and applied for compassionate appointment in 2008 after attaining majority. However, the Haryana Government rejected the claim citing the 1999 policy which introduced a three-year limit after an employee's death.
Ensure Victim's Presence Before Quashing Serious Offences, Especially Against Women, Based On Settlement: Supreme Court To High Courts
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 887
The Supreme Court advised High Courts to exercise caution before quashing non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the victim and the accused. Without ensuring that the settlement is genuine, quashing petitions should not be allowed.
Even if there is an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement, it is advisable to seek the victim's presence, either physically or virtually, before quashing serious offences, especially those against women, the Court advised.
S.67 NDPS Act Statements Inadmissible': Supreme Court Cancels Conviction of Medical Shop Owner
Case Details: Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 888
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after the prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant/accused conspired in the transportation of a psychotropic substance.
The case related to the seizure of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, which was being transported as a railway parcel. The Narcotics Control Bureau apprehended accused no.1, who booked the consignment. The appellant before the Supreme Court was the accused no.2, a person running a medical store, who allegedly sold the contraband.
No Absolute Bar For Proclaimed Offender To Seek Benefit Of Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court
Case Details: Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889
The Supreme Court noted that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an absolute bar on the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.
“Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.”, the bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said.
However, the Court said that the relevant factors such as circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued have to be looked upon while considering the anticipatory bail plea of the proclaimed offender.
S. 138 NI Act | 'Capacity To Give Loan Not Shown, Contradictions In Statements': Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Cheque Dishonour Case
Case Details: Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 890
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in a cheque dishonour case by taking note of certain contradictions in the statements of the complainant, as well as his inability to show the financial capacity to advance the loan as well as the lack of acknowledgement of the loan in the Income Tax returns.
Although the signature of the accused in the cheque was established, the Court stated that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is not attracted in the instant case.
Raising doubts about the complainant's case, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said:
“Admittedly, the Appellant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the Respondent and in regard to the decision of this Court in Bir Singh (supra), a presumption is to ideally arise. However, in the above referred context of the factual matrix, the inability of the Appellant to put forth the details of the loan advanced, and his contradictory statements, the ratio therein would not impact the present case to the effect of giving rise to the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act 1881. The Respondent (accused) has been able to shift the weight of the scales of justice in his favour through the preponderance of probabilities.”
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
Case Details: GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
The Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High Court exceeded this limited scope by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix. The High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor's report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application. In our view, such an approach does not give effect to the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment to the Act, 1996 which limited the judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 solely to the prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
Supreme Court: Overtaking a Vehicle Alone Doesn't Constitute Rash or Negligent Driving
Case Details: Prem Lal Anand and Ors. v. Narendra Kumar and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 892
The Supreme Court observed that a mere attempt of overtaking on the road cannot by itself mean rash and negligent driving.
The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal arising out of an accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the appellants just for over taking on the road when in fact the respondent's vehicle was coming from the wrong side.
"Merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record."
Power Of Attorney Impliedly Revoked When Principal Acts Independent Of Agency With Knowledge To Agent & Third Parties: Supreme Court
Case Details: Thankamma George v. Lilly Thomas and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 893
The Supreme Court observed that there would be an implied revocation of Power of Attorney (“POA”) granted to the agent if the act of Principal choosing to act for himself is known to an agent and third person.
"In a case where the principal chooses to act for himself, particularly to the agent's knowledge and a person to be affected, then it can be held that Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act is attracted," the Court observed. Section 207 provides for the revocation of agency.
The Court said that the conduct of the Principal and knowledge of the Principal's conduct to the Agent are the determinative factors while deciding the issue of whether the Principal has revoked the POA granted to the Agent.
Reversing the findings of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and SVN Bhatti stated that in an event when the Principal and Agent holds a joint property, wherein POA was granted to the Agent to execute sale deed of Principal's share in a property, then the conduct of the Principal in deciding an execution of sale deed of his share in property without adverting to the agent's opinion amounts to implied revocation of Power of Attorney executed in favor of the agent.
Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects Must Be Considered In Cases Of Self-Employed & Fixed Salaried Individuals: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kavita Nagar & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 894
The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's decision not to take into account the future prospects while determining motor accident compensation. The High Court had excluded fixed-salary and self-employed earners from such consideration, ignoring the impact of inflation and the natural progression of careers.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, stressed the importance of considering future income potential to ensure equitable compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court ruled that both fixed-salary and self-employed individuals possess income growth potential due to inflation and career advancement, and thus, they cannot be deprived of future prospects in their compensation.
'Consideration' Need Not Be Monetary: Supreme Court Upholds Settlement Deed Requiring Transferee To Care For Transferors & Do Charity
Case Details: Ramachandra Reddy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Ramulu Ammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 895
The Supreme Court upheld a property transfer based on a settlement deed requiring the transferee to care for the transferors and perform charitable work.
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol rejected the argument that the consideration can only be in money. Instead, it justified the consideration of taking care of the transferor and doing charity work as a valid consideration for the transfer of the immovable property.
“What flows from the above-cited judgments as also provisions of law, is that 'consideration' need not always be in monetary terms. It can be in other forms as well. In the present case, it is seen that the transfer of property in favour of Govindammal was in recognition of the fact that she had been taking care of the transferors and would continue to do so while also using the same to carry out charitable work.”, the court observed upon referring to precedents.
Recording Evidence Mandatory In Disciplinary Proceedings Proposing To Impose Major Penalties: Supreme Court
Case Details: Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 896
The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of a government employee whose termination was based on an inquiry report imposing a major penalty without adequately proving the charges. The court emphasized that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory.
"This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory," the Court reiterated.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when disciplinary proceedings involve allegations warranting a major penalty, it is the Inquiry Officer's duty to record substantive evidence to support the charges brought against the government employee. Without such evidence, the proceedings fail to meet the procedural standards required for imposing significant penalties.
Supreme Court Refuses To Reconsider Judgment Which Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act, Says Reference Was Unnecessary
Case Details: Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Sigh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi Ps National Institute of Communicable Diseases., Diary No.- 27751 – 2007
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 897
The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, which held that medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).
The Court disposed of a reference made against the decision, saying that it was unnecessary.
On May 14, a two-judge bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while holding that legal professionals are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, observed that the 1995 judgment in VP Shantha(which held that doctors are covered under the Consumer Protection Act) required reconsideration.
A 3-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.v. Vishwanathan held that the reference was not necessary. It also questioned what was the necessity of making a reference in respect of another profession since the Court already held that the legal profession is sui generis.
Labour Court's Factual Finding Shouldn't Be Normally Disturbed By Writ Court Without Compelling Reason: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 898
Observing that the factual findings of a Labour Court should not be normally disturbed by a Writ Court without a compelling reason, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of an employee who had been terminated due to conflicts arising from his estranged marital relationship.
The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the appeal of the employee.
When Absent Employee Doesn't Inform Whereabouts, Employer Can Treat It As Abandonment Of Service & Take Action: Supreme Court
Case Details: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash, Civil Appeal No. 4393/2010
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899
The Supreme Court justified the termination of the service of an LIC employee who failed to communicate the whereabouts of his absence from duty under the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960.
The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the LIC's appeal against the High Court's decision directing reinstatement of the respondent employee who remained absent from the duties and didn't reply to the notices sent by the LIC on several occasions.
Also, the Court upheld the employer's right to terminate the employee for abandonment of service, provided the employer makes reasonable attempts to communicate with the employee about his absence from duty.
State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Over Property Of Private Citizens: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900
The Supreme Court reiterated that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens.
"Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.
The observation was made in a judgment dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Haryana raising a claim of adverse possession against a property of private individuals.
Though revenue entries do not confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession, observed the Supreme Court.
No Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Initiated After Employee Retires Or After Extended Period Of Service: Supreme Court
Case Details: State Bank Of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 901
The Supreme Court invalidated the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a bank employee after the completion of his extended period of service. The disciplinary proceeding initiated after the superannuation or after the extended period of service cannot be sustained, the Court observed.
“As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.”, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.
During Divorce Proceedings, Wife Entitled To Enjoy Same Life Amenities She Was Enjoying In Matrimonial Home: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, C.A. No. 012546/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902
While awarding Rs.1.75 Lakhs as monthly interim maintenance to a wife during the divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage.
“The appellant (wife) was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.”, the Court observed.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also noted that the wife was not working as she had sacrified her employment after marriage. It restored the Family Court's order to the Husband to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) monthly maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.
Prima Facie Case Alone Insufficient to Appoint Court Receiver; Compelling Reasons Required: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hitesh Bhuralal Jain v. Rajpal Amarnath Yadav & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 903
The Supreme Court observed that expressions like "prima facie case" or "conduct" alone are insufficient to justify the appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court emphasized that a compelling reason must be provided, demonstrating how the property would deteriorate without the Receiver's intervention.
The appellant contested the High Court's decision to appoint a court receiver for the disputed property, a decision previously rejected by the City Civil Court, Borivali. The key issue was whether the mere recording of a prima facie case in favor of the respondent justified the appointment of a receiver.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the High Court's decision and invalidated the appointment of the Court Receiver, highlighting that the mere acknowledgment of a prima facie case was insufficient to warrant such an appointment.
Mere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Details: Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904
Observing that the non-materialization of a consensual relationship into marriage cannot be given a criminal color, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against the man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
“a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”, the bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said.
Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings Against Kerala MLA Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case, Directs To Conclude Trial In 1 Yr
Case Details: MR Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 4887/2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905
The Supreme Court restored the criminal proceedings initiated against Kerala MLA and former Minister Antony Raju over alleged tampering of underwear evidence in a drugs case conducted by him as a junior lawyer in 1990.
A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held that the Kerala High Court erred in holding that the criminal proceedings were barred due to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the chargesheet against Raju. Considering the fact that the offence relates to an incident tracing back two decades ago, the Court ordered that the trial be concluded within one year. Raju has been asked to appear before the trial court on December 20.
The Court also held that the Kerala High Court was not in error in ordering that de novo investigation be initiated against Raju. It rejected the argument that appellant MR Ajayan(a third party) had no locus to file the appeal in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the bar on taking of cognizance under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC was not attracted in the case, as the proceedings were initiated against Raju pursuant to a judicial order.
The judgment, authored by Justice Karol, quoted from CBI v. Sivamani (2017) as follows: "Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service".
Hindu Succession Act | Life Interest Given To Woman Will Not Transform Into Absolute Ownership As Per Section 14: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906
The Supreme Court held that when a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, then she cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will.
The property possessed by a Hindu woman will transform into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) only if it was based on any pre-existing right or in lieu of maintenance, the Court explained. However, when the deed itself gives a limited life interest in the property, it will not transform into absolute ownership. This aspect is clear from Section 14(2) of the Act, the Court noted.
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol dismissed an appeal by the defendants in an original suit, who claimed ownership of 3.55 acres of land, asserting that their mother, Smt. Veerabhadramma had bequeathed the property to them. The Court concluded that Smt. Veerabhadramma's restricted right in the property barred her from becoming its absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), rendering her ineligible to transfer the property through a Will.
'Sensitise Airport Staff': Supreme Court Endorses Centre's Guidelines On Airport Assistance For Persons With Disabilities
Case Details: Arushi Singh v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 907
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with benchmark disability, who had approached the Court about the humiliation she had to face at the Kolkata airport where she was allegedly asked to stand up by security personnel. The Court held that the guidelines suggested by the Union Government for the treatment of specially-abled persons with dignity at the airport shall be treated as mandatory onwards and shall also extend to elderly and injured passengers in need of wheelchair assistance.
Jail Superintendents Should Make Special Efforts To Identify Women Prisoners Eligible For Release U/s. 479 Of BNSS: Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908
The Supreme Court directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“Although the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS are gender neutral, it is also necessary for this Court to say that special efforts should be made to identify women prisoners who are entitled to release under the beneficial provision. The concerned Jail Superintendents where the women prisoners are lodged should therefore pay personal attention to the female prisoners, who might have become eligible for the release benefits, under Section 479 of the BNSS”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also directed the authorities to verify and update jail records as there may be cases where a person is accused of heinous crimes but later charges have been framed for a lesser offence, making him eligible for release.
Mobile Towers & Pre-Fabricated Buildings Moveable Properties, Qualify As 'Capital Goods' For CENVAT Credit: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune | Civil Appeal Nos. 10409-10410 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 909
The Supreme Court in a decision held that mobile service providers (MSPs) could avail the benefit of Central Value Added Tax/CENVAT Credit over excise duties paid on items such as mobile towers and prefabricated buildings.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that since mobile towers and PFBs could be detached and relocated, they qualified as movable properties and accessories in enhancing the functionality of the mobile service antenna attached on top of the tower. Thus, the items qualified as 'capital goods' or 'inputs' which were indispensable to provide effective mobile services (output) and MSPs can get a credit set-off on these items.
The main issue considered by the Court was whether the Mobile Service Providers (MSP) could claim CENVAT Credits for the duties they paid on resources like tower part, shelter, prefabricated buildings (PFBs)
In considering so, the bench examined whether tower part, shelters etc come within the ambit of 'capital goods' or 'inputs' under the Central Value Added Tax/CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and whether 'capital goods' would encompass towers.
Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers: Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge
Case Details: Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 910
While expunging from a judgment of the Delhi High Court certain adverse remarks made against a Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for restraint on the part of superior courts while commenting on judicial officers.
While the superior courts, in the exercise of their appellate/revisional powers, can set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, they should avoid personal comments against the judicial officers. Though strong language can be used to criticise erroneous orders, such criticism should be in the context of the impugned order and not on the personal conduct of the judge, the Supreme Court cautioned.
Appellate Court Can Examine Existence Of Jurisdictional Fact Despite Trial Court's Omission To Frame Issue On Maintainability Of Suit: Supreme Court
Case Details: R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. v. TRK Sarawathy & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 911
The Supreme Court has clarified that a higher court is not barred from examining the existence of jurisdictional fact merely because the trial court did not frame an issue regarding maintainability, provided no new facts/evidence are required at the appellate stage.
To this end, the Court clarified the judgments in A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 and I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani (2013) 15 SCC 27.
Referring to the judgment in Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros (1992) 1 SCC 534, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:
“Should the trial court not satisfy itself that the jurisdictional fact for grant of relief does exist, nothing prevents the court higher in the hierarchy from so satisfying itself. It is true that the point of maintainability of a suit has to looked only through the prism of section 9, CPC, and the court can rule on such point either upon framing of an issue or even prior thereto if Order VII Rule 11 (d) thereof is applicable. In a fit and proper case, notwithstanding omission of the trial court to frame an issue touching jurisdictional fact, the higher court would be justified in pronouncing its verdict upon application of the test laid down in Shrisht Dhawan (supra)."
Litigant Has To Be Vigilant, Can't Throw Entire Blame On Advocate For Delay & Negligence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. v. Ved Prakash
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 912
The Supreme Court observed that litigants, who did not exercise due care and vigilance, cannot throw the entire blame on their advocates. The Court also flagged the rising tendency on the part of litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending court proceedings.
The Court made this pertinent observation while refusing to condone the delay of 534 days in filing an appeal. The petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed against the refusal of the High Court to condone the delay. The party blamed the delay on the part of the advocate.
Disapproving this approach, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed:
"It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief."
Marumakkathayam Law | Property Obtained By Hindu Woman Post-Partition Without Legal Heir Would Be Her Separate Property & Not Joint Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 913
The Supreme Court, in an appeal concerning property devolution under Kerala's traditional Marumakkathayam law, ruled that property acquired by a woman and her children post-partition does not become their separate property but remains part of the tharwad (joint property).
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol held so while deciding a question of “whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong to her tharwad.”
Moreover, the Court in this regard also discussed a question of whether the property obtained by a female post-partition, without a legal heir, would still be considered as tharwad property or her separate property.
Confession Of Accused Can't Be Proved Under S.27 Evidence Act, Only Statements Relating To Discovery Of Facts Admissible: Supreme Court
Case Details: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the specific portion of the statement of the accused which is directly linked to the discovery/recovery of evidence is admissible, and that the confession of the accused cannot be incorporated while proving a statement under Section 27. The Court held that inadmissible parts of such statements cannot be incorporated in the prosecution witness's chief examination.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih expressed concern about trial courts getting influenced if such inadmissible confessions are incorporated.
S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., SLP (C) No. 2272 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution).
"The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta.
Motor Accident Compensation - Supreme Court Awards Rs 15 Lakhs As Compensation For 'Pain & Suffering' To Claimant With 100% Disability
Case Details: K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr, SLP (C) No. 18337/2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 916
Dealing with the case of a motor accident injured, the Supreme Court analyzed the jurisprudence on "pain and suffering" (one of the heads under which compensation is awarded to motor accident victims) and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded - beyond what was prayed for.
A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, allowing the appeal of the injured-appellant, awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though the appellant had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs.
"Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."
Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Inclusion of 'Socialist' And 'Secular' In Constitution's Preamble
Case Details: Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020 and Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India, MA 835/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that there was no "legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years."
The Court noted that the amendment power of the Parliament extends to the Preamble as well. The date of adoption of the Preamble does not restrict the power of the Parliament to amend the Preamble. On this ground, the argument of retrospectivity was rejected. The judgment also explained what 'socialism' and 'secularism' meant in the Indian context.
'Preferential Allotment To A Few Elites Promotes Inequality': Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment For MPs, MLAs, Judges Etc In Hyderabad
Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 918
The Supreme Court quashed the preferential allotment of lands to the housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, Judges, defence personnel, journalists etc. within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.
The Court held such a policy to be suffering from the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, and promoting inequality leading to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda (GoM) of 2005 classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIl India Service/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. The Court also quashed the subsequent GoMs issued in 2008 allotting the lands within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to these classes as bad in law, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
S.19(b) Specific Relief Act | To Claim 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Protection, Subsequent Purchaser Must Make Due Inquiries: Supreme Court
Case Details: Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 919
The Supreme Court observed that a 'subsequent purchaser' of immovable property cannot claim the benefit of a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Act”) if they fail to exercise due diligence regarding the status of the current possessor of the property they intend to purchase
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that a subsequent purchaser who fails to conduct proper inquiries about the title and interest in the immovable property they intend to purchase cannot be deemed a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Act.
Sale Certificate Issued After Court Auction Not Compulsorily Registrable; Auction Purchaser Need Not Deposit Stamp Duty To Get It: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 920
The Supreme Court observed that the successful auction purchaser doesn't need to deposit stamp duty for the issuance of a sale certificate pursuant to the auction done in a court proceedings. The Court clarified that the stamp duty would be payable only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose, but not when the certificate remains as it is.
“The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.”, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said.
'Worrying Trend': Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Using Criminal Law Against Men After Breakup Of Consensual Relationship
Case Details: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the "worrying trend" of invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage after a long consensual relationship turned sour.
While quashing an FIR in a rape case against a man, a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed :
“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”
The Court added, “if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long-term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful”.
'Yamuna Expressway A Vital Heartline': Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition For Yamuna Expressway Invoking Urgency Clause
Case Details: Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (and connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 922
The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) project in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Court justified the State's act to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to bypass the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a batch of civil appeals filed by two sets of appellants. One set of appellants (landowners) assailed the correctness of Allahabad's High Court decision in the Kamal Sharma v. State of UP (2010) which upheld the acquisition under urgency provisions, citing the project's importance. Whereas, another set of appellants (YEIDA) challenged another Division Bench judgment of the same High Court passed in Shyoraj Singh v. State of UP (2010) where the High Court set aside the acquisition, holding that the urgency clause was improperly invoked.
Religious Conversion Only To Avail Reservation Benefits Without Actual Belief Impermissible, Fraud On Constitution: Supreme Court
Case Details: C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923
The Supreme Court upheld a Madras High Court decision denying a Scheduled Caste ("SC") certificate to a woman born as a Christian who claimed to be Hindu while applying for an Upper Division Clerk job in Puducherry. The Court ruled that religious conversion undertaken solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermines the fundamental social objectives of the reservation policy.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that religious conversion for the sole purpose of availing benefits is seen as a fraud on the Constitution and contrary to the ethos of reservation policies.
The Supreme Court noted that an individual born as a Christian cannot invoke the doctrine of eclipse of caste, as the caste system is not recognized in Christianity.
The bench clarified that the doctrine of caste eclipse applies only when a person practising caste-based religion converts to caste-less religion. In such cases, their original caste is considered to remain eclipsed. However, if the such persons reconverts to their original religion during their lifetime, the eclipse is lifted, and the caste status is automatically restored. This however will not apply to a born Christian.
S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases: Supreme Court Cautions Courts
Case Details: Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 924
The Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of wife alleging domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal made this observation while quashing the criminal proceedings against the cousin brother of the accused husband and the wife of the said cousin who were named as accused in the FIR lodged by the wife's father.
Hasn't Laid Down That Sentence Can Be Suspended Only If Half Term Is Undergone: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nanhe Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 925
The Supreme Court clarified that it has not laid down any proposition that post-conviction bail can be granted only if the convict has undergone half of the sentence.
While considering a petition challenging the refusal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to suspend sentence, the Court observed that the High Court has misunderstood its decision in Atul @ Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024). In that judgment, the Court had held that sentence should be normally suspended when the convict's appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future. Considering the fact that the appellant in that case had underwent half the sentence period, the Court granted him bail.
In the present case, the Court observed that the judgment in Atul@Ashutosh cannot be construed as holding that the convict should undergo half the sentence period to seek bail.
"We may also note here that the High Court has not correctly read the order of this Court in the case of Atul alias Ashutosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. In the facts of the case, the accused had undergone half of the sentence. However, this Court has not laid down that the case for bail can be considered only after undergoing half of the sentence," the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed.
Not Necessary That Bribe Amount Should Be Substantial To Draw Presumption Under S.20 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha Criminal Appeal No.2646 Of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 926
While convicting a government servant for taking a bribe of Rs.2000, the Supreme Court observed that it was not necessary for the amount involved to be substantial to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As per Section 20(3), the Court has the discretion to refrain from drawing adverse presumption against the public servant if the amount involved is trivial. The Supreme Court observed that the value of gratification has to be considered in proportion to the service proposed to be done.
The Court also held that the presumption becomes irrelevant when the agreement to receive gratification is factually proved.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R Mahadevan was deciding an appeal against the High Court's order acquitting the respondent (accused) in a case for allegedly demanding Rs.2000 to clear a surrender leave salary cheque of a school teacher (complainant). The respondent was charged with offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Retired Employee Not Entitled To Retrospective Promotion Or Benefits Of Promotional Post After Retirement: Supreme Court
Case Details: Government Of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 927
The Supreme Court held that an employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits attached to the promotion.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that “promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.”
S.164 CrPC Statement Recorded By Judicial Magistrate Can't Be Retracted By Witness On Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 122 Of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928
The Supreme Court observed that the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be easily retracted as greater amount of credibility is associated with such statements because they are recorded by a judicial magistrate.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused who challenged their conviction based on the retracted version of the two prosecution witnesses who initially in their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements supported the prosecution's case. After the recording of the statements before the judicial magistrate, the prosecution witnesses claimed that the statements they gave were under threat and coercion from the Investigating Officer.
Distressing To Witness Discrimination Against Women In Governance When Country Aspires To Be Economic Powerhouse: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 929
While granting relief to a woman Sarpanch in Chattisgarh against her removal from office, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the growing trend of bureaucratic harassment against female elected representatives.
The Court observed that such recurring instances of bureaucratic officers exacting vendetta against female sarpanches by causing their removal from offices highlight a "systemic issue of prejudice and discrimination."
The Court said that it was distressing to witness such instances of discrimination against women in governance when the country was aspiring to become an economic powerhouse.
“It is disheartening that despite our nation's aspirations to become an economic powerhouse, these incidents of discrimination against women in governance continue unabated, bearing striking similarities across geographically distant regions. Such practices normalise regressive attitudes and must be met with serious introspection and reform,” observed the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
While Deciding Application Under S.319 CrPC, Court Must Consider Cross-examination As Well: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 930
The Supreme Court observed that the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be only based on the examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses. The Court said that due credence must be also given to the prosecution witness cross-examination, if exists, before the filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih heard an appeal filed by the accused who was aggrieved by the High Court's decision to uphold the complainant's summoning application which was based on the prosecution's witness chief examination without considering their cross-examination.
Highest Bidder In Tender Process Has No Vested Right To Contract: Supreme Court
Case Details: Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. v. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 931
The Supreme Court observed that the highest bidder in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) cannot have a vested right to have the auction concluded in his favor. The Court added that for the contract to be executed, a letter of allotment must be issued in favor of the successful bidder.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a civil appeal filed by Indore Development Authority (“Appellant”) challenging the High Court's Division Bench order directing the Appellant to award a contract in favor of the respondent no.1 because it made the highest bid in NIT auction process.
S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Based On Statement By Accused Before Recording Of S.27 Disclosure Not Admissible: Supreme Court
Case Details: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 932
The Supreme Court held that an alleged recovery of incriminating materials based on a statement given by the accused en route the police station before the recording of the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the police station is not admissible.
The Court set aside the conviction of an accused in a murder case after noting that the discovery of the incriminating circumstances against the accused was not based on the disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (“Act”), but based on the statement recorded by the police when he was en route to the police station.
The Court cautioned against making a simple case of chance recovery as a disclosure under Section 27, as the provision would be prone to misuse providing “a chance to the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” [Refer to Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka (2007)]
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard the criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction on the ground that the discovery of the incriminating evidence against him was done before the recording of his disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Act.
S. 306 IPC | Simple Refusal To Marry Not Abetment To Suicide: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 933
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man who was charged with the offence of abetment to suicide (Section 306 IPC) because his lover committed suicide upon his refusal to marry her.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that simple refusal to marry someone would not amount to instigation to commit suicide. Instead, it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
Experience Marks Can't Be Denied To Outsourced Employee Performing Regular Duties Though Not In Sanctioned Post: Supreme Court
Case Details: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 934
The Supreme Court held that experience marks cannot be denied solely because a candidate worked as an outsourced manpower. If the candidate performed duties aligned with the sanctioned post, they are eligible for marks, even if the candidate was not appointed on the sanctioned post, the court said.
“The first respondent, thus, cannot be denied the benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post.”, the Court held.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan heard the appeal preferred by the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (“Appellant”) against the High Court's direction to consider the experience marks of the respondent (appointed on the outsourcing basis) for the appointment to the direct recruitment to various Group-C (non-teaching) posts, as she performed same duties as required for the sanctioned post.
Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 935
The Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make.
The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to "prevent the growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State."
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the PIL considering that the Court in the case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. was already seized of the issue of hate speech.
'Bail Is The Rule, Jail The Exception': Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Denying Bail In Routine Manner By Fixing Deadline For Trials
Case Details: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936
The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting currency who had been incarcerated for two years and six months invoking the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
“Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of two and a half years. The counter filed by the state shows that there are no antecedents reported. Therefore, in the facts of the case appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well settled rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that High Courts should not impose time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials when rejecting bail applications.
For Discharge Application, Only Documents Forming Part Of Chargesheet Can Be Considered: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 937
The Supreme Court observed that while considering the application for discharge, only that document is to be considered which forms part of the charge sheet, and not the ones which were never part of the charge sheet.
“In the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not part of the charge-sheet..”, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih said.
No Nexus Between Company's Revenue & Amount Of Penalty For Environmental Damages: Supreme Court Disapproves NGT's Approach
Case Details: Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 938
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of an order passed by the National Green Tribunal(NGT) which imposed penalty for environmental damages on a company based on its revenue.
The Court observed that there was no nexus between the revenue generation of the company and the ascertainment of penalty for violation of environmental laws.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a company against the NGT order which imposed a penalty of Rs.25 crores on it. The NGT passed this order on the reasoning that the revenue of the company ranged from 100 Crores to 500 Crores.
While setting aside this order, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan flagged three main shortcomings in the NGT's approach. Firstly, there is a vast difference between Rs. 100 crores and Rs. 500 crores. Secondly, the NGT said that it took this information from the public domain and even then, there was no exact figure found out. Thirdly, the Court said that the revenue of the company was not a relevant consideration to fix penalty. Furthermore, the penalty was imposed without notice to the company.
Interlocutory Order Passed By Trial Court Can't Be Vacated By Appellate Court Unless Shown To Be Perverse, Arbitrary: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 939
The Supreme Court cautioned the Appellate Courts against casually interfering with well-reasoned interlocutory orders passed by the trial courts, stating that the Appellate Court's discretion in vacating the interlocutory order should only be exercised if it is shown that the interlocutory order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to established legal principles.
“The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander (supra) case.”, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed.
S. 197 CrPC Applies To PMLA: Supreme Court Holds Prior Sanction Mandatory To Prosecute Public Servants For Money Laundering Offence
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement Etc. v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya Etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940
The Supreme Court held that section 197(1) of CrPC, which provides that prior sanction from the government is required to prosecute public servants and judges for offences alleged while discharge of public duties, will apply to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by the Directorate of Enforcement challenging Telangana High Court's order that set aside cognizance orders against two IAS officers on the ground of lack of prior sanction.
Orders
Supreme Court Directs All States, UTs To Promptly Convey Rejection Of Remission Plea To Convicts
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
The Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to inform convicts of any rejection of applications for permanent remission within one week and forward copies of these rejection orders to the respective District Legal Services Authorities to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to provide legal aid to affected convicts.
Supreme Court Relaxes Bail Condition That Journalist Siddique Kappan Should Report At UP Police Station Every Week
Case Details: Sidhique Kappan v. State of Uttar Pradesh MA 1929/2024 in MA 1929/2024 in Crl.A. No. 1534/2022
The Supreme Court relaxed the bail condition that Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan should record his presence at the police station in Uttar Pradesh every Monday in connection with the alleged Hathras conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta allowed an application filed by Kappan seeking relaxation of the bail condition.
'Why Only Hindi? We Hear Appeals From All States': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Hearings In Hindi
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India and Anr. WP (C) No. 701/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking hearings in the Apex Court to be in Hindi while challenging the validity of Article 348(1) of the Constitution.
Notably, Article 348(1) provides that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and all High Courts be done in English Language. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
'Air Pollution At All-Time High During Diwali, Explain Steps Taken To Enforce Firecracker Ban': Supreme Court To Delhi Govt & Police
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government and the Police Commissioner of Delhi to file affidavits stating steps taken to implement the ban on firecrackers in Delhi as well as proposed steps to ensure compliance with the ban next year.
“There cannot be any dispute that the ban was hardly implemented. Moreover, the effect of non-implementation of the ban is very apparent from the report of CSE which shows that the pollution level in Delhi in this Diwali of 2024 was at an all time high. It was much higher than Diwali of 2022 and 2023. Moreover, the report indicates that even farm fires were on rise during Diwali days”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in the Delhi NCR region from sources such as firecrackers, stubble burning, waste burning, vehicular emissions, industrial pollution etc.
“We direct the Delhi government to file a detailed affidavit placing on record the orders banning the use of firecrackers and the steps taken by the Delhi government to implement the same. We issue notice to the Commissioner of Police Delhi calling upon him to file an affidavit indicating the steps taken by the police to enforce the complete ban on the use of firecrackers in Delhi. While filing affidavits, Delhi Government and police must also state what effective steps they propose to take next year to ensure that the ban on the use of firecrackers is fully implemented. This will also include the measures to be taken for public awareness”, the Court directed.
“Even Basic Amenities Are Lacking”: Supreme Court Directs Assam Government To Provide All Facilities In Transit Camp Within One Month
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.
The Supreme Court criticized the Assam government over the poor conditions at the Matia Transit Camp, which houses foreign nationals in Goalpara, Assam, and directed it to provide all facilities within one month.
“To say the least, the condition of the transit camp is far from being satisfactory. Even basic amenities are lacking, as can be seen from the detailed report submitted by the team constituted by the State Level Services Authority. We direct the secretary in charge of the concerned department of the state to immediately make a visit to detention camp, hold a meeting with all concerned authorities and ensure that all facilities are in place in detention camp within maximum period of one month from today. Even the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority shall be invited to the meeting”, the Court stated in its order.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the transit camp lacked basic amenities, as revealed by a detailed report submitted by the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).
'We Need Green Spaces For Our Children': Supreme Court Rejects CIDCO Plea To Shift Sports Complex From Navi Mumbai
Case Details: City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Indian Institute of Architects and Ors.| SLP(C) No. 21953/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra) against the Bombay High Court's order quashing the shifting of 20 acres of Sports Complex from Navi Mumbai to Raigad for commercial constructions.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court which quashed the decision of the State Government to shift the 20 acres sports complex from Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai to Nanore Village in Raigad, Maharashtra.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Former SP MLA Kishore Samrite Who Was Sentenced To 5 Yrs Imprisonment For Attacking SDM, Burning His Vehicle
Case Details: Kishore Samrite v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Slp(Crl) No. 9251/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Samajwadi Party MLA Kishore Samrite, who was convicted and sentenced to 5 yrs' imprisonment for attacking a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and setting fire to his vehicle.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Samrite's appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which partly modified the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court.
Pune Porsche Car Accident: Supreme Court Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Minor Passenger
Case Details: Arunkumar Devnath Singh v. State of Maharashtra SLP(Crl) No. 15128/2024
The Supreme Court denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, father of a minor co-accused sitting next to the main accused - a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), who allegedly was driving the car on May 19, 2024, in a high speed and killed two youth after mowing them down in Pune's Kalyani Nagar Porsche accident.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld the October 23 order of the Bombay High Court which dismissed Singh's anticipatory bail application.
Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Challenge To Quashing Of LOC Against Late Actor Sushant Singh Rajput's House Help-Samuel Miranda
Case Details: Union of India v. Samuel Miranda, Diary No. 46240/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed Union of India's challenge to a Bombay High Court order whereby Look-Out-Circular opened in respect of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput's house help-Samuel Miranda was quashed.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, considering that none appeared for the Union despite the matter being called out twice, as well as on merits.
'Bar Associations Must Address Issue Of Mental Health', Says Supreme Court While Refusing To Entertain Plea For Lawyers' Wellness
Case Details: Chhavi Singh v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 50482-2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking to constitute a platform to address the mental health grievances of lawyers in the profession. The Court noted that while the present matter was not amenable to judicial parameters, liberty was given to make representations before the Bar Council of India.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by behavioural coach Chahavi Singh from a family of lawyers.
Supreme Court Warns Chief Secretaries Of 5 States For Not Filing Counter-Affidavit In PIL Against Mob Lynching
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
While hearing a PIL filed by National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) raising alarm over the alleged increase in cases of lynching and mob violence, particularly by 'cow vigilantes', the Supreme Court issued a warning to 5 states - Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Bihar- to file their counter-affidavits by the next date.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ordered that the counter-affidavits shall be filed by the Chief Secretaries of the five states, failing which, the Chief Secretaries shall themselves remain present before the Court and show cause as to why action should not be taken against them.
The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to communicate the order to the concerned Chief Secretaries and the matter listed after 4 weeks.
NCRB Can Collect Caste Data Of Prisoners, Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023
The Supreme Court clarified that its previous directions on deleting 'caste column' in prison registers would not come in the way of the data collection on the demographics of prisoners by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the order clarified:
"Therefore without prejudice to the generality of the directions or their implementation as issued by this Court, we clarify that direction 4 will not impede the collection of data by NCRB."
The order was passed in an application filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta (the petitioner) seeking a clarification of the directions issued on October 3.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Christian Nuns & Priests Against TDS Application To Their Salaries
Case Details: Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and Ors v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 10456/2019 and connected cases.
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of 93 appeals challenging the application of the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on the salaries given to nuns and priests of the Catholic Church who are working as teachers in aided institutions.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the judgment of Madras High Court which held that Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) must be applied with respect to the the salaries given to nuns and missionaries.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Kapil Sibal Over Statement Issued As SCBA President On RG Kar Rape-Murder
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992-2023
The Supreme Court refused to entertain an application filed by Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala (former Supreme Court Bar Association President) assailing the issuance of a statement by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, as the current SCBA President, in connection with the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed as withdrawn Aggarwala's application, remarking that the Court looks at all SCBA Presidents as leaders of the Bar and there should not be any sort of groupism or fighting among the members.
Supreme Court Makes Interim Protection Granted To Telangana BSP Leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav Against Arrest Absolute
Case Details: Vatti Janaiah v. State of Telangana | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12098/2023
The Supreme Court made the interim protection granted to Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav against arrest, in connection with the 2023 FIR pertaining to forcibly taking away fish weighing 5 tonnes from the pond, absolute.
While Yadav had approached the Court seeking protection from arrest alleging that alleged criminal prosecution by the then Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led Government in Telangana after Yadav made a political switch from BRS to BSP, the matter took a U-turn when the Court found that the Telangana Government could not properly assist the Court.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti on October 1 had asked for specific filing dates of the chargesheet but the counsel for the State of Telangana was unable to provide this information. The court expressed surprise at this lack of knowledge and summoned the Director General of Police (DGP), due to the lack of communication between the prosecution and the Government counsel.
Show Materials Indicating Authenticity Of Audio Clips Against Manipur CM: Supreme Court To Kuki Organization
Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024
The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by a Kuki organization seeking a court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips which allegedly implicate Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for instigating ethnic violence in the State.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Justice Manoj Misra asked the petitioner to produce materials indicating the authenticity of the audio clips.
After Kejriwal, Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Another PMLA Accused For Contesting Elections; Clarifies Order Not To Be Treated As Precedent
Case Details: Subhash Prasad Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15145/2024
After granting similar relief in Arvind Kejriwal's case, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to one Subhash Prasad Yadav - accused in a money laundering case - for the purpose of contesting Jharkhand Assembly elections. The election being scheduled for November 13, Yadav has been directed to be released till November 14, on which date he shall surrender before jail authorities by 5 pm.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Yadav's challenge to a Patna High Court order.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Separate State For Tirupati
Case Details: Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 657/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by evangelist Dr KA Paul seeking CBI probe into the Tirupati Laddu controversy as well as declaration of Tirupati city as a separate state/Union Territory.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Paul, who appeared and argued in person.
Supreme Court Directs Former MLA Girraj Singh Malinga To Surrender After Raj HC Cancelled Bail In A Post-Bail Assault Case
Case Details: Girraj Singh Malinga v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 9528/2024
The Supreme Court ordered former BJP MLA Girraj Singh Malinga to surrender after the Rajasthan High Court on July 7 cancelled his bail in the assault case filed against him by the assistant engineer at JVVNL, Harshadhipati (“complainant”) in 2022.
The Court has agreed to consider his bail plea on the grounds that he would surrender within 2 weeks.
The Rajasthan High Court Court found him to be misusing his liberty to showcase his strength of power by organizing a rally soon after getting released on bail and intimidating or threatening the witnesses and the complainant. The Court found that the complainant had filed the case alleging that the respondent came to his office in 2022 and started assaulting and abusing him over the accusations that the complainant removed electricity transformers from the respondent's area.
'What Procedure Followed In Tree Felling?': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Tree Authority & Officers
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Tree Authority and the Tree Officers appointed under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, in a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi government from permitting tree felling under the Act without prior permission from the court.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the plea that also seeks the constitution of an expert committee to evaluate the current tree protection measures in Delhi and submit recommendations for preserving existing trees and forests.
During the proceedings, Justice Abhay Oka stated, “What we propose to do is, we want to hear the tree officer and tree authority, what is the procedure they follow? What kind of checks and balances are there in the procedure they follow in tree felling. And then we propose to pass some order.” He added, “Some mechanism will have to be worked out; otherwise, indiscriminately powers are exercised.”
Gulfisha Fatima Case: Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC To Hear Bail Plea Soon
Case Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) WP (Crl.) No. 446/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Gulfisha Fatima seeking bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 over alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Court however requested the Delhi High Court to hear the bail application on the date fixed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered the matter.
Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Suspended Janta Dal (S) Leader Prajwal Revanna In Rape and Sexual Assault Case
Case Details: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 15292/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna seeking bail in the case over allegations of rape and sexual assault.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
'No Religion Encourages Any Activity Which Creates Pollution': Supreme Court On Firecracker Ban Violation In Delhi On Diwali
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
In the context of the use of firecrackers in Delhi which led to a worsening of air quality in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court observed that no religion encouraged any activity which created pollution.
"The right to live in a pollution-free atmosphere is a fundamental right of every citizen which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that no religion encourages any activity which creates pollution. If firecrackers are burnt in this fashion it also affects the fundamental right to health of the citizens," the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih observed.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner of enforcement, saying that the ban order impsoed by the Delhi Government on October 14 was not taken "seriously" by the Delhi Police. The Court agreed that there was some substance in the grievance made by the Additional Solicitor General of India that the ban was imposed late. Yet, the Court said that the Delhi Police ought to have informed all licence holders to forthwith stop the sale of firecrackers.
Supreme Court Rejects Prashant Kishor's Party's Plea To Defer Bihar Bye-Elections
Case Details: Jan Suraaj Party v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 742/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by Prashant Kishor's newly launched party - the Jan Suraaj Party - seeking postponement of bye-elections of four seats in Bihar, on account of Chhath Puja celebrations.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that it was too late to interfere with the elections, which are scheduled for November 13.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's Plea To Quash Vivek Tankha's Criminal Defamation Case
Case Details: Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others v. Vivek Krishna Tankha, SLP(Crl) No. 15212/2024
The Supreme Court exempted Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from a bailable warrant issued in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha, subject to his participation in the proceedings.
The Court also issued notice on the plea of Chouhan (and others) challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which refused to quash the Magistrate's cognizance order on Tankha's complaint.
Tankha filed the defamation case over the alleged statements of Chouhan and others that he was against OBC reservations because of his appearance in a case relating to OBC reservations in MP Panchayat elections in the Supreme Court in 2021.
Before a bench of Justices Hriskesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (appearing for Chouhan) apprised the Court about the background of the case and stated that the High Court passed an order without referring to what is defamatory.
Supreme Court Directs Punjab Govt, SEC To Notify Municipality Elections In 2 Weeks; To Be Completed In 8 Weeks Thereafter
Case Details: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Beant Kumar and Anr., SLP(C) No. 26468-26469/2024
While partially modifying a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which directed that Punjab municipality elections be notified within 15 days, the Supreme Court ordered that the election process shall commence within 2 weeks from and be completed within 8 weeks thereafter.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing Punjab's challenge to the High Court order which issued a mandamus to Punjab government which sought time to conduct the election on the ground that a fresh delimitation exercise was required to be conducted.
"Bizarre": Supreme Court Dismisses Man's Plea To Deactivate 'Machine' Controlling His Brain
Case Details: G. Venkateswarlu v. The Director, CFSL (CBI) & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by a man who alleged that his brain was being controlled by other persons through a machine.
Terming the petition as bizarre, a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed it, saying, "We see no scope or reason as to how we can interfere in this matter."
RG Kar Protest: Supreme Court Stays HC Direction For CBI Probe Into Alleged Custodial Torture Of Women By Kolkata Police
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024
The Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court order directing CBI probe into allegations of custodial torture of 2 women arrested amid protests that took place in West Bengal after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder incident.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while issuing notice on a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the High Court order. It asked the state government, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, to also submit a list of IPS officers (including women officers), who can be included in a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the custodial torture case instead of CBI.
Solid Waste Management Rules Remain On Paper: Supreme Court Warns Delhi of “Harsh Orders” Over Failure To Implement 2016 Rules
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court expressed concern over lack of implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, highlighting issues like unchecked waste accumulation at landfill sites, waste from construction, and the risk of fires at waste storage areas.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.
Heera Gold Scam: Supreme Court Directs ED To Auction Two Properties, Asks Nowhera Sheikh To Deposit Rs 25 Crores
Case Details: Nowhera Shaik and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MA 2227/2024 in MA 2227/2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 31/2020
The Supreme Court extended the period to surrender forf Nowhera Shaikh, the Managing Director of Heera Gold Exim Private Limited, to 3 months in a miscellaneous application filed in the main matter related to fraud and cheating of investors across the country. Apart from this, the Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to auction 2 properties and pay 25 crores so that the investors' money could be paid back from the money recovered.
The main matter was disposed of after the Supreme Court cancelled her bail on October 18, on the failure to raise 580 crores to settle the claims of investors despite repeated chances given by the Court to do so.
'How Can Phone Used In 2016 Be Given Now?', Asks Malayalam Actor Siddique; Supreme Court Extends Interim Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
The Supreme Court extended by a week the interim anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress. The hearing was adjourned till next week due to the ill health of the petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
When the hearing started, Rohatgi said that the police kept asking about his phone and laptop used in 2016. "I keep telling them I don't have those...How will I give it?" Rohatgi submitted.
When the bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked whether the petitioner was appearing before the investigating officer, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State, submitted that though he was appearing and has appeared twice since then. But he was not cooperating with the investigation and was giving evasive responses. He has also questioned the relevance of the questions asked to him.
Supreme Court Directs Examination Of Ex-Chief Of Popular Front At AIIMS To Consider Medical Grounds For Bail
Case Details: Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
The Supreme Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to constitute a medical team for a thorough examination of E Abubacker, the former Chairman of the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), to ascertain if he deserved bail on medical grounds.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar directed that Abubacker be taken to AIIMS within a period of two days and be admitted as an in-patient for the examination. The Court stated that he should be accompanied by police escorts. It also accepted the request made by the petitioner that his son be allowed to assist him during the examination period. The Court adjourned the hearing by two weeks for the report of the AIIMS team.
'How Can Discharge Order Be Stayed?': Supreme Court Expresses Surprise At HC Order
Case Details: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir challenging the Delhi High Court's recent order that stayed his discharge order in a murder case and directed him to surrender.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih stayed the direction to surrender and also directed that the trial proceedings against Wazir would not proceed until further notice.
During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the High Court's decision to stay the discharge order issued by the trial court. “How order of discharge can be stayed? Staying an order of discharge is completely unheard of,” observed Justice Oka.
“We Will Bring The Home Minister Here”: Supreme Court Reprimands Puducherry Sentence Review Board For Non-Compliance With Order
Case Details: Karuna @ Manoharan v. Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors.
The Supreme Court strongly reprimanded the Sentence Review Board of the Union Territory of Puducherry for failing to consider a remission plea of a convict, despite a prior court direction.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the Inspector General of Prisons, who is the Board's member-secretary, to submit an affidavit explaining the Board's conduct.
During the hearing, the Court expressed strong displeasure, warning that it will initiate contempt proceedings against the Board members, including the Home Minister, who chairs the board, for disregarding the Court's orders.
Supreme Court Dismisses AAP Leader Somnath Bharti's Plea To Transfer Criminal Case From UP to Delhi
Case Details: Som Nath Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti, seeking the transfer of a criminal case from Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to New Delhi.
The case, arising from Bharti's remarks about Uttar Pradesh's healthcare and educational facilities while campaigning in Prayagraj in December 2020, involves allegations of criminal intimidation and promoting enmity between groups.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar in the morning session questioned the basis for seeking the transfer, with Justice Sundresh remarking, “He is an MLA; he can very well travel.”
The matter was passed over in the morning at the request of Bharti's counsel. When it was taken up again in the afternoon session, the Court dismissed the plea.
Supreme Court Disposes Of Petition Challenging Enrolment Fees Of UP Bar Council In Light Of Its Recent Decision
Case Details: Kuldeep Mishra v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh W.P.(C) No.24/ 2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a petition filed by a law graduate, challenging the enrollment fee charged by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council, in light of its July 30, 2024 decision wherein it was observed that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories as specified in the Advocates Act, 1961.
On February 2, the court issued a notice in this writ petition where the petitioner appearing-in-person 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".
'Amendment To NIA Act May Not Protect Victims Of Sex Trafficking': Supreme Court Seeks Union's Fresh Affidavit
Case Details: Prajwala v. Union of India, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004
The Supreme Court gave one last chance to the Union Government to file a fresh affidavit in a petition seeking comprehensive victim protection protocol for victims of sex trafficking.
The Court noted that the amendments made to the National Investigation Agency Act may not serve the purpose of protection, as the NIA can at best prosecute the offenders. The Court also noted that the Bill introduced by the Uniion to deal with human trafficking in 2018 has lapsed.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal heard a miscellaneous application filed by the organisation Prajwala working in the areas of sex trafficking, in the main writ petition filed in 2004, for compliance with an order passed on December 9, 2015.
Supreme Court Asks Jammu & Kashmir UT To Frame Policy On Premature Release Of Convicts
Case Details: Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P.(Crl.) No. 335/2024
The Supreme Court nudged the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to frame policy for premature release of convicts, considering that framing of the policy lies within the exclusive domain of the UT and it has no policy for remission on the basis of period of incarceration.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while dealing with the case of a convict undergoing life sentence for the offense under Section 302 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was convicted for the murder of 3 colleagues and has spent about 18 years in custody.
Why Maternity Benefit Available To Adoptive Mothers Only If Adopted Child Is Below 3 Months Old? Supreme Court Asks Centre
Case Details: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000960 - / 2021
The Supreme Court sought response from the Union in a petition challenging the provision of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 as per which maternity benefits are available to an adoptive mother only if the child in aged below 3 months.
The bench of Justices Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal was hearing a PIL filed by an adoptive mother challenging S. 5(4) of the 2017 Act which provides adoptive mothers a maternity leave for 12 weeks provided that the infant she has adopted is under 3 months. The petitioner Hamsaanandini is an adoptive mother to two children since 2017.
The bench inquired what was the legislative intent to set the leave condition for only those adoptive mothers with an infant less than 3 months.
Supreme Court Seeks Action Plan To Implement Menstrual Hygiene Policy For School-going Girls
Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1000/2022
The Supreme Court heard a petition seeking directions from the Union, the States and Union Territories for providing free sanitary pads to adolescent girl children from Classes 6-12 in all Government, Government-aided/unaided schools, and residential schools.
It passed an order for further action by States and UTs after the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the Union Government has formulated a uniform national policy 'Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School-going Girls' and that a note will be submitted on how the stakeholders could come up with an action plan to implement the same.
Supreme Court Stays Proceedings In Mohd Azharuddin's Plea Challenging BRS MLA Maganti Gopinath's Election To Telangana Assembly
Case Details: Maganti Gopinath v. Mohammed Azharuddin, SLP(C) No. 26427/2024
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in an election petition filed by Congress' Mohammed Azharuddin (ex-Indian cricket captain) challenging the election of BRS leader Maganti Gopinath from Jubilee Hills constituency in 2023 Telangana Assembly elections.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, while issuing notice on Gopinath's plea challenging Telangana High Court's rejection of his prayer to dismiss the election petition filed by Azharuddin.
Unfortunate That Many Lady Judicial Officers Have No Private Washrooms: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
The Supreme Court heard the petition seeking sanitised toilets for men, women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal while hearing a Public Interest Litigation asked if there is any data on whether lady judicial officers have private washrooms in High Courts. This came after the counsel for the petitioner, AoR Charu Ambwani, submitted that pursuant to an order by this Court, all 25 High Courts across the country had filed an affidavit in regards to the toilets in High Court premises. The affidavits show that there are enough sanitised toilets.
The Court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for Union, if all lady judicial officers have access to private washrooms in the High Courts where they are working. When Bhati stated that this was not covered in the affidavit and therefore no data on it, Justice Pardiwala responded: "Unfortunately, no [it has not been ensured that all lady officers have access to private washrooms]."
The Court ordered Ambwani to file a note on the shortcomings, if any, in regards to the affidavit filed by the High Courts. It also asked Bhati to highlight what each High Court have said in their affidavit in regard to the order and what further directions are required to be passed. The Court will now hear it on November 26.
Punjab And Haryana Owe An Explanation: Supreme Court Reiterates Concern Over Reluctance To Prosecute Officials For Violating CAQM Orders On Stubble Burning
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court reiterated its concern over the reluctance of states of Punjab and Haryana to prosecute officials that have violated CAQM orders regarding stubble burning under Section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Direct Doctors To Specify Side Effects Of Medicines In Prescriptions
Case Details: Jacob Vadakkanchery v. Union of India and Anr., Diary No. 48665-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking mandatory disclosure by medical professionals/doctors of risks and adverse effects associated with drugs they prescribe to patients.
The petitioner sought a direction that all medical professionals should specify to a patients (in the form of an additional slip in the regional language) along with the prescription, all kinds of possible risks and side effects associated with a drug or a pharmaceutical product being prescribed.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for the petitioner), who argued that a large part of harm to patients is associated with adverse effects of medicines. It was also the counsel's submission that "informed consent" of a patient includes his being informed about contraindications, etc. of the treatment being prescribed.
High-Handedness By State: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Removing Chhattisgarh Woman Sarpanch From Office
Case Details: Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7279/2024
The Supreme Court set aside an order removing a woman Sarpanch from office in Chhattisgarh and directed enquiry into the officials who caused unwarranted harassment to her. The Court further imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the state government.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter, coming down heavily on the state for causing undue harassment to the elected woman Sarpanch, on the pretext of delay in construction work.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Ban WhatsApp
Case Details: Omanakuttan KG v. WhatsApp Applications Services Pvt. Ltd and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 736/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Central Government to ban the operation of WhatsApp for alleged violation of the orders of the legal authorities in the country.
The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted before a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar that the High Court's rejection of the PIL was simply based on the ground that the plea of "too premature".
However, without hearing anything further, the bench dismissed the petition.
'Leaders Expected To Set Example': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Odisha BJP MLA Accused Of Slapping Woman Police Officer
Case Details: Jayanarayan Mishra v. State of Odisha, SLP(Crl) No. 1145/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Odisha BJP MLA and ex-Leader of Opposition Jayanarayan Mishra, accused of slapping a woman police officer during a protest in 2023.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that grant of anticipatory bail to Mishra could prejudice the investigation. The order was dictated thus:
"At the relevant time, petitioner was Leader of the Opposition and is currently a Member of Odisha Legislative Assembly. People in leadership positions must set an example for public behavior. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and would require a professional investigation by the police, which might be prejudiced in the event of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner."
Calling out BJP-led Odisha government's mellowed stance on anticipatory bail plea of a BJP MLA accused of slapping a woman police officer during a protest in 2023, the Supreme Court remarked that the color of an officer's uniform does not change with change in government.
Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hindu Sena Samiti and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 437/2024
The Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make.
The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to "prevent the growing menace of delivery of provoking public speech jeopardizing the sovereignty and endangering the security of the State."
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the PIL considering that the Court in the case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. was already seized of the issue of hate speech.
Supreme Court Shocked At Goa Govt Notifying HC Service Rules Different From Chief Justices' Draft, Asks Chief Secretary To Appear
Case Details: Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Goa for notifying service rules for employees of Bombay High Court at Goa in the name of the HC Chief Justice which differ significantly from what was originally submitted to the Goa government by the Chief Justice.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih noted that the Chief Secretary of the state justified this conduct in his affidavit and directed him to appear before the court through video conferencing to give his explanation for the incorporation of altered Rules.
“The Chief Secretary has justified the act of framing Rules knowing fully well that the said Rules are not in terms of the Draft Rules submitted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Rule have been published with the recital that they have been made by the Honorable Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. We are really shocked to know that instead of withdrawing the Rules the Chief Secretary of the state has made an attempt to justify the same. We therefore direct the chief secretary of the state to personally remain present in this court through video conferences next Friday to explain how the recital which we have quoted above has been incorporated in the body of the Rules”, the Court stated.
The Court was hearing a suo moto case concerning grievances from former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa bench regarding delayed pensionary benefits.
Workers' Dues Of Rs 70 Crores: Supreme Court Mulls Ordering Sale Of Assam Tea Corporation's Assets
Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
The Supreme Court sought the details of all the properties of Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL) and expressed that it will order sale of the assets so that the proceeds can be used to pay the dues of the tea garden workers.
A of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of ATCL to file a detailed affidavit by December 7, listing all of the corporation's properties, specifying their particulars to facilitate potential asset liquidation if required.
Supreme Court Deprecates Allahabad HC's Practice Of Disposing Quashing Petitions By Asking Petitioners To Seek Discharge
Case Details: Ajay Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court deprecated practice of the Allahabad High Court of directing petitioners seeking quashing of cases to instead apply to the trial court for discharge.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice AG Masih issued notice on the plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's order that had rejected an application quashing a forgery case. The Court posted the matter on January 10, 2024 and stayed the trial till then.
Medieval Tomb Illegally Occupied By Defence Colony Welfare Assn, Reports CBI; Supreme Court Appoints Expert To Inspect Damages
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
The Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA) of Delhi has illegally occupied Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500 years old tomb of archaeological importance, and made unauthorised alterations to it, stated the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a preliminary enquiry report submitted to the Supreme Court.
Taking note of the report, the Court appointed an expert, Ms Swapna Liddle, ex-convener of (INTACH) (Delhi Chapter of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) and author of several books on the history of Delhi, to survey and inspect the building and ascertain the damage which has been caused and to what extent the building can be restored, and in what manner it can be done. The Court has sought the report within 6 weeks.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed the order in a petition filed by one Rajeev Suri seeking protection of the Gumti.
In August, the Court had directed the CBI to conduct an enquiry into the illegal occupation of the Gumti by the DCWA and the inaction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Supreme Court Stays HC Order For CBI Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Jharkhand Assembly Appointments
Case Details: Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, SLP(C) No. 26367/2024
The Supreme Court stayed a Jharkhand High Court order, whereby alleged irregularities in the appointments and promotions to Jharkhand State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) were directed to be enquired into by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for petitioner-Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.
Supreme Court Stays Commercial Suit Proceedings Against Aditya Birla Finance Over SARFAESI Proceedings
Case Details: Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Shashikant Gangar & Ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26357/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a special leave petition filed by Aditya Birla Finance Ltd against a judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that a commercial suit won't be barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act when there are allegations of fraud.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar also stayed the further proceedings before the Commercial Court.
Supreme Court Flags Rising Incidents Of Foreign Accused Absconding After Bail, Seeks Union's Response
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Alex David @ MU Henry SLP(Crl.) 8629/2022
The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the recurring instances of foreign citizens, who are accused of crimes, jumping bail and becoming untraceable.
The Court observed that a procedure needs to be laid down, if not already there, to deal with such instances.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a challenge made by the State of Jharkhand to the bail granted by the High Court to a Nigerian citizen in a cyber fraud case.
Supreme Court Keeps In Abeyance Its Order On Arrest Of Prisoners Who Were Given Premature Release In UP
Case Details: Surendra@Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arising out of Diary No. 28783 of 2023
The Supreme Court kept in abeyance its order requiring the arrest of prisoners who were given premature release in Uttar Pradesh based on a January 10 order of the Allahabad High Court.
In this case, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal on October 15 directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit on the life convicts who were given premature release based on the High Court's order which passed general directions on the premature release of prisoners.
Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Registry On Why Counter Affidavit Filed By Non-Party Was Accepted
Case Details: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 7862/2024
The Supreme Court sought an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial) how a party (complainant in this case) was able to file a counter-affidavit when its application seeking impleadment was not allowed by the Court.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against the May 17 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejection of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 and Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Enquiry Into Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's Death
Case Details: Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation initiated seeking inquiry into the death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to entertain the PIL saying that it was not a matter which the Court could decide.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose remains a "mystery" and there is no conclusive outcome on his disappearance, as different enquiry commissions gave different reports.
'11 DRTs Have No Presiding Officers': Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On PIL To Fill Up Vacancies
Case Details: Nischay Chaudhary v. Union of India WP(C) No. 740/2024
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation seeking filling of pending appointments of Presiding Officers in the Debt Recovery Tribunals.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that so far appointments in 11 DRTs remain to be completed. The following order was passed:
"11 Debt Recovery Tribunals remain unmanned which is creating issues. In view of the grant of additional charges and also the complications, notice be served including datsi, counter affidavits be filed in 5 weeks. Rejoinder to be filed within 3 weeks of the response."
Supreme Court Criticises ICICI Bank For Not Defreezing Newsclick's Bank Accounts Despite Stay On Tax Recovery Steps
Case Details: PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Diary No. 48875-2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application whereby, it allowed news portal Newclick's plea seeking direction against the ICICI bank, Saket, New Delhi, to comply with the August 9 order of the Court.
In the instant miscellaneous application, the petitioners raised the issue that after the Court's August 9 order, the de-freezing of their bank accounts has not begun as the bank is relying on December 15, 2023, communication of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1.
By an order dated August 9, the Court disposed of a plea filed by NewsClick for a stay on the income tax demand and directed that pending disposal of the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), there shall be a stay of further recovery of an outstanding amount. This order was passed taking into consideration that approximately 30 per cent of the demand has been recovered.
The division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the order in an SLP filed by the Newsclick against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting a stay on the income tax demand. On July 8, the Court issued a notice in the SLP.
Someday You Must Find Out How Many PMLA Complaints Ended In Trial & Conviction: Supreme Court Tells ED
Case Details: Veerendra Kumar Ram v. Union of India
The Supreme Court once again expressed concerns about the low rate of convictions in the complaints filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Abhay S Oka, heading a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, orally told the counsel of the Enforcement Directorate, "Someday you must find out how many cases of a complaint under PMLA have ended with trial and how many have resulted in a conviction."
The observation was made while considering a bail application of a person accused of PMLA offences. The bench granted him bail considering the fact that he has been under custody since 23rd February 2023, and that there was no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. The bench followed the judgment passed in Senthil Balaji case in this regard.
Delhi Air Pollution | GRAP-IV Restrictions To Continue In NCR Even If AQI Falls Below 450: Supreme Court
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
Addressing the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region, the Supreme Court directed that the implementation of the Graded Response Action Plan Statge IV (GRAP-IV) should continue even if the Air Quality Index (AQI) of Delhi improves and falls below 450 till further orders.
The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for waiting for the air quality index to breach the threshold to enforce the GRAP-3 and GRAP-4 protocols.
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to get data from stationary satellites regarding farm fires caused by stubble burning.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing Contempt Case Against DDA Over Tree Felling, Says Happened To Meet Delhi LG At NALSA Event
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024
Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from hearing the contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the illegal felling of trees in Delhi Ridge.
Punjab Panchayat Elections| Supreme Court Directs Election Tribunal To Decide Election Petitions In 6 Months
Case Details: Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. SLP(C) No. 25527/2024
The Supreme Court while refusing to interfere in pleas alleging irregularities in Punjab Gram Panchayat elections, directed the Election Tribunal to decide upon the election petitions within 6 months. The Court also allowed those petitioners whose nominations were rejected to file a review petition before the High Court to challenge the elections.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of petitions against the High Court order dismissing over 800 petitions which alleged arbitrary rejection of nomination papers filed by the candidates.
'AoRs Don't Directly Deal With Clients In Many Cases': Amicus S Muralidhar Says On Issue Of False Pleadings; Supreme Court Seeks SCBA Views
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association to seek its views regarding guidelines to ensure that Advocates-on-Record do not make false statements in petitions. The Court decided to address this issue in a case concerning the recurring issue of false statements by lawyers in court.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih accepted the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar that the views of the SCBA also ought to be considered.
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case
Case Details: Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP (Crl) No.13463/2024
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to prominent Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made the interim anticipatory bail, granted on September 30, absolute.
Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea After Adjournment Was Sought For 4th Time
Case Details: Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale v. State of Maharashtra., Diary No. 22040-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking bail after adjournment was sought on the fourth occasion.
The Court dismissed a bail plea filed by Nilesh Dhyaneshwar Desale against the order of the February 13 order of the Bombay High Court denying him bail. The plea was dismissed for non-prosecution after the Court noted that constant adjournments have been sought in this case and this was the fourth time, the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment.
When the Counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment again, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma strongly objected to it.
Prima Facie Karnataka HC Division Bench Did Not Continue Single Judge Order Restraining Broadcast Of Power TV: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S. Power Smart Media Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Supreme Court clarified that the division bench of the Karnataka high Court did not continue the interim order of the Single Judge restraining the broadcast of the Kannada news channel Power TV.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the division bench while disposing of the appeals against the interim order recorded that the petitioners had withdrawn their writ petitions in which the interim order against Power TV was originally passed.
“Prima facie, on a plain reading of the operative part of the order, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge was not continued while disposing of the appeals and, in fact, what is recorded is that the original writ petitioners withdrew the writ petitions”, the Court noted.
The Court also clarified that notwithstanding the stay previously granted to the HC orders restraining the broadcast of the channels, the competent authority can pass an order on the show-cause notice as outlined in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment.
Supreme Court Dismisses HPCL's Plea Against Bombay HC Order Quashing Pension Cuts For 269 Retired Employees
Case Details: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pensioners Social and Welfare Association
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) against the Bombay High Court's decision to quash two notifications that reduced/discontinued pensionary benefits to 269 retired employees.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said that the notifications were issued without following the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court Directs Union To Frame Action Plan For Feeding & Childcare Spaces In Public Places & Buildings
Case Details: Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 950/2022
The Supreme Court gave one final chance to the Union Government to file an affidavit formulating an action plan for implementing feeding, and child care rooms in public spaces and buildings in a public interest litigation.
The writ petition filed by Maatr Sparsh NGO was listed for hearing before a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh. The bench was apprised by Advocate Animesh Rastogi (for Petitioner) that the petition sought exclusive and separate public spaces and buildings for feeding and taking care of children.
At the outset, the Court expressed its willingness to issue some directions in this case for the implementation, which the Union of India via the Union Ministry of Women & Child Development must coordinate with the States and Union Territories. However, the Court was informed that the States and Union Territories are not impleaded as parties.
Supreme Court To Explore Use Of E-Prison Portal To Identify Prisoners Who Continue In Jail Despite Grant Of Bail
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
The Supreme Court suggested that an e-prison portal can be used for collating data on those who remain inside prisons despite being granted bail because they are unable to furnish surety.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and AG Masih was hearing a suo moto case (In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) where it has passed orders to ensure that prisoners who get bail are released without delay. On the last occasion, the Court had passed directions to arrange a demonstration of how the e-prison portal works.
Constitute State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities In 6 Weeks If Absent: Supreme Court Directs States
Case Details: Union of India v. Rajiv Suri | Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019
The Supreme Court directed State Governments to constitute State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) within 6 weeks wherever they have not been formed.
The above direction was made when the Court was hearing a civil appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal which disapproved the grant of Environment Clearances in certain leases by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAA) instead of SEIAA.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge by the Union to the order of NGT, Delhi dated September 13, 2018 which directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to revise its 2016 notification which exempts regulatory clearances in mining leases for areas from 0 to 25 hectares.
'Serious Allegation': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Doctor Accused Of Illegal Kidney Transplants
Case Details: Jyoti Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13305/2024
The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to a doctor of the Fortis Hospital at Jaipur, who is accused of performing illegal kidney transplants in connection with an international racket.
Stating that this is a serious matter which needs to be investigated in accordance with the law, a bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
After Supreme Court's Nudge, Himachal Pradesh Govt Notifies Child Care Leave Rules
Case Details: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh., SLP(C) No. 16864/2021
The Supreme Court disposed of an SLP seeking child-care leave for working mothers with specially-abled children in Government jobs in the State of Himachal Pradesh after the Court was informed that the State Government has notified child-care leave pursuant to the central scheme.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh disposed of the SLP after it was informed by Advocate-on-Record Pragati Neekhra (for petitioner) that the State Government has issued a notification dated July 31, 2024, to notify Central Civil Services (Leave) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024.
Bonded Labour: Supreme Court Asks Union To Hold Meeting With States, NHRC On Inter-State Trafficking, Child Labour Issues
Case Details: Surendra Manjhi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No. 511/2022
Expressing dismay at the non-release of immediate financial assistance to rescued bonded laborers, the Supreme Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Labor and Employment to hold a meeting with States/UTs and come up with a proposal to address the issue of inter-state human trafficking as well as release of immediate financial assistance to rescued child laborers.
Taking specific note of the "alarming" situation in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ordered thus:
"As far as State of UP is concerned, the figures are alarming. Out of 5262 released bonded laborers, only 1101 have received immediate financial assistance...4167 are yet to receive...In order to address the issue of inter-state trafficking of children, the issue needs be addressed by the Union as well as all the states in a unified manner. We therefore direct Secretary, Ministry of Labor and Employment to have a meeting with his counterparts in all the states and UTs and come out with a proposal which will address this issue regarding inter-state human trafficking and grant of release certificate. We further direct that proposal should also contain a simplified procedure which will really affect the scheme of providing immediate financial assistance to the rescued child laborers. Union to also take on board the National Human Rights Commission in the finalization of the procedure."
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Jagannath Temple Priest In Money Laundering Case Under PMLA
Case Details: Rajkumar Daitapati v. Director Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 9517/2021
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Jagannath Temple Priest, Rajkumar Daitapati in relation to PMLA proceedings initiated against him for alleged offence of money laundering.
The petitioner, stated to be a generational priest of the Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, Orrisa has been arrayed in proceedings under S. 3 and 4 of the Prevention for Money Laundering Act 2002 in connection with an FIR registered by a few foreign nationals. The FIR is against one Mr Kuldeep Sharma and his wife Ms Aparna Sharma for offences of cheating and fraud to the tune of USD 232,568 over the sale of a certain property.
The petitioner was given Power of Attorney by the foreign nationals(complainants) to oversee the case and act as an intermediary to conclude settlements and receive monies on behalf of the foreigners.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that as per the agreement between the parties, the appellant was to receive 92 Lakhs on behalf of the foreign nationals, but so far had only deposited 80 lakhs with the RBI(as alleged proceeds of crime).
Absence Of Specific Provisions No Reason To Forego Fundamental Requirements Of Election Of Any Society: Supreme Court
Case Details: Association For The Welfare Of The Handicapped & Ors. v. KP Mohammed & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the lack of specific statutory election procedures does not justify bypassing fundamental requirements for conducting elections such as a properly drawn voters list.
“Prima facie, we are of the view that absence of specific provisions regulating an election in the statute cannot be a reason for holding elections without the basic requirements for conducting an election to any society, which is supposed to be the democratic institution at grass root level. At any rate, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that sine qua non for conducting the election to such a body is a properly drawn voters list”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol said this while passing an interim order in a dispute concerning the administration of the Association for Welfare of Handicapped (AWH).
Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Allegations That TN Police Officials Violated POCSO Victim's Rights & Assaulted Parents
Case Details: Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Victims Mother and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15332-15333/2024
In a case relating to alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in Anna Nagar, Chennai, the Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team to conduct a probe into the allegations that Chennai police violated the victim's rights and assaulted her parents. The Court further directed that the probe be monitored by the Madras High Court and awarded a cost of Rs.75,000 in favor of the victim's family.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu police authorities, challenging order of the High Court whereby investigation was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Gyanvapi Case: Supreme Court Seeks Mosque Committee's Response On Plea For ASI Survey Of Sealed Area
Case Details: Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9388/2022
The Supreme Court sought the response of the Gyanvapi Masjid Committee to an application filed by Hindu worshippers for an ASI survey of the sealed area of the mosque (where a shivlinga was claimed to have been found).
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezemia Masajid (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) on the application filed by the worshippers.
Supreme Court Rejects Punjab Govt's Request To Access Witness Statements Before Enquiry Committee On Security Lapses During PM's Visit
Case Details: Lawyers Voice v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13/2022
The Supreme Court rejected a request made by the Punjab Government for a copy of the statements made by witnesses before the Justice Indu Malhotra Committee which enquired into the security lapses which occurred during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's travel to Punjab in January 2022.
The State Government sought to access the statements to conduct enquiry against the officers who were liable for the security lapses. The Court observed that the State can conduct its enquiry independently without the aid of the witness statements before the enquiry committee.
"We see no ground to entertain the request made by Punjab govt. The state may conduct its enquiry against delinquent officers without the aid of the statements said to have been made by the witnesses before the enquiry committee," observed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Delhi Air Pollution: Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With Enforcement Of Ban On Trucks, Appoints 13 Lawyers To Inspect Entry Points
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
In the Delhi air pollution matter, the Supreme Court appointed 13 members of the Bar as court commissioners to visit the entry points to Delhi and verify whether entry of trucks is being stopped.
As per the GRAP-IV restrictions imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management, the entry of trucks is prohibited to Delhi-NCR to combat air pollution.
The Court however expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance. "So far as compliance is concerned, we are not satisfied. Government has not stated clearly as to at how many entry points there are officers present to comply with measures of STAGE IV," observed the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & States On Plea To Establish Transgender Welfare Boards
Case Details: Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government and States and Union Territories, who have not entered appearance, to file an affidavit within 8 weeks on a Public Interest Litigation seeking the establishment of the Transgender Welfare Boards.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti was hearing a PIL filed by Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust seeking the establishment of the Transgender Welfare Board to address social welfare issues of a trans person and to appoint a Standing Committee in order to investigate reports of abuse against the trans person by the police.
Supreme Court Transfers Trial Pending Against Choreographer Remo D'Souza In 2016 Cheating Case From UP To Delhi
Case Details: Remo D Souza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 15328/2024
The Supreme Court transferred the trial in a 2016 cheating case pending against choreographer and film director Remo D'Souza from Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh to Delhi.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, partly allowing the appeal filed by D'Souza against an Allahabad High Court order, whereby his plea to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.
Show If Every DRT Has 30 Staff Members: Supreme Court To Finance Ministry
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Finance to submit an affidavit by January 2, 2025, detailing the available staff strength at each of the 39 Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with a case concerning the judicial staff of DRT Visakhapatnam having been diverted to fulfil certain data collection tasks mandated by the Ministry. This had affected the tribunal's functioning and led to delays in pending cases.
The Court questioned the Ministry's justification that DRT has enough staff to be able to undertake such a task.
After Supreme Court's Rap, Goa Notifies Pension Rules For Bombay HC Goa Bench Staff In Line With Principal Bench
Case Details: Re Pension Benefits For Employees Retd. From High Court of Bombay At Goa v. State of Goa
The Goa government informed the Supreme Court that it has brought the pension payment norms for employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench in line with those of the principal Bench at Mumbai and the Nagpur and Aurangabad benches.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih disposed of a suo moto case concerning the grievances of former employees of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench over delayed pensionary benefits.
Sanatana Dharma Row| Supreme Court Extends Interim Order Exempting Udhayanidhi Stalin's Personal Appearance Before Trial Courts
Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP (Crl.) No. 104/2024
The Supreme Court extended the interim order granted to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for exemption for physically appearing before lower courts conducting proceedings against his 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For CAG Report On Complaints Regarding Award Of Arunachal Pradesh Contracts
Case Details: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the CAG to provide a status report on complaints that government contracts in Arunachal Pradesh were being awarded to family members of the then Chief Minister during 2007-2011 without tender process.
A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Kumar allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and pursue appropriate remedy in appropriate forum.
'Senior WB Police Officers Competent, No Need For CBI': Supreme Court Constitutes SIT To Probe Custodial Torture Allegations By RG Kar Protestors
Case Details: State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Rebeka Khatun Molla @ Rebeka Molla and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 15481/2024
The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations of custodial torture of 2 women arrested amid protests that took place in West Bengal after the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder incident.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with State of West Bengal's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order which directed CBI probe into the matter. Earlier, while issuing notice, the Court had stayed this direction of the High Court. It asked the state government to submit a list of IPS officers (including women officers), who could be included in an SIT to investigate the custodial torture case instead of CBI.
Taking into account a list of officers furnished by the state, the Court constituted an SIT - of officers not belonging to the State of West Bengal but serving therein.
Delhi Air Pollution - Supreme Court Directs CAQM To Consider Allowing Physical Classes In Schools/Colleges
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider relaxing the restrictions on physical classes of schools, colleges and educational institutions in Delhi-NCR, which were imposed due to severe air pollution.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the CAQM to consider relaxation of action in terms of clause 5 and clause 8 (only in relation to educational institutions) of GRAP-IV as well as clause 11 of GRAP III measures.
The Court came down heavily on authorities for not enforcing the ban on entry of trucks and light commercial vehicles to Delhi, a measure which was imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) as part of its GRAP-IV measures to address severe air pollution.
The Court directed the CAQM to initiate prosecution in terms of Section 14 of the CAQM Act against the officials who failed to enforce the directives.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Deletion Of Duplicate Voter Names In Electoral Rolls
Case Details: Rashtrawadi Adarsh Mahasangh v. Union of India | Diary No. - 53278/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking the deletion of duplicate voter names appearing on electoral rolls.
The PIL addresses the issue of duplicity of voter names on electoral rolls. The petitioner sought the direction to the Union of India and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to delete the multiplicity of names appearing in the registered voter list.
Supreme Court Calls For Tree Census And Vigil Mechanism To Prevent Illegal Tree Felling In Taj Trapezium Zone
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a tree census and a mechanism to prevent unauthorized tree felling in the environmentally sensitive Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
'If You Win, EVMs Aren't Tampered': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Use Paper Ballots For Voting
Case Details: Dr. K. A. Paul v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 718/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul seeking physical ballot voting in India. Other prayers included issuing directions to the Election Commission to disqualify candidates for at least 5 years if found guilty of distributing money liquor and other inducements during elections.
Supreme Court Allows NIA's Plea To Transfer 8 Criminal Cases From Manipur To Assam
Case Details: National Investigation Agency v. Md. Noor Hussain Tomba Nur Hasan., T.P.(Crl.) No. 502-509/2024
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for the transfer of 8 criminal cases pending before the NIA, Special Court in the district Imphal, State of Manipur, to the NIA Special Court, Guwahati, Assam.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the NIA's transfer petition taking into consideration prayer made by the NIA that the situation in the State of Manipur was not conducive for conducting a free and fair trial.
Supreme Court Allows Scribe For 100 Percent Blind Law Graduate To Attend CLAT-PG Exam
Case Details: Yash Dodani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
The Supreme Court allowed a 100 percent blind law student to avail the assistance of a scribe, as appointed by the Consortium of the National Law Universities, to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25 scheduled on December 1.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a writ petition filed by three petitioners advocating for necessary accommodation in legal examinations, including the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and CLAT.
'If We Allow This, Any Politician Can Be Roped In': Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas To Revive Bribery & PMLA Cases Against Ex-MLA KM Shaji
Case Details: State of Kerala v. KM Shaji with Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. KM Shaji
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's judgments quashing bribery and money laundering cases against Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader and former MLA KM Shaji.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the special leave petitions filed against the High Court orders by the State of Kerala and the Directorate of Enforcement respectively.
Supreme Court Stays Trial In Rabia Saifi Murder Case, Seeks Authorities' Response On Father's Plea For CBI Probe Into Conspiracy
Case Details: Sameed Ahmad v. State of Haryana, Diary No.48472/2024
On hearing her father's plea to transfer the case to CBI, the Supreme Court stayed the trial in the murder case of Rabia Saifi, a 21-year-old Civil Defense volunteer with the Delhi government, who was stabbed to death in August, 2021.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale passed the order, while issuing notice to the Haryana Police, on a petition filed by Rabia's father-Sameed Ahmad, against an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court declining to transfer the case to CBI (or any other independent agency).
Supreme Court Suspends Sentence Of 2 Convicts In 2003 Murder Case Of Chhattisgarh NCP Leader Ram Avatar Jaggi
Case Details: Surya Kant v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) NO. 6469/2024 and connected cases
The Supreme Court suspended the life imprisonment of two persons who were convicted for the murder of Nationalist Congress party leader Ram Avatar Jaggi in Chhattisgarh in 2003.
The Court suspended the sentence of convicts Feroz Sidhique and Abhay Goel and ordered that they be released on bail during the pendency of the appeals on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court.
The Court however refused to suspend the sentence of another convict named Yahya Dhebar. The applications filed by other convicts seeking suspension of their sentence will be heard on December 9. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the matter. Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Agarwal, S Nagamuthu etc appeared for some of the applicants.
After RTI Activist Flags Vacancies In Information Commissions, Supreme Court Seeks Data From Centre & States On CIC/SICs
Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018
The Supreme Court called on the Centre and states to furnish data regarding vacancies in Central/State Information Commissions as well as the proposed timelines for appointment of Information Commissioners thereto.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a PIL raising the issue of large number of vacancies in information commissions set up under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Supreme Court Allows SDF Functionaries To Withdraw Pleas Challenging Reduction In Sikkim CM's Disqualification Period
Case Details: Bimal Dawari Sharma, General Secretary, Sikkim Democratic Front Party v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 792/2019
Considering applications for withdrawal filed on behalf of the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed two petitions challenging the appointment of Prem Singh Tamang as Chief Minister of Sikkim and the Election Commission's reduction of his disqualification period (upon conviction) from 6 years to 1 year.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the petitioners' claims that they never authorized anyone to file the subject petitions. Although it was suggested that the petitioners - Sikkim Democratic Front Party functionaries - were acting under pressure to withdraw the petitions, the Court said that it cannot force anyone to continue pursuing a matter.
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Supreme Court Seeks Ashish Mishra's Response On Allegations Of Threatening Witnesses
Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court sought the response of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, on allegations of threatening witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case related to killing of 5 persons in October 2021, when vehicles of his convoy allegedly ran over a group of farmers who were protesting against the farm laws.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, considering an application filed alleging that Mishra threatened witnesses in the case.
'Strange Facts': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Municipal Corporation Over Demolition Of Delhi Public Library In Karol Bagh
Case Details: Delhi Library Board v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued show-cause notice to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the owner of a building that housed the Delhi Public Library in Karol Bagh, New Delhi, regarding the demolition of the building in 2018.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concern over the circumstances surrounding the demolition, which occurred shortly after the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL against the demolition, without giving time to the affected parties.
Are Medical College HoD Appointments Governed By NMC Regulations? Supreme Court Seeks National Medical Commission's View
Case Details: Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
In a plea concerning the law regarding the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges, the Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a necessary party to the case.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was dealing with a plea against Karnataka High Court's decision holding that HoD is not an administrative post and is not governed by NMC regulation on administrative posts.
Supreme Court To Balance Competing Claims For Hospital & Open Prison; Appoints Registrar To Inspect Rajasthan Correctional Home
Case Details: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court on November 25 appointed a Registrar as the "Court Commissioner" for the site inspection of the Sanganer open-air prison in Rajasthan after a contempt petition was filed, alleging that the part of the area allotted to the prison has been taken away by the Rajasthan Government for constructing a 300-bed hospital.
The order adds: "We are also of the considered view that there has to be a balance between the needs of having the Open Correctional Home and also a Hospital, which shall cater to the needs of the citizens residing in the vicinity."
UAPA | Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of Man Booked Over Alleged ISIS Links, Expunges Madras HC's Remarks
Case Details: State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Asif Musthaheen, SLP(Crl) No. 015582 / 2024
The Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to one Asif Musthaheen, booked over alleged ISIS links, Al-Qaeda ideology and plans to kill members of Hindu organisations.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. Although the grant of bail, primarily on account of long incarceration, was not interfered with, the Court expunged certain remarks made by the Madras High Court in the impugned order. These related to:
(i) the evidentiary value of text messages;
(ii) prima facie no offence under Section 38 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Act being made out; and
(iii) whether there was any illegality/irregularity on the issue of sanction.
"Such observations by the High Court while deciding a bail application are apparently out of context, and the same are thus expunged, and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other matter" said the bench.
Supreme Court Asks Animal Welfare Board To Get Approval For Rules On Birth Control Of Feral & Free-Ranging Dogs In Wildlife Areas
Case Details: Bombay Natural History Society v. Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 97/2024
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to get approval "quickly" from the concerned Ministry of the Government of India in regard to the rules concerning birth control of feral, free-ranging and domestic dogs attacking or hunting wildlife in protected areas and forests which is arrived in consonance with the present petitioner and the Animal Welfare Board of India.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanuallah in its order stated that "it is hoped that a decision on this will be taken within 4 weeks."
UP Police Enjoying Power, Needs To Be Sensitised: Supreme Court
Case Details: Anurag Dubey Alias Dabban v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 46437/2024
Expressing strong disapproval of the Uttar Pradesh police's dealing of a case, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court remarked that the police in UP is "enjoying power" and "needs to be sensitized". The judge further commented that the state police seemed to be "entering a dangerous area" and warned that a drastic order would be passed if the petitioner before the Court is touched.
A bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and noted that the petitioner, against whom multiple FIRs were registered, was seemingly under the fear that a new case would be registered against him if he appeared for investigation.
As such, it was directed that the petitioner abide by any notice served by the Investigating Officer on his mobile phone. However, he will not be taken into police custody, without prior permission from the court.
'This Is Your Way Of Encouraging Sportspersons?': Supreme Court Criticises Himachal Govt For Opposing Appointment Of Asian Games Medallist
Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Pooja Thakur and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 990/2024
The Supreme Court criticized the Himachal Pradesh Government for denying appointment to an Asian gold medallist in the sports quota.
"This is your way of encouraging sportspersons? Somebody won a gold medal in the Asian games of 2014, your CM should have adopted a pragmatic approach," the Court asked.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the case concerning the appointment of Kabaddi player Pooja Thakur.
The Court refused to interfere with the 2023 High Court order which upheld a single judge's order directing Thakur's appointment to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer effective from the date of her application to the Chief Minister in July 2015.
Delhi Air Pollution - Court Commissioners Report 'Abject Failure' In Implementing GRAP-IV Measures; Supreme Court Seeks NCR States' Response
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Court Commissioners' reports indicated "abject failure" on the part of the authorities in implementing the GRAP-IV measures to address the severe problem of air pollution in Delhi.
The Court called for a response from the National Capital Region (NCR) states by Monday (December 2) on the measures they propose to take against the breaches which have been specifically pointed out by the Court Commissioners.
"The immediate issue which needs to be addressed is that the trucks are allowed to enter the limits of Delhi and then after travelling some distance they are taking a u-turn back to from where they have arrived. This issue also needs to be addressed," the Court observed in its order.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the directions while hearing the MC Mehta case to deal with the air quality crisis in the national capital.
The Court emphasized the need for a mechanism to monitor instances of stubble burning throughout the day, emphasising that the current satellite monitoring for only a few hours of the day is not sufficient.
The Court said that it will take a call on imposing a year-round ban on firecrackers in Delhi NCR on Monday after hearing the Delhi government and NCR states.
'You've Slaughtered 6 People & CJM Is Granting You Bail! Never Heard Of': Supreme Court Denies Relief To Convicts
Case Details: Mohd. Jaheer @ Munne and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 13948-13949/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed SLPs filed by four persons, challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court whereby their post-conviction bail was cancelled.
They were convicted of murdering six persons but were subsequently granted interim bail by a Chief Judicial Magistrate.
In a peculiar set of facts, the convicts were released on bail on March 11 based on compliance with the directions passed by the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh on January 10.
The matter came before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
'Classic Case Of How System Operates & Delays Trial': Supreme Court While Allowing Accused To Recall Witness After Over 3 Years
Case Details: Nadeem v. State of UP
The Supreme Court lamented systematic delays in trial after noting that the trial court illegally recorded the complainant's evidence in a POCSO case in the absence of the accused and his advocate and then both the trial court and the High Court rejected a recall application to allow the accused to cross-examine the complainant.
“This is a classic case that indicates how the system operates and trial is delayed…The trial court could not have recorded evidence of PW1 in the absence of the appellant and his advocate. After noting this illegality in the order dated 30.05.2023 the trial court rejected the application…This was a case where there was a clear prejudice to the appellant and therefore the trial court itself should have allowed the application”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further criticised the public prosecutor and the government lawyer for opposing the recall application before the trial court and the High Court respectively.
Muzaffarnagar Student Slapping Case | Authorities Not Acknowledging Problem Of Religious Discrimination: PIL Petitioner Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat told the Supreme Court that while Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 exists to protect children against religious discrimination in school, the authorities are not acknowledging the problem and addressing it.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a PIL filed by activist Tushar Gandhi concerning the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case and the implementation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The case involves allegations of religious discrimination and physical punishment of a minor student by a teacher in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court directed Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad of Uttar Pradesh to appear on the next date and ensure the release of travel reimbursements to the child's father before the next hearing.
Supreme Court Seeks Undertaking From School Employee Not To Protest While Being Part Of Institution
Case Details: K. Shahul Hameed v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court while hearing a former school employee's plea against dismissal for protesting alleged corruption in the school, orally remarked that employees cannot protest against their employer while remaining part of the institution.
Justice Abhay Oka observed, “See the misconduct. You are agitating against your employer. See if you want to protest against corruption etc. you must get out of the institution and then protest. You are employee. You are sitting on Satyagraha in front of the school gate. Students have to follow discipline teachers have to also follow discipline.”
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih sought an undertaking from the employee that he would not indulge in such activities in the future. The court also clarified that even if the penalty is modified, the issue of back wages would not arise.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Suspended Trinamool Congress Leader Kuntal Ghosh In CBI Case Over Cash-for-Jobs Scam
Case Details: Kuntal Ghosh v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 13352/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to suspended Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case registered by CBI.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted the relief considering the unlikelihood of the trial completing soon. Although a chargesheet was filed in January 2024, the Special Court did not take cognisance as no documents were appended to it. Also, the CBI is proposing to file supplementary chargesheets.
Sambhal Masjid: Supreme Court Asks Trial Court To Defer Proceedings Till Survey Order Is Challenged, Keep Commissioner Report Sealed
Case Details: Committee of Management, Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. | SLP(C) No.28500/2024
The Supreme Court asked the Sambhal Trial Court not to proceed in the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi, till the petition filed by the Masjid Committee against the survey order is listed in the Allahabad High Court.
The Court also directed that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who conducted the survey of the mosque, should be kept in a sealed cover and should not be opened in the meantime.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the petition filed by the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee challenging the trial court's order passed on November 19 directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the mosque was built after destroying a temple.
The CJI expressed concerns over the need to maintain peace amongst the communities in the Sambhal District and told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appearing for Uttar Pradesh Administration that: "Peace and harmony have to be maintained. We don't want anything to happen...we have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure nothing wrong is done."
The Court has not disposed of the Special Leave Petition filed by the mosque committee and chose to keep it pending. The petition filed by the Mosque Committee before the High Court should be listed within three working days, the Court ordered.
Supreme Court Stays Revival Of Disproportionate Assets Case Against Ex-TN CM O Paneerselvam
Case Details: O Panneerselvam v. State Rep By Deputy Superintendent of Police and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16221/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice against the Madras High Court's order setting aside the discharge of O Panneerselvam, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and his family members in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act over alleged disproporation assets. In the meanwhile, the Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order.
A bench of Justices Hrishkesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti briefly heard senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohagti, Siddharth Luthra and S. Nagamuthu appearing for various accused persons
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Ex-MP S Venugopal Chary's Challenge To Conviction, Sentence For Allegedly Hurting Police Official; Exempted From Surrender
Case Details: S. Venugopala Chary v. State of Telangana (Previously State of A.P.), SLP(Crl) No. 15149/2024
While issuing notice on S Venugopala Chary's plea challenging his conviction and sentence (6 months) in a case involving allegations of hitting a police official, the Supreme Court extended the exemption from surrender granted earlier to the former MP.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Anwar Dhebar On Medical Grounds In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case
Case Details: State of Chhattisgarh v. Anwar Dhebar
The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Anwar Dhebar, the elder brother of Raipur Mayor and Congress leader Aijaz Dhebar, in a corruption and cheating case related to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The bail had been granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court on medical grounds.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, in plea by state of Chhattisgarh against the HC order, noted the medical board's opinion that Dhebar was stable and had no serious medical ailments.
The Court said that the Chhattisgarh High Court should have had Dhebar's medical condition examined by a medical board before considering medical bail.
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice Over Illegal Tree Felling In Mathura-Vrindavan, Asks UP Govt To Consider Amending Tree Preservation Act
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued contempt notice to owners of Dalmia Farm, a private land in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) for felling 454 trees in the area without prior permission of the Court.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning illegal tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
Additionally, the Court ordered that tree-felling activities for which permission is granted must not take place between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the TTZ area.
The court also requested the Uttar Pradesh government to consider amending the Uttar Pradesh Tree preservation Act to enhance the penalties and the amount permissible for compounding of offenses of violation of the Act.
'Disgusted That This Court Is Repeatedly Taken On A Ride': Supreme Court On Suppression Of Facts In Yet Another Remission Plea
Case Details: Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Supreme Court expressed disgust over repeated instances of material suppression in remission petitions after discovering that a convict seeking remission had suppressed material facts by simultaneously having approached the Delhi High Court for similar relief without disclosing this to the Supreme Court.
“In one sentence, we feel disgusted that this court is taken on a ride in such matters, not in one matter, but several matters”, Justice Abhay Oka said.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the petitioner to explain her actions and observed that stringent measures, including contempt proceedings might be required for suppressing facts.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL For Checks On Prasad, Food Items Distributed In Religious Places; Asks Litigant To Approach FSSAI
Case Details: Preeti Harihara Mahapatra v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 780/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking quality regulation of prasad/food items distributed at religious places across the country.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for petitioner) who contended that there should be pan-India regulations to address the issue, which can be enforced.