IndexCitationK. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 010894 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 759Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Ors| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 609/2024 2024 LiveLaw...
Index
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757
Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 010894 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758
State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 759
Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Ors| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 609/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 760
Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 761
V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 762
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 763
Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 764
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 765
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 766
Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 767
Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 768
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 769
Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal C.A. No. 8629/2024 and 726 connected cases 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 772
Khalsa University and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 774
K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 775
Rama Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., Crl.A. No. 2623-2631/2014 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 776
In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024] 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 777
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 778
Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779
National Commission For Indian System of Medicine v. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital, C.A. No. 010938 / 2024 (and connected case) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 780
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, SLP (C) No. 7257 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 781
Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 782
Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 Livelaw (SC) 783
Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 784
Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785
Nipun Aneja and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786
Laxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 787
State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 788
K. Cheriya Koya v. Mohammed Nazer MP & Ors. Etc., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11916-11919/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789
Rajesh Mitra @Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. v. Karnani Properties Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 3593-3594 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 791
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792
Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 793
RP Garg v. Chief General Manager, Telecom Department & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10472 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794
Shingara Singh v. Diljith Singh and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 795
Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 796
Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 797
Renjith KG & Ors. v. Sheeba, Civil Appeal Nos. 8315 – 8316 of 2014 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 798
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v. Jhabua Power Limited and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos 10046-10047 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 799
Harshad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl.A. No. 4080 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 800
The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Etc. v. R. Agila Etc, SLP (C) No(s).13070- 13075/2022 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 801
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Peerzada Shah Fahad 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 802
Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Anr., Civil Appeals Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3050 of 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 803
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Srinivas D Sridhar 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 804
Lalu Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Arising Out Of SLP (Crl) No.9371 of 2018 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 805
The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/S Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11117 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 806
IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 8159-8160/2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 807
In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 808
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No.213/2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 809
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810
Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Anr. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1234/2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 811
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.| C.A. No. 003098 - 003099 / 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 812
Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors, Civil Appeal No.613 of 2017 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 813
Asim Akhtar v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004247 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 814
CoC of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 815
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 817
Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 007963 - / 2023 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 818
Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820
Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. & Anr. Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 821
Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/S Sidhartha Tiles And Sanitary Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 011723 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 823
S. P. Pandey v. Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 824
Vidyasagar Prasad v. Uco Bank & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 825
Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran | Diary No. - 35406/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Citibank 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 827
Suhas Chakma v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 1082/2020 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 828
Akbal Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 829
Abhishek and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 830
KC Kaushik and others v. State of Haryana and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 831
State of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish C.A. No. 000151 / 2007 & Other Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 832
Sindhi Sangat v. Union Of India D No. 43504/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 833
Pooja Sharma v. Union Of India and Anr. W.P. (Crl.) No. 398/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834
Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 835
In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 836
Saroj & Ors. v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., C.A. No. 012077 - 012078 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 837
Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs v. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 838
N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village Industries Board, Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 839
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 840
The Management, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd v. Lenin Kumar Ray, Arising out of SLP (C) 12876 of 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 841
Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004278 / 2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 842
Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 843
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 844
Nanhak Manjhi v. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl) No. 14784/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 845
Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 846
K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 847
Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 848
Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam, Diary No. 44449-2024
Siddique v. State of Kerala and Anr. SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Praveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. SLP(C) No. 22831/2024
Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023
Raja Iqbal Singh v. Shelly Oberoi and Anr., Diary No. 44879/2024
Kuntal Ghosh v. Enforcement Directorate (Kolkata Zone), WP (Crl.) No. 397/2024
XYZ v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 534/2020
Sunil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement| SLP(Crl) No. 11755/2024
Vatti Janaiah v. State of Telangana | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12098/2023
Bharat Udyog Limited v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Punjab
Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association v. Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors
Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 402/2024
Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association v. Bar Council of Delhi
In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020
MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement
Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.
Mathews J Nedumpara and Anr. v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. Diary No 18045/2024
Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh | D No. 35624/2024
Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11376/2024
Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., Diary No. 46862-2024
Priya Mishra and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 22945-2024
Pankaj Oswal v. Vikas Pahwa, Diary No. 19381-2024
Arun Ramchandra Hublikar v. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Ors., Diary No. 38245-2023
Firoz Bakht Ahmed v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 9236/2024
Priya Mishra & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd | R.P.(C) No. 359/2023
State of Karnataka v. Bhavani Revanna, SLP(Crl) No. 8386/2024
Isha Foundation v. S. Kamaraj and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 13992/2024
State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024
Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 10235/2024
Abbas Ansari v. Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad, SLP(Crl) No. 10598/2024
State of Jharkhand v. Rabindra Gope, Diary No. 42056-2024
Shashank Shekhar Jha and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 669/2024
State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 666/2024
Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 380/2024
Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Bhallaram Choudhary v. Dharma Production Private Limited SLP(C) No. 24581/2024
Salman @Mufti Mohammad Salman Azhari v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11682 of 2024
State of Telangana and Ors. v. M/S Heera Gold Exim Private Limited and Ors., Crl.A. No. 761-762/2021
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Kundan Singh & Anr, SLP (C) No. 2388 of 2019
Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka Diary No. - 46413/2024
Dr SN Kundra v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 567/2024
Arvind Kejriwal v. Piyush M. Patel |D No. 11230/2024
Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Pogula Rambabu v. State of Telangana and Ors. Diary No. 48483-2024
Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024
International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.
Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, MA 2121/2024 in Crl.A. No. 2022/2023
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 (and connected matters)
Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023
Ghulam Nabi Guide v. Union Of India and Ors. Diary No. 18738-2024
Jai Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No . 293/2019
Commissioner Of CGST Delhi West & Ors. v. Gunjan Bindal & Anr., Diary No(s). 44061/2024
Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 4063-4064/2022 (and connected cases)
Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, R.P.(Crl.) No. 512/ 2024
Ankit Tiwari v. Inspector of Police | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3342-3343 of 2024
Chandraprabhav. Union of India
Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 441 / 2024
Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
National Federation Of Indian Women v. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ors., Diary No. 49497-2024
Siddharth Sharma v. High Court Of Judicature At Rajasthan | Writ Petition (Civil) No.710/2024
Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 12036/2024
Auliya-E-Deen Committee v. State of Gujarat | SLP(C) No. 24515/2024
The Addl. Superintendent Of Police and Anr. v. Showik Indrajit Chakraborty, Diary No. 43258-2024
Madhu Koda v. State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation, Diary No. 49236-2024
Sharjeel Imam v. State (NCT Of Delhi), W.P.(Crl.) No. 422/2024
Nagalakshmi Laxmi Narayanan v. Union of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India
Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024
Tishan Jangid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan & Anr.
Aftab Anwar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra SLP (CrlP No. 8212/2024)
Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024
Judgments
S. 173(8) CrPC | No Further Investigation Be Ordered If Application Was Filed Without Any Fresh Material: Supreme Court
Case Details: K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should refrain from ordering further investigation when the party requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has not whispered about anything new in its evidence and has based its application for further investigation without averring fresh materials.
“Where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court. However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for further investigation, in this case respondent no. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application. There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.
Supreme Court Upholds Punishment of Censure On UP Police Sub-Inspector For Not Completing Investigations On Time
Case Details: Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 010894 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758
The Supreme Court upheld a penalty of censure imposed on a Sub-Inspector of Police in Uttar Pradesh for not performing his duties and not completing the assigned investigations within the specified time frame. The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that no opportunity was offered to him before handing down of penalty by the SP. It recorded that an order issued by the Additional DGP based on which SP decided to penalize the Appellant was based on an explanation offered by the Appellant.
HC Must Say Why State Police Investigation Is Unfair Before Ordering CBI Probe: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Jashimuddin Mondal and Ors., SLP(C) No. 9628/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 759
The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order directing preliminary investigation by the CBI, holding that such directions can be passed only in very rare cases, and that too, after the High Court records reasons for deeming State investigation to be unfair or impartial.
"The High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can entrust investigation to the CBI. However, for doing so, it has to come to a reasoning as to why it finds that investigation by State police is not fair or is partisan. Merely, on the basis of some letters, such exercise is not warranted. It has also been held that such an exercise of entrusting the investigation by the High Court has to be done in very rare cases. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge would reveal that there is not even a whisper as to why it finds the investigation by the state to be unfair or impartial so as to find it necessary to direct an enquiry to be conducted by CBI. For the very same reasons, the order passed by the learned Division Bench is also not sustainable in law", said the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
'We Can't Let Such A Talented Boy Go Away:' Supreme Court Directs IIT To Admit Dalit Student Who Lost Admission Due To Delay In Paying Fee
Case Details: Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Ors| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 609/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 760
The Supreme Court granted relief to a Dalit student who lost his admission to the Indian Institute of Technology(IIT) because he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra directed that the petitioner should be admitted to the seat at the Electrical Engineering course at IIT Dhanbad which was allotted to him.
The Court stated that a supernumerary seat be created for him to accommodate him so that the admission of no other student is disturbed.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Condition That YouTuber Must Shut Down YouTube Channel For Bail
Case Details: Felix Jerald v. State | SLP(Crl) No. 11762/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 761
The Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the Madras High Court that YouTuber Felix Jerald should shut down his YouTube channel “RedPix 24x7” for getting bail in the criminal case over alleged scandalous remarks in the interview of 'Savukku' Shankar uploaded on the channel.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that such a bail condition was extraneous to the issue and was unnecessary. The bench confirmed its September 6 order which stayed the High Court's condition.
Changes To Government Order Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Alter Established Seniority Rankings: Supreme Court
Case Details: V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8617 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 762
The Supreme Court observed that the seniority of the entire cadre working in an establishment could not be disturbed via a subsequent modification in the Government Order (G.O.) fixing the seniority of an employee in an establishment.
The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan said that giving a retrospective effect to the modification made in the G.O. (based on which the seniority was determined in an establishment) would have a catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre.
“if a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively. Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made.”, the court observed.
'Strange': Supreme Court Slams NCPCR For Filing Petition Seeking 'Vague & Omnibus' Directions Against Missionary Organisations
Case Details: National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 763
The Supreme Court criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for filing a writ petition seeking "vague and omnibus" directions against alleged illegal child trade by missionary organisations.
The Court termed the NCPCR's petition "strange" and said that a statutory organisation could not have filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for such reliefs. Article 32 is intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and a statutory body cannot invoke it to seek relief against private citizens, the Court added.
The petition was filed in 2020 alleging illegal sale of children in the charity homes run by the Missionaries of Charity. The NCPCR sought a court-monitored timebound investigation of all "such organizations" in the State of Jharkhand. It also sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team in every State to investigate "similar organisations." Apart from Jharkhand, the NCPCR added the States of Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh as respondents.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathana and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the petition after finding the reliefs "vague and omnibus."
Supreme Court Criticizes Finance Ministry For Treating Debts Recovery Tribunal As “Subordinate Department”, Seeks Explanation
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 764
The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the Ministry of Finance treating the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Visakhapatnam as its subordinate department after a report revealed that DRT staff had been diverted to carry out tasks assigned by the Finance Ministry.
The report, which was submitted by the Presiding Officer of the DRT, detailed that staff members had to devote substantial time and efforts to collate data requested by the Ministry, which significantly hindered the tribunal's ability to conduct its proceedings.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Section Officer (DRT) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services seeking explanation as to why the DRT was being treated like a department of the central government. The officer was directed to appear before the Court on October 21, 2024, to provide a full explanation.
Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Implement Centre's Guidelines On School Safety and Security
Case Details: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 765
The Supreme Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to implement the “Guidelines on School Safety and Security, 2021” issued by the Union Government to fix responsibility of school management to protect children from natural disasters, health hazards, abuse, violence, and accidents.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stated –
“Consequently, the State Governments as well as the Union Territories are expected to adopt the guidelines and to implement the same with suitable modifications as and when necessary… Respondent No.2 (NCPCR) to also coordinate with the respective State Governments and Union Territories for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Guidelines referred to above.”
The Court passed this order in a public interest litigation filed by 'Bachpan Bachao Andolan' seeking several reliefs to ensure the safety and security of children in schools, both government and private.
Free Copy Of NCLT Order & Copy Of Order Obtained On Paying Cost Are 'Certified Copies' For Filing NCLAT Appeal: Supreme Court
Case Details: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 766
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which refused to condone delay in filling an appeal because of the filling of a 'free copy' of the impugned order.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra held that there was no difference between a free certified copy of the order and a certified copy which is obtained after paying cost under Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016.
Supreme Court Orders Centre to Pay Interest on 1971 Indo-Pak War Veteran's Disability Pension Arrears
Case Details: Colonel Mahinder Kumar Engrs (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 767
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to pay interest on the arrears of disability pension to a retired army officer who lost his right leg below the knee during the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Pankaj Mihal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah partly allowed an appeal by the veteran seeking interest on arrears of his disability pension after it was enhanced by the Armed Forced Tribunal.
“Learned ASG appearing for the respondent submits that though the appellant was not entitled to get the relief prior to 01.01.2016, it is only because the appellant has sustained injuries in the Indo-Pak war that the respondent did not challenge the impugned judgement. The fact remains that the entitlement of the appellant as granted by the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent. It is true that the Original Application was belatedly filed on 16th March 2022. In our view, appellant ought to have been granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the differential amount as directed to be paid in terms of paragraph 8 of the judgement for a period of 3 years starting from 17th March 2019 till the date of payment of arrears in terms of paragraph 8 of the impugned judgement. We grant time of 3 months to the respondent to pay the interest amount. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms”, the Court observed.
Supreme Court “Showing Magnanimity” Closes Contempt Proceedings Against UP Official For False Affidavit, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Cost On State
Case Details: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 768
The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the former Principal Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Prisons Administration Department for making false statement in his affidavit filed to explain delay in deciding remission plea of a convict.
“We can go deep into the matter and fix the responsibility, but we are facing huge pendency of cases and therefore we do not feel it appropriate to waste time on such matters especially when notwithstanding grant of opportunity to the officers to come clean, they have not chosen to come clean. If magnanimity has to be shown, it is to be shown by persons occupying the highest judicial office and therefore to save time of the court we have decided to show magnanimity and close the proceedings including notice of contempt…However we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay cost of Rs. 5 lakhs to the UP State Legal Services Authority within one month. As the petitioner has been granted order of premature release, nothing further is required to be disposed of.”
Such Litigants Have No Place In Court: Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Fine On Litigant Company For Suppression of Facts
Case Details: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Avishek Gupta
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 769
The Supreme Court came down heavily on a litigant for suppressing material facts in its two appeals and filing affidavits that sought to justify such suppression.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs in each case on the litigant company, who has filed the SLPs challenging orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
The Court in its order noted that the appellants had suppressed material facts in both appeals and had adopted an “adventurous approach” by filing a 19-page affidavit and annexing 300 pages of documents. The affidavit, meant to explain the appellant's conduct, instead fully justified the suppression of facts, the Court stated.
Mere Existence Of Benchmark Disability Won't Disqualify Candidate From MBBS Course: Supreme Court
Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39448/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770
The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of a benchmark disability is not a reason to bar a person from pursuing medical education unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that that candidate is incapacitated from studying the MBBS course.
Mere quantification of the disability will not disbar a candidate and the capacity to pursue the course has to be examined by the disability assessment board
The negative opinion of the disability assessment board is not final and can be reviewed by the judicial bodies till appellate forums are created, the Court added.
End Caste-Based Allotment of Work To Prisoners, Delete Caste Column In Prison Registers: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771
The Supreme Court laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.
The Court struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.
TOLA Extends Income Tax Reasssment Timelimit; Notices Can Be Issued After 2021 Under Old Regime: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal C.A. No. 8629/2024 and 726 connected cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 772
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts which held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act) (TOLA) 2021 will not extend the time limit for issuing notices for re-assessment under the Income Tax Act.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment allowing a batch of 727 appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the various orders passed by the High Courts.
'No Special Circumstance To Justify Law Affecting Single Entity': Supreme Court Strikes Down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017
Case Details: Khalsa University and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773
Observing that it would be impermissible for the legislature to single out one entity from other entities without a reasonable classification, the Supreme Court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 (“Repeal Act”) as unconstitutional which sought to single out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared the Repeal Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the constitution because no reasonable classification was pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities.
GST Input Tax Credit On Construction Costs Can Be Claimed If Building Construction Was Necessary For Renting Out Service: Supreme Court
Case Details: Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 774
The Supreme Court held that if construction of a building is essential for supplying services such as renting out, it could fall into the "plant" exception to section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act which provides that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed for construction material (other than plant or machinery) for immovable property construction.
“If the construction of a building was essential for carrying out activity of supplying services such as renting or giving on lease or other transactions in respect of the buildings or part thereof which are covered by clauses 2 and 5 of the Schedule 2 of the CGST Act, the building could be held as a plant. Functionality test will have to be applied to decide whether building is a plant”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held that the functionality test will have to be applied to the facts of each case to decide whether a building is a plant.
Criminal Cases Having Overwhelmingly Civil Character Should Be Quashed When Parties Settled Dispute: Supreme Court
Case Details: K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 775
The Supreme Court observed that criminal cases arising out of civil transactions should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
“It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the position that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.
Delay In Forwarding FIR To Magistrate Wouldn't Be Fatal To Prosecution's Case If No Prejudice Caused To Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rama Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., Crl.A. No. 2623-2631/2014 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 776
The Supreme Court observed that a mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate would not be fatal to the prosecution's case unless it is shown by the accused that the delay had caused prejudice to his case.
“This Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2016), has examined the case law on the subject and held that when there is a delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate and the accused raises a specific contention regarding the same, they must demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case. Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and R. Mahadevan held so while reversing the Patna High Court's decision which had acquitted the accused persons in connection with former Bihar Minister Brij Bihari Prasad's Murder case.
'You Can't Call Any Part Of India As "Pakistan"': Supreme Court Disapproves Of Karnataka HC Judge's Comments, Accepts Apology
Case Details: In Re: Remarks By High Court Judge During Court Proceedings [SMW (C) No(s). 9/2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 777
The Supreme Court cautioned that judges should avoid casual comments which are misogynistic and prejudicial to any community.
A 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the suo motu matter relating to the viral clippings of the controversial comments made by Justice V Srishanandan of Karnataka High Court during hearings.
"Casual observations may well reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they are likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or community. Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society," the bench observed in the order.
Tirupati Laddu Row: Supreme Court Forms SIT To Probe Ghee Adulteration Allegation
Case Details: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, W.P.(C) No. 622/2024 (and connected cases)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 778
The Supreme Court constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations about the use of adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus offered as prasadam at Tirumala Tirupati Temple.
Saying that an independent body will inspire confidence, the Court substituted the SIT which was formed by the Andhra Pradesh Government.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the controversy relating to Tirupati laddus.
Govt Should Act Fairly In Tender Matters, Deviations From Essential Contract Term To Apply To All Bidders: Supreme Court
Case Details: Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 779
While dealing with a Mega project tender matter, the Supreme Court observed that though a Court cannot sit in appeal over government authorities' decision to enter into contracts, they shall act fairly, reasonably and in a transparent manner. If they exercise authority to deviate from an essential term of a contract, the same shall apply across all bidders and not a selective few.
"Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner", said a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Supreme Court Criticises HC Order Which Allowed Provisional College Admission Despite SC Staying Similar Order of Previous Year
Case Details: National Commission For Indian System of Medicine v. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital, C.A. No. 010938 / 2024 (and connected case)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 780
Dealing with the issue of colleges being permitted to participate in admission process on the strength of interim judicial orders, the Supreme Court called out the Madhya Pradesh High Court for passing an order akin to the one stayed by the top Court last year, saying that the practice was not in conformity with "judicial propriety".
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed that inspite of several orders passed by the Supreme Court deprecating the practice of High Courts permitting colleges to participate in admission process by interim orders, the MP High Court again passed an interim order permitting respondent No.1-college to participate in the admission process.
Final Select List Can't Be Scrapped For Fresh Appointment Process As Per New Rules: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, SLP (C) No. 7257 of 2023.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 781
The Supreme Court held that the action of the Bihar Government to scrap the entire selection for the post of Junior Engineer issued through a 2019 notification by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) is not permissible after the whole selection process has already taken place.
S. 389 CrPC | Suspension of Sentence Can't Be Denied Merely Because Another Trial Is Pending Against Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 782
The Supreme Court observed that a pendency of trial against the accused in one case cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of a suspension of sentence.
The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted a relief to the accused who were convicted in a murder case but denied the benefit of the suspension of sentence by the High Court.
'Acknowledge Women's Struggles In Occupying Public Offices': Supreme Court Flags Discriminatory Attitude Towards Women Representatives
Case Details: Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (SC) 783
While granting relief to a female Sarpach of a village who was disqualified on technical grounds, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the discriminatory attitudes which permeate through all levels of administration towards women representatives.
The Court observed that the matter related to the removal of an elected representative should not be taken lightly, especially when it concerns women in rural areas.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Watchman Convicted For Dacoity And Murder
Case Details: Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 784
The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence of a watchman convicted for the dacoity and murder of his employers to life imprisonment.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra, and Justice KV Vishwanathan set aside the death penalty imposed by the Bombay High Court in 2022.
“The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the material placed on record had come to a considered conclusion that the present case does not fit in the category of the 'rarest of rare' cases. Therefore, unless the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge was found to be perverse or impossible, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same”, the Court held.
Supreme Court Disapproves Uttarakhand HC Judge's Proclivity In Making Unjustified Remarks Against Advocates
Case Details: Siddhartha Singh v. Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 785
The Supreme Court set aside two orders of the Uttarakhand High Court that contained adverse remarks made by a High Court judge against an advocate.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the comments made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the HC regarding the advocate's conduct were unjustified and illegal.
“We disapprove the proclivity of the learned Judge of the High Court in making remarks against advocates for nothing so serious to take note of”, the Court added.
When Can Official Superiors Be Liable For Abetment Of Suicide Of Employee? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Nipun Aneja and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786
The Supreme Court explained when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that behind the act of suicide can be categorized into two broad categories i.e., where the deceased is having sentimental ties with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.
'No Scheduled Offence In Complaint Or Chargesheet': Supreme Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Laxmikant Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 787
The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused, Laxmikant Tiwari and Shiv Shankar Naag, in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the absence of a scheduled offence at the time of filing of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Judgment Which Was Signed & Uploaded After Judge's Retirement
Case Details: State through the Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 788
The Supreme Court restored a quashing petition related to a corruption case to the file of the Madras High Court, noting that the judgment in the case was signed and uploaded after the judge, Justice T. Mathivanan, had retired.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted the report of the Registrar General and the Joint Registrar of the Personal Assistance Section of the Madras HC that indicated that the detailed judgment was received from the judge after his retirement on May 26, 2017.
Justice Abhay Oka, after dictating the order, emphasized, “There should not be a single incident like this” referring to the issuance of the detailed judgment after the judge's retirement.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC's Orders For Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lakshadweep Judicial Officer
Case Details: K. Cheriya Koya v. Mohammed Nazer MP & Ors. Etc., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11916-11919/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 789
The Supreme Court set aside orders for disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer, noting that the records pertaining to the case alleged to have been mishandled by him were not considered by the Kerala High Court at the time of passing of orders for suspension and enquiry. The same rendered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings legally invalid, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with the case of a suspended Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
New Act Will Not Take Away Rights Accrued Under Repealed Law Unless Such Intention Is Expressed In New Statute: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajesh Mitra @Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. v. Karnani Properties Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 3593-3594 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790
The Supreme Court observed that the rights accrued under an old Act cannot extinguished with the enforcement of the new Act unless a retrospective effect was given to the New Act.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale said so while deciding a tenancy dispute where the rights inherited by the Appellants/tenants under the Old Tenancy Act after the death of the main tenant were extinguished by way of the New Tenancy Act i.e., the provision of the New Tenancy Act was given a retrospective effect without making a provision in the New Tenancy Act regarding its retrospective application.
The Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission.
According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized under Order XII Rule 6.
Juvenile Justice Act | Plea Of Juvenelity Can Be Raised Even After Conviction & Sentence Attained Finality: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 791
The Supreme Court observed that the plea of juvenility can be filed even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kostiswar Singh acquitted the accused in a murder case who had filed a plea for juvenility after the order of conviction and sentence was passed against him.
Supreme Court Upholds Manipur HC Direction Setting Aside Selection Of 242 Primary Teachers
Case Details: Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792
The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti held that the State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies.
HCs Fix Deadline For Trial Just For Psychological Satisfaction Of Parties, Such Orders Don't Work & Are Impermissible: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 793
The Supreme Court said that the trend of High Courts directing trial courts to conclude trial within a set time frame instead of granting bail, without considering the trial courts' case backlogs is impermissible.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail to two accused in a case of dacoity and attempt to murder, citing their prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
“Now we will tell you the trend in High Courts. That case is made out for grant of bail, courts are reluctant to grant then courts say alright decide the case within 6 months without knowing what is the pendency in trial court just to give psychological satisfaction to everybody. Such orders don't work and such orders are not permissible in light of the Constitution Bench judgement”, Justice Oka remarked.
Arbitration | Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b): Supreme Court
Case Details: RP Garg v. Chief General Manager, Telecom Department & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10472 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794
The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
“For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be paid under the Arbitral Award shall carry interest. This is a first principle. A sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award must carry interest. In this view of the matter, we have restored the judgment of the District Court granting 18% interest from the date of the award to its realization.”, the Court held.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta set aside the High Court's findings, which had denied the post-award interest to the award holder noting that the contract between the parties does not permit the grant of post-award interest.
The Court observed that even an agreement between the parties not to grant post-award interest cannot eliminate the statutory right to post-award interest.
S.52 TP Act | Once Transaction Is Hit By Lis Pendens, Bona Fide Purchase Or Lack Of Notice Of Agreement Not Defences: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shingara Singh v. Diljith Singh and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 795
The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a transaction is found to be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, then the defences of being a bona fide purchaser and lack of notice regarding the sale agreement are not available.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and PK Mishra was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment, which directed the specific performance of a sale agreement, ignoring a subsequent sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit.
Sale Not A Contract; No Bar To Transfer Immovable Property To Minor: Supreme Court
Case Details: Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 796
The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar to transfer immovable property in favour of aminor by way of a sale deed.
According to the Court, the minor can become the transferee/owner by way of a sale deed and the conditions stipulated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (persons competent to contract) would not come in the way of challenging the minor's capacity to contract because a sale can't be termed as a contract.
“Though an agreement to sell is a contract of sale, going by its definition under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale cannot be said to be a contract. Sale, going by the definition thereunder, is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. The conjoint reading of all the aforesaid relevant provisions would undoubtedly go to show that they would not come in the way of transfer of an immovable property in favour of a minor or in other words, they would invariably suggest that a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property.”, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession would commence from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse and not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership.
High Court Must Apply Its Mind To Materials In Police Report Before Deciding To Quash FIR: Supreme Court
Case Details: Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 797
The Supreme Court held that a petition to quash criminal proceedings does not become infructuous on submission of a police report.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court "must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report" before taking a call on whether the proceedings should be quashed or not.
"No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused."
Order XXI Rule 99 CPC | Pendente Lite Transferee Being Stranger To Suit Can File Application: Supreme Court
Case Details: Renjith KG & Ors. v. Sheeba, Civil Appeal Nos. 8315 – 8316 of 2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 798
The Supreme Court observed that a pendente lite transferee, being a stranger to the suit, can file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against dispossession from the suit property.
Order XXI Rule 99 CPC comes to the rescue of the person who being a stranger to the suit was dispossessed by the decree holder upon the execution of the decree. It says “where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession."
The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan heard a case where the predecessor of the respondents was not a party to the suit and was dispossessed from the property, in execution of the decree passed in the suit.
S. 108 Electricity Act | State Electricity Regulatory Commission Not Bound By Directions Of State/Central Government: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v. Jhabua Power Limited and Others, Civil Appeal Nos 10046-10047 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 799
The Supreme Court observed that the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions are not bound by the Central/State Government's directions issued under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Act”).
“We are in agreement with the judgment of APTEL insofar as it holds that the directive which was issued by the State government under Section 108 could not have displaced the adjudicatory function which was entrusted to KSERC (Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission). The State government while issuing a policy directive in the exercise of its power under Section 108 cannot impinge on the adjudicatory discretion which is vested in an authority under the Act.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
Giving literal interpretation to Section 108 of the Act, the Court observed as follows:
“That the state regulatory commissions are not 'bound' by the directions of the state government, or the Central Government is also evident from the text of Section 108. The provision reads: “In the discharge of its functions, the State Commission shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy …”. This indicates that the state commission shall only be 'guided' by the directions issued by the state government and is not automatically bound by them.”
In essence, the provision, in no manner, seeks to control the exercise of quasi-judicial power by the state commissions based on directions issued by the state government.
On Transfer Of Judge Who Convicted, No Need For Fresh Hearing On Conviction; New Judge Need Hear Only On Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Harshad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl.A. No. 4080 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 800
In a case where the Trial Judge was transferred after pronouncing a judgment of conviction but prior to passing of the order on sentence, the Supreme Court held that the new Judge was not required to hear the case afresh on the point of conviction/acquittal. A hearing on the quantum of sentence alone remained to be afforded for compliance with Section 235 CrPC.
"The contention of the appellant, that with the transfer of the Presiding Officer post his conviction, the new Presiding Officer was obligated to hear him afresh even on the question of conviction, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Once the judgment...was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) was to be complied with" said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Government Employee Can't Refuse To Join New Place Of Posting While Contesting Transfer: Supreme Court
Case Details: The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Etc. v. R. Agila Etc, SLP (C) No(s).13070- 13075/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 801
The Supreme Court condemned frequent instances of transferred employees not joining new places of posting while legal or administrative challenges to their transfer are underway.
"It is not uncommon to see employees who challenge such orders of transfer before various forums, extending the litigation to several years, while choosing to not join the service and still seeking full salary, and often citing medical conditions as a ground for such inability to join. It is of utmost importance that, while the legal challenge runs its course, the needs of administration are treated paramount in comparison to the inconvenience faced by the employees in cases of transfer. In this regard, the Government employers should also take stern measures against such employees who fail to join the new places of posting without any rationale or an order of stay being in place", said a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale.
The Court opined that when a person works for the government, incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred. As such, once relieved from a particular place of posting, the employee has no right to remain absent or to refute to join the new place of posting. He can join the new place of posting and continue to contest the transfer.
"..an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer."
Supreme Court Affirms Bail Granted To Kashmir Journalist Fahad Shah, But Holds HC Judgment On UAPA Wrong
Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Peerzada Shah Fahad
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 802
The Supreme Court declared as bad in law the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court which held that an accused can be granted bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 if he does not present any "clear and present danger" to the society.
The High Court judgment, which granted bail to Kashmir-based news journalist Peerzada Shah Fahad, also held that lowering of India's global reputation cannot be held to be a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA.
While declaring the High Court judgment to be per incuriam and directing that it should not be cited as a precedent, the bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma however did not interfere with the bail granted to Fahad Shah.
Motor Accident Claims | Duty Of Court To Assess Fair Compensation Not Limited By Claimant's Rough Calculation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and Anr., Civil Appeals Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3050 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 803
The Supreme Court held that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court awarding more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be "just and reasonable."
It added that the court has a duty to calculate fair compensation, as held in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto (2022).
"It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit," the Court stated.
'Role Limited To Signing': Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of Ex-Central Bank Chairman In Corruption Case Over Credit Facility Misuse
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Srinivas D Sridhar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 804
The Supreme Court upheld the discharge of the former Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Bank of India from a cheating and corruption case for allegedly causing undue loss of over Rs. 436 Crores to the bank by hastily approving a loan.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an appeal filed by the CBI challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had discharged the respondent, Srinivas Sridhar from the case.
“After perusing the entire material and taking it as correct, perhaps the only material that creates suspicion is the speed with which the proposal of the Company was sanctioned. As far as the respondent is concerned, considering his position and the role ascribed to him in the grant of sanction to the loan proposal of the Company, mere suspicion against him is not enough to frame a charge against him”, the Court held.
'Lived Like Husband-Wife For 5 Years': Supreme Court Quashes Case Alleging Rape On False Marriage Promise
Case Details: Lalu Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Arising Out Of SLP (Crl) No.9371 of 2018
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 805
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman and impregnating her on the pretext of marriage. It found that the FIR reveals a case of long consensual sex where both the complainant and the respondent lived as husband and wife.
A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal held that although a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed for quashing the charges of rape and causing miscarriage without women's consent, the same could have been treated as a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings.
'Royalty' Imposed By Municipal Corporation For Putting Hoardings/Advertisement Can't Be Termed 'Tax': Supreme Court
Case Details: The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/S Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11117 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 806
The Supreme Court observed that the 'royalty' imposed by the Municipal Corporation on the advertising companies for putting up hoardings/advertisements could not be termed as 'tax'.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Patna High Court's Division Bench decision which directed the Patna Municipal Corporation to refund the 'royalty' collected from the advertising companies on the note that the Corporation has no legislative competence to levy & collect 'royalty' under Article 265 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that imposition of 'royalty' by the Municipal Corporation could not be called as 'compulsory exaction' to term it as 'tax'. The Court referred to the recent nine judge bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India to hold that royalty is not tax.
SARFAESI | Auction Sale Can Be Cancelled Only If Purchaser Defaults In Payment Of Balance Amount: Supreme Court
Case Details: IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 8159-8160/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 807
In a matter arising out of IDBI Bank's cancellation of an auction purchase, the Supreme Court held that an auctioneer cannot refuse to issue sale certificate if the auction purchaser has not defaulted in offering to deposit the balance auction amount.
“reason for the non-issuance of the sale certificate is solely attributable to the appellant-Bank and that there were no latches, negligence or default on part of the respondents in offering to deposit the balance auction amount. Since there is no default on their part, non-deposit of the said amount within the stipulated period would not be fatal within the meaning of sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules”, said a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of S.6A Of Citizenship Act Recognizing Assam Accord By 4:1 Majority
Case Details: In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 808
CJI DY Chandrachud in his judgment said that the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration and Section 6A was the legislative solution. The majority held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. The majority held that Section 6A was enacted to balance the humanitarian concerns with the need to protect the local population.
Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death For Alleged Murder Of Mother, Wife & 2-Yr-Old Daughter
Case Details: Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No.213/2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 809
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and the death sentence of a man for the alleged murder of his mother, wife and two-year-old daughter noting that the prosecution was unable to prove an unbroken chain of events.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan delivered the verdict. Pronouncing the decision, Justice Gavai said:
"We have found that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the intervening circumstances...and since it's a case of circumstantial evidence, in no case the prosecution has been possible to prove an unbroken chain of events which can lead to [...] Therefore, we have allowed the appeal."
Reflecting on the brutality of the murder, the High Court observed that Masalkar committed planned, cold-blooded murder of his mother, wife and daughter. "By finishing the family, the accused has tried to shatter the basic foundation of the society" it said. As such, the case pricked at the judicial conscience of the Court.
In Motor Accident Claims, Preponderance Of Probabilities Must Be Applied; Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810
The Supreme Court observed that in motor accident claim cases, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
While observing so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the motor accident compensation claim of the kin of the bike rider who was killed in a road accident after a collision with a car coming in the opposite direction in an attempt to overtake a bus.
'Marriages Fixed During Minority Of Child Violates Free Choice': Supreme Court Suggests Ban On Child Betrothals
Case Details: Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Anr. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1234/2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 811
The Supreme Court has suggested to the Parliament to consider outlawing child betrothals by amending the Prevention of Child Marriage Act(PCMA), 2006. Since that PCMA does not deal with child betrothals, the Court noted that it can be used to evade the penalties under the Act.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was delivering the judgment in a PIL filed by the Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action seeking steps to stop child marriages.
While issuing various guidelines for the prevention of child marriages, the Supreme Court refrained from deciding the issue whether the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006 overrides personal laws which sanction such marriages.
Supreme Court Upholds Maintainability Of Appeals Filed By Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Against Orders Of TDSAT On Tariff Imposition
Case Details: Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.| C.A. No. 003098 - 003099 / 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 812
The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) assailing orders of the TDSAT under the AERA Act 2008 relating to tariff imposition on certain services.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra allowed the appeals to filed by AERA in the following order :
"The appeals by AERA against TDSAT order are held to be maintainable. Registry to list the appeals for hearing."
Specific Relief Act | In Agreement To Sell Property Under Joint Ownership, Onus Is On Plaintiff To Secure Consent Of All Co-Owners: Supreme Court
Case Details: Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors, Civil Appeal No.613 of 2017
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 813
The Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell a property (being jointly owned by multiple persons), then the onus is on the plaintiff to ensure that all necessary consents and participations are secured to prove his readiness and willingness towards the performance of the contract.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Prasanna B. Varale heard a matter where the plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell a property that was jointly owned by five persons (two brothers and three sisters). Despite knowing that the sisters (co-owners) haven't consented to the sale of the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on the oral assurance of the brothers that they will procure the sisters for the execution of the sale deed.
S. 319 CrPC | No Mandate To Decide Application To Summon Additional Accuded Before Cross-Examination Of Other Witnesses: Supreme Court
Case Details: Asim Akhtar v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004247 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 814
The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar for the trial court to decide an application seeking the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even after the cross-examination of the prosecution witness.
“Therefore, the complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, and there is no mandate to decide the application under section 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale said.
'Breaches Discipline Of Law Laid Down In IBC': Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Deferring CIRP Under Article 226
Case Details: CoC of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 815
The Supreme Court took exception to the Telangana High Court ordering the deferring of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud , Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, held that the High Court was not justified in deferring the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) when the main relief sought in the writ petition uto consolidate the CIRP of two companies was refused.
Children Of Those Who Acquired Foreign Citizenship Can't Resume Indian Citizenship Under Section 8(2) Of Citizenship Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced an important judgment dealing with various provisions relating to Indian citizenship.
The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. As per Section 8(2), children of persons who have voluntarily renounced Indian citizenship can seek Indian citizenship within one year of attaining majority. The Court interpreted that this option is not available for children of those who acquired foreign citizenship.
The Court also clarified that a person who was born outside India after the commencement of the Constitution cannot seek citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution on the ground that his grandparents were born in the undivided India.
The Court held that allowing such an interpretation would lead to "absurd results", as foreign nationals born long after the independence, by claiming that their grandparents were born in the undivided India.
Banks Can Claim Tax Deductions For Broken Period Interest On HTM Securities If Held As Trading Assets: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 817
The Supreme Court held that banks can claim tax deductions for broken period interest on held to maturity (HTM) government securities if they are held as trading asset.
“Therefore, on facts, if it is found that HTM Security is held as an investment, the benefit of broken period interest will not be available. The position will be otherwise if it is held as a trading asset”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that whether HTM securities are held as investments or stock-in-trade depends on the facts of each case. If a bank holds HTM securities until maturity and values them at cost, they may be considered investments, in which case the broken period interest would not be deductible. If held as trading assets, the deduction would be available.
“Whether the Bank has held HMT security as investment or stockintrade will depend on the facts of each case. HTM Securities can be said to be held as an investment (i) if the securities are actually held till maturity and are not transferred before and (ii) if they are purchased at their cost price or face value.”
Smaller Land Sales Can Be Considered For Determining Fair & Just Land Acquisition Compensation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 007963 - / 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 818
The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar to take into account the sale of smaller pieces of land as an exemplar for determining the fair and just land acquisition compensation.
“In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same.”, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Conditions For Remission Must Be Reasonable; No Automatic Cancellation Of Remission On Breach Without Prior Notice: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819
The Supreme Court held that while the State has the discretion to impose conditions on a convict while granting permanent remission, such conditions must be reasonable.
The Court held, "The power under subsection (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, conditions imposed while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 must be reasonable. The conditions must stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may also violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that principles of natural justice must be followed before cancellation of remission due to breach of conditions.
The mere registration of a cognizable offence would not automatically result in cancellation of remission, the Court held. The Court added that State must follow natural justice principles, issuing a show-cause notice and providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond.
"The show cause notice must contain the grounds on which action under sub section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS is proposed to be taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating brief reasons. The principles of natural justice must be read into subsection (3) of Section 432 and subsection (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS. The convict whose remission has been cancelled can always adopt a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Court held.
If Judges Pronounce Only Operative Part, Then Reasons For Decision Should Be Given In 2-5 Days: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court urged the High Court judges to ensure that if they are pronouncing only the operative part of the judgment by saying that reasons will follow, then they should endeavour to give the reasons within 2-5 days.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that if a judge feels that the reasons can't be given within 5 days due to work pressure, then it would be prudent to reserve the judgment.
S. 294 CrPC | Defence Can't Be Given Chance To Discredit Prosecution Documents Which Were Admitted As Genuine By Them: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. & Anr. Etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 821
The Supreme Court observed that when the defence admits the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispenses with its formal proof then, such evidence may be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale said that after the prosecution's documents were admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by the defence without formal proof, then the only job left for the courts is “to appreciate, analyse and test the creditworthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded.”
Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court
Case Details: Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v. M/S Sidhartha Tiles And Sanitary Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 011723 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822
The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when the agreement entered between the parties specifically contains an arbitration clause saying that the dispute arising out of an agreement (especially renewal of the agreement) would be resolved by the arbitration then the order of the estate officer under the Public Premises Act ejecting the party being in unauthorized possession after the expiry of the agreement would not restrain the dispossessed party to invoke the arbitration clause to decide the dispute arising out of the agreement.
'Bank Juristic Person, No Mens Rea': Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank & Officials For Violating Income Tax Dept Order
Case Details: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 823
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case registered against HDFC Bank Ltd. for violating the notice issued by the Income Tax Department to stop the operation of bank accounts, fixed deposits, and lockers of an income tax assessee.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set aside the High Court's decision which refused to quash the case registered against officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd. for violating the IT Department order and allowing the assessee to operate the bank locker when the prohibitory order regarding operation of the bank locker was in operation.
Supreme Court Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Air Force Official Who Faced Unnecessary Litigation For Overtaking Senior's Vehicle
Case Details: S. P. Pandey v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 824
The Supreme Court ordered payment of Rupees One Lakh compensation to an Airman of the Indian Air Force who was foisted with unnecessary litigation for overtaking a Squadron Leader's vehicle at a railway crossing.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a case where the Air Man-appellant was reprimanded and an admonition order was passed against him for overtaking his senior's vehicle (Squadron leader) at the railway crossings. However, the appellant was granted relief by the Armed Forces Tribunal but denied compensation for the harassment he faced while contesting the unnecessary litigation into a trivial dispute that could be mutually settled.
IBC | No Compulsion To Specify Names Of Creditors In Balance Sheet, General Entry Acknowledging Debt Sufficient To Initiate CIRP: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vidyasagar Prasad v. Uco Bank & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 825
Observing that there's no compulsion for the companies to specify the names of every secured/unsecured creditor in their balance sheet, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of a corporate debtor's suspended director against the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
In other words, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that when debt entries exist in the corporate debtor's balance sheet, the debtor could not deny its liability merely on the ground that there were no specific entries of the particular creditor in their balance sheet regarding the debt owed to that creditor.
Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Closing Insolvency Process Against Byju's Based On Settlement With BCCI
Case Details: Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran | Diary No. - 35406/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 826
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which closed the insolvency proceedings against ed-tech company Byju's (Think and Learn Pvt Ltd) accepting a settlement between it and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for about Rs 158 crores.
The Court held that the NCLAT erred in allowing the withdrawal of the insolvency application by invoking its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016. When there is a specific procedure provided for the withdrawal of insolvency applications, the NCLAT cannot invoke its inherent powers.
Card Issuing Bank Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Interchange Fee When It Is Already Paid On MDR: Supreme Court
Case Details: Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Citibank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 827
The Supreme Court ruled that a card issuing bank is not liable to separately pay service tax on the interchange fee when the said tax already stands paid on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR).
The Three Judge Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “the entire amount of the service tax payable on the MDR has been paid to the Government and there is no loss of revenue”.
'Legal Aid To Poor Should Not Be Poor Legal Aid: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Prisoners Get Free & Timely Legal Aid
Case Details: Suhas Chakma v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 1082/2020
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 828
The Supreme Court pronounced the judgment on a petition filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma seeking measures to ensure free and timely legal aid to prisoners.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court asked the High Courts to consider issuing practice directions to all Courts to append a coversheet to all judgments on conviction and dismissal including bail applications informing the convicts of their right to free legal aid facility for pursuing higher remedy.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Delhi HC's “Strange” Bail Condition That Accused Must Arrange Accommodation & Reside In Delhi During Trial
Case Details: Akbal Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 829
The Supreme Court struck down a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court in a murder case that required the accused to arrange accommodation in Delhi and reside there during the trial.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, while dealing with an SLP filed by the accused against the bail conditions, found this condition to be “strange”
Investigation Transfer To CBI Cannot Be Ordered While Rejecting Bail Application: Supreme Court
Case Details: Abhishek and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 830
The Supreme Court held that Court cannot transfer the investigation to another agency while dealing with bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC.
“Suffice it to say that while rejecting the bail application file by the appellant the High Court ought not to have transferred investigation to CBI. The direction is virtually to make de novo investigation. Such a direction could not have been issued while rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside Rajasthan High Court's decision to transfer the investigation in a murder case to the CBI while rejecting the bail application of the accused.
Govt Counsel Should Have Written Instructions From Authorities; Court Should Act Against Officials Who Misrepresent: Supreme Court
Case Details: KC Kaushik and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 831
In a notable observation, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity for parties, especially government authorities, to provide truthful and accurate information in writing. It emphasized that written instructions are crucial to prevent factual errors and misrepresentations, which can compromise the integrity of the judicial process. Relying on oral submissions alone can lead to misunderstandings, affecting not only the parties involved but also public trust in the judiciary
The Court advised that judicial orders should be based solely on written instructions to ensure that liability is appropriately assigned to the responsible officials in cases of wrongful representations. Officials and counsel appearing before the Court on behalf of government authorities must be properly equipped with written instructions from the competent authorities. The Court also warned that any misrepresentation, especially by government authorities, would be met with strict action, including imposing costs on the responsible officials.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan made these observations while deciding cases of Lecturers / Principals in the Government Aided Private Colleges in the State of Haryana seeking parity in pension with the Lecturers/Librarians of the Government Colleges. While dismissing their claims, the Court noted that there were some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State in furnishing instructions about the case to the Cour; however that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment.
Supreme Court Upholds Power Of States To Regulate Industrial Alcohol Under Term 'Intoxicating Liquor'; Justice Nagarathna Dissents
Case Details: State of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish C.A. No. 000151 / 2007 & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 832
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, held by 8:1 majority, held that the States have the power to regulate 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol'.
The majority concluded so by holding that the term "intoxicating liquor" in Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution will include industrial alcohol.
The majority held that the term "intoxicating liquor" cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only alcohol which is fit for human consumption. It was held that liquids which contain alcohol which can be used or misused for human consumption can be included within the term "intoxicating liquor".
Justice Nagarathna, in her dissent, held that 'industrial alcohol' means alcohol which is not fit for human consumption. An artificial interpretation cannot be adopted to give a different meaning to the term 'intoxicating liquor' which is contrary to the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
The 9 Judge Constitution bench comprised CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma And Augustine George Masih. The Court was essentially tasked to examine whether the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, of 1951 gave complete regulatory power to the Union on the subject of industrial alcohol.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Doordarshan Channel In Sindhi
Case Details: Sindhi Sangat v. Union Of India D No. 43504/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 833
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to direct the Union Government and the Prasar Bharati to run a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan TV channel to preserve the language and cultural heritage of the Sindhi community, a linguistic minority in India.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by Sindhi Sangat observing that no citizen can make a claim based on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution that the government should start a separate channel in their language.
"The right which is claimed under Article 29 for preserving the language of the Sindhi population cannot result in an absolute or indefeasible right for the commencement of a separate language channel for a particular language," observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its order dismissing the petition.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Criminalise Sexual Offences Against Men, Trans Persons & Animals In BNS
Case Details: Pooja Sharma v. Union Of India and Anr. W.P. (Crl.) No. 398/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions under Article 142 to include sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code.
Presently, the BNS does not contain any provision criminalising sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals.
During the hearing, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the Court cannot direct the Parliament to create an offence.
BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA: Supreme Court Grants Bail
Case Details: Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 835
The Supreme Court granted bail to Badshah Majid Malik, an alleged red sanders smuggler, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the ground that he had served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the offence as per the first proviso to Section 479(1) (Maximum Period for Detention of Undertrial Prisoners) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Supreme Court relied on the judgment in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary, which held that the beneficial provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC, would apply to prosecutions under the PMLA since Section 436A was introduced after the enactment of the PMLA. Therefore, the Court ruled that the corresponding provision, Section 479(1) of the BNSS, would similarly apply to prosecutions under the PMLA.
Take Proactive Steps To Release Deserving Undertrial Prisoners Under S.479 BNSS: Supreme Court To States/UTs
Case Details: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 836
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the inadequate implementation of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which the maximum period for which undertrial prisoners can be detained.
“A cursory examination of the reports from few of the states and the union territories would indicate that the process of identification of the undertrial who are entitled to benefit under section 479 of BNSS is somewhat deficient”, the Court observed.
“In order to make the process of identification of the deserving undertrials efficient, the Undertrial Review Committee present in each district must play a proactive role by co-ordinating with the Jail Superintendents...The District Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authority should mobilize their panel advocates and para legal volunteers so that the release information of the under trials can be updated. This is necessary as a particular under trial may cross the threshold bar of one third or 50% of the sentence the very next day after the information is collected or thereafter. Therefore this has to be an ongoing process, and steps must be taken to ensure the release of deserving under trials under section 479 BNSS in a proactive way.”
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti was dealing with a writ petition concerning overcrowding in the prisons across India. The Court on August 23, 2024 had held that the beneficial provision of Section 479 of BNSS would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country, i.e., to all undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024.
Aadhaar Card Not Suitable As Proof Of Date Of Birth: Supreme Court
Case Details: Saroj & Ors. v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors., C.A. No. 012077 - 012078 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 837
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court's decision to accept the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card to determine the age of the victim in a motor accident compensation case.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan was not inclined to accept the suitability of the Aadhaar Card as proof of age. The Court observed that instead of referring to the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card for determining the age of the deceased, the age of the deceased can be more authoritatively determined from the date of birth mentioned in the school leave certificate having statutory recognition under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
'Procedural Irregularity Can't Defeat Substantive Right': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Dismissing Objections To Decree Due to Misapplication of Provisions
Case Details: Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs v. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 838
Observing that procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights, the Supreme Court provided relief to the decree objector whose objection plea was refused by the High Court on the grounds of misapplication of the provisions in filing his objections towards execution of the decree.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol observed that irrespective of the fact that the appellant had misapplied the provision while objecting to the decree, he can't be denied his substantive right in a suit property because of the rights accrued to him by virtue of first partition suit.
When Title Declaration Suit Seeks Possession Recovery Also, Limitation Period For Possession Recovery Applicable: Supreme Court
Case Details: N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi And Village Industries Board, Civil Appeal No. 6333 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 839
The Supreme Court observed that when along with a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is sought, the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.
In other words, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained that if in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief of recovery of possession is also sought, then the limitation period for filing the suit would be governed by the limitation period prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of possession (i.e., 12 years as per Article 65 of Limitation Act) and not the one prescribed for seeking declaration of title (i.e., 3 years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act).
“In the case at hand, the suit is not simply for the declaration of title rather it is for a further relief for recovery of possession. It is to be noted that when in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is claimed in addition to mere declaration, the relief of declaration would only be an ancillary one and for the purposes of limitation, it would be governed by the relief that has been additionally claimed. The further relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of possession based upon title and as such its limitation would be 12 years in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.”, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal said.
Impossible Condition To Deposit Money Shouldn't Be Imposed To Suspend Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 840
The Supreme Court held that if a condition to deposit an amount imposed by the appellate court while suspending sentence of a convict is impossible for the appellant to comply with, it may defeat the right to appeal and violate appellant's right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by the CBI challenging the suspension of sentence granted by the Delhi High Court to a man convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs.
Employee In Supervisory Capacity, Drawing Wages Exceeding 10k Per Month Not 'Workman' Under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: The Management, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd v. Lenin Kumar Ray, Arising out of SLP (C) 12876 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 841
The Supreme Court held that an employee did not come within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended on 2010) because he was employed in a supervisory capacity and drew wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 (now Rs.10,000/- per month as per 2010 amendment). The Court applied the pre-amended provision since the employee's service was terminated in 2003, before the amendment.
S. 498A IPC | Courts Must Identify Instances Of Over Implication Of Persons In Cases & Avert Undue Suffering To Them: Supreme Court
Case Details: Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl.A. No. 004278 / 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 842
The Supreme Court expressed dismay over the tendency to over-implicate the persons and to present an exaggerated version in Section 498-A IPC domestic cruelty cases.
“We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.”, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar said.
S.106 Evidence Act | Accused Has Duty To Offer Explanations When Offence Was Committed Within Privacy Of Their House: Supreme Court
Case Details: Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 843
The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).
The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the decision of the High Court overturning their acquittal in a murder case. It was alleged that the appellant-accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, the accused in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. defence statement tried to take a plea of alibi and offered an explanation that they went to a particular place to attend some function.
Oral Dying Declaration Made To Close Relatives Requires Cautious Assessment Before Being Used To Convict Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 844
The Supreme Court that when the conviction was based on the deceased's oral dying declaration to a close relative, the courts must exercise due caution in believing the testimony of the close relative to convict the accused.
The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a case where the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the accused based on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her mother. The trial court convicted the accused in a murder case based on the deceased's mother's testimony deposing that her son (deceased) had made an oral dying declaration pointing out the names of the accused.
Bail Condition That Accused Shall Furnish Bail Bonds 6 Months After Passing Of Order Can't Be Imposed : Supreme Court
Case Details: Nanhak Manjhi v. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl) No. 14784/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 845
The Supreme Court dismissed two special leave petitions challenging the bail orders of the Patna High Court. It set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, not before orally remarking that they have repeatedly witnessed bail orders passed by the High Court without assigning reasons.
The SLP concerns two bail orders passed by the High Court on September 11 and 19 respectively, wherein it imposed bail conditions that the bail bond would be furnished after five and six months of the date of passing of the respective orders.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on being informed of the bail conditions, remarked that the judge passed the order not just without assigning reasons but also such imposed bail conditions.
Police's Action To Take Possession Of Immovable Property Without Sanction Of Law Reflects Lawlessness : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 846
The Supreme Court disapproved of the police's action to take possession of the immovable property by taking keys of the property under an application filed by the litigant.
“We believe that this action by the police to take possession of immovable property reflects total lawlessness. Under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law.”, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.
S. 353 IPC | Shouting & Threatening Someone Doesn't Amount To Assault : Supreme Court
Case Details: K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 847
The Supreme Court observed that shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard a case where the FIR under Section 353 of IPC (Assault) was registered against the Indian Institute of Astrophysics employee for shouting and threatening the CAT's Staff while inspecting the files of his dismissal from service.
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Father For Pregnant Daughter's Murder Over Inter-Caste Marriage, Commutes Death Sentence
Case Details: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 848
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the father who committed the gruesome daylight murder of his pregnant daughter also leading to the death of the child in the womb.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan rejected the appellant's/father's contention that the non-examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution would prove fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court said that non-examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution would not affect its case when the eyewitness testimony was unquestionable and credible.
Orders
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Govt On Plea Against Sonapur Demolition Drive, Orders Status Quo
Case Details: Faruk Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Assam, Diary No. 44449-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Assam on a contempt petition filed by 47 residents of Assam, alleging willful violation of the Court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, whereby it was directed that no demolition should take place across the country without the Court's prior permission.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, while issuing notice returnable within three weeks, also ordered that the status quo shall be maintained by the parties in the meantime.
Supreme Court Grants Interim 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 interim anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State while granting interim relief. The court stated that the interim relief is for two weeks and is subjected to conditions set by the trial court and his cooperation with the investigation.
'Threshold For Criminal Defamation Higher For Political Discourse': Supreme Court Stays Case Against Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal and Anr. v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13279/2024
In an interim relief to Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, the Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar assailing their remarks over alleged deletion of Delhi voters' names from electoral rolls in 2018.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti granted the interim relief, while issuing notice on the plea filed by Kejriwal-Atishi seeking quashing of the defamation case.
Supreme Court Criticises Delhi Govt For 'Lacklustre Approach' In Enhancing Green Cover, Seeks Forest Secretary's Affidavit
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court criticized the lacklustre approach of the Delhi government towards making efforts to enhance the green cover in Delhi NCR and directed the Secretary of thru Forest Department to appear before the Court on October 18, 2024.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih further pulled up the Delhi Forest Department for submitting a status report on green cover in the contempt case against DDA over illegal tree felling which was transferred to CJI's bench from the bench led by Justice Oka.
MDS Seats In Govt Colleges 'Prestigious': Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Fee Hike From 12K To 48K In Goa Dental College
Case Details: Praveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. SLP(C) No. 22831/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the fees hike by the Goa Dental College for MDS Course. The Court orally said that the increase from 12,000 Rs to 48,000 Rs was not excessive considering how prestigious government college seats are amidst the academic competition.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter.
“No Judge Expected To Work Without Salary”: Supreme Court Directs Bihar Govt To Release Pay Arrears of Sitting HC Judge
Case Details: Justice Shailendra Singh and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023
The Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to immediately release the salary of sitting Patna High Court Judge, Justice RP Mishra, who had pending arears since the date of his elevation to High Court.
The Court passed the interim order considering the urgency as "no judge should be expected to work without a salary.."
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 as well as the issue on the fixation of pensions for judicial officers.
BJP Councilor Withdraws From Supreme Court Contempt Plea Against MCD Mayor's Decision To Postpone Standing Committee Elections
Case Details: Raja Iqbal Singh v. Shelly Oberoi and Anr., Diary No. 44879/2024
BJP councilor Raja Iqbal Singh withdrew from the Supreme Court a contempt petition filed by him against Delhi Municipal Corporation Mayor Shelly Oberoi, raising allegations about delay in the conduct of elections to fill vacancy in the MCD Standing Committee.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the contempt petition as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Supreme Court Asks Special Court To Decide Bail Plea of TMC's Kuntal Ghosh In 10 Days
Case Details: Kuntal Ghosh v. Enforcement Directorate (Kolkata Zone), WP (Crl.) No. 397/2024
The Supreme Court directed a West Bengal Special Court to hear and decide in 10 days Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh's bail plea in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged cash-for-jobs scam in West Bengal.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a writ petition filed by Ghosh, assailing fresh hearing of his bail plea by a new judge, after significant hearing had already taken place before the preceding judge.
Supreme Court Closes Contempt Case Filed By Ex-Air Force Officer Who Contracted HIV Due To Blood Transfusion At Military Hospital
Case Details: XYZ v. Col Sanjay Nijhawan and Ors., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1267/2023 in C.A. No. 7175/2021
The Supreme Court closed the contempt case filed by an ex-Air Force officer, aggrieved by the Armed Forces' failure to pay Court-ordered compensation for medical negligence at a military hospital that resulted in his contracting HIV.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan which, in the interest of the parties, modified its earlier order and directed that the respondents pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner (instead of payments on per-hospital-visit basis) for his treatment at an Anti-Retroviral (ART) Centre of his choice.
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Jharkhand Police Officers For Filing Chargesheet Violating Interim Order
Case Details: Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to three officers of the Jharkhand Police for filing a charge sheet in a case despite an interim order by the Court barring any further action in the FIR.
“It is a case of gross contempt of this Court. What oversight? Only reason is the husband of the first informant is IPS officer. That is the only reason”, Justice Oka remarked after the counsel for the state said that this happened due to an oversight.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to quash the FIR filed by wife (now deceased) of an IPS officer against her landlord.
Supreme Court Seeks Union's View On TDS Liability On Interest Accrued On Motor Accident Compensation
Case Details: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 534/2020
The Supreme Court sought the views of the Union and Income Tax Department on the applicability of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on the interest liability over and above Rs. 50,000 compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claims.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a writ petition which sought a slew of directions to facilitate the process of disbursement of compensation as well as expediting the matter before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT).
The Supreme Court suggested to the State Governments that the State Public Transport Corporations avail third-party insurance coverage to ensure that victims of the accidents caused by the State buses get timely compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused Charged Under PMLA In Relation To Mahadev Betting Scandal
Case Details: Sunil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement| SLP(Crl) No. 11755/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to accused Sunil Dammani in relation to a money laundering case connected to the Mahadev Betting Scandal.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which rejected the bail plea of Dammani. The accused was accused of the offence of money laundering under s.3 and 4 of PMLA.
Supreme Court Asks Telangana DGP To File Affidavit On Plugging Communication Gaps Between Prosecution & Govt Counsel
Case Details: Vatti Janaiah v. State of Telangana | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12098/2023
The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police (SGP), Telangana, to file an affidavit on the streamlining of communication and plug loopholes in gaps between the Counsel for State of Telangana and Prosecution regarding accessing information on criminal cases in court related matters.
The Court expressed that there is a "recurring" phenomenon witnessed from State of Telangana where there is often miscommunication between the prosecution and Telangana Government Counsel pertaining to information about criminal cases.
The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing a plea filed by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav who had moved the Apex Court last year against the alleged criminal prosecution by the then Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led Government in Telangana after Yadav made a political switch from BRS to BSP.
Judges of Bombay High Court Overburdened, Can't Fix Timeline For Disposal: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bharat Udyog Limited v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Observing that the judges of the Bombay High Court are "overburdened", the Supreme Court turned down a prayer to fix a time-line for the disposal of an execution matter.
"Considering the fact that the judges of the Bombay High Court are overburdened such a direction cannot be issued especially when there may be older execution applications which are pending," observed a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih.
During the hearing, Justice Oka, whose parent High Court is the Bombay High Court, spoke about the case load of the judges there.
'No Error': Supreme Court Refuses To Review Judgment Allowing Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes
Case Details: Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petitions against its decision holding that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.
"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," stated the order passed by the bench in chambers.
Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Against Judgment Allowing States To Tax Mineral Rights; Justice Nagarathna Dissents
Case Details: Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association v. Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking review of its judgment which upheld the power of the States to levy tax on mining rights and mineral-bearing lands.
On July 25, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 8:1 majority, in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India, delivered the judgment.
The majority of 8 judges dismissed the review petitions filed by the Union Government, Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association and other saying that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment.
"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the majority held.
However, Justice BV Nagarathna held that a case for review is made out. "Having perused the review petitions, a case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is made out," Justice Nagarathna observed ordering the issuance of notice on the review petition to the respondents returnable within eight weeks.
'Criminal Cases Can't Be Slapped Against Journalist For Criticising Govt': Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To UP Journalist
Case Details: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 402/2024
The Supreme Court granted interim protection to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against him in connection with his article on the caste dynamics in the Uttar Pradesh State Administration.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Upadhyay's petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the UP police, over his journalistic piece. Issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench posted the matter on November 5.
In its brief order, the bench made certain pertinent observations regarding journalistic freedom.
"In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are respected. The rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer," the Court observed in the order.
Supreme Court Seeks BCI's View On Dispute Over Recognition of Bar Association of Delhi's Rouse Avenue District Court
Case Details: Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association v. Bar Council of Delhi
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in an appeal against a Delhi High Court order that recognized the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as the official bar body of the Rouse Avenue District Court.
“Issue notice to the Bar Council of India as the issue involved would require assistance of Bar Council of India. Notice is made returnable on 18th November”, the Court stated.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was healing an appeal filed by Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association in a dispute with the Central Delhi Court Bar Association for recognition for the Rouse Avenue Court.
'Hungry Cannot Wait': Supreme Court Gives Last Chance To Union/States To Implement Directions On Migrant Workers' Ration Cards
Case Details: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020
The Supreme Court on October 4 restrained itself from issuing contempt notices and granted one last window to the Union and the States to comply with the orders of the Court to verify and give ration cards to those migrant workers and unskilled labourers found eligible under the e-Shram portal and also to those already verified, irrespective of States upper ceiling of food distribution under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).
The Court said that failing to comply with this order would force it to call the Secretary of Food or concerned authority from States to explain the reason for non-compliance. It has directed States to file an affidavit where identification of eligible persons has been done but are yet to be ration card.
Supreme Court To Lay Down Law On High Court's Power To Recall Pronounced Order and Rehear Case
Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court said that it will lay down the law on whether a High Court can recall an order pronounced in the court and rehear the case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had expressed strong disapproval of the Madras High Court's decision to rehear a quashing petition in a money laundering case involving former Director General of Police (DGP) Jaffar Sait, despite having previously allowed the petition.
“The prayer in the Criminal OP was for quashing ECIR. Several issues will have to be gone into including the issue of the manner in which order has been passed by the High Court. List for hearing at the end of the cause list on 22nd November 2024. In the meanwhile ECIR and all proceedings based on the ECIR will remain stayed. Even the proceedings of Criminal OP no. 0017762 of 2024 are stayed”, the Court stated in its order.
Specific Relief Act | Supreme Court Allows Oral Hearing of Review Petition Against Judgment Holding 2018 Amendment To Be Prospective
Case Details: M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Others | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, agreed to hear in open court a review petition filed against a 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 original judgment was rendered by a three-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli in Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712.
Supreme Court Orders Surprise Inspections of Assam's Matia Transit Camp To Assess Hygiene and Living Conditions
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.
The Supreme Court directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct surprise inspections of the Matia Transit Camp for housing foreign nationals in Goalpara, Assam to assess the facility's hygiene conditions, availability of food, and overall living conditions.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the SLSA Secretary to nominate appropriate officers who will carry out periodic inspections at the camp without giving prior notice to the authorities to verify the state's claims made in a compliance affidavit regarding improvements at the facility.
Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Review of Judgment Which Struck Down Electoral Bonds Scheme
Case Details: Mathews J Nedumpara and Anr. v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. Diary No 18045/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a review of the Constitution Bench judgment which struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, JB Paridwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review petition filed by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara and another
"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the Court observed.
'Land Leased To Azam Khan's Trust When He Was Minister': Supreme Court Dismisses Jauhar Trust's Plea Against UP Govt Cancelling Lease
Case Details: Executive Committee Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh | D No. 35624/2024
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Uttar Pradesh Government's decision to cancel the lease of the government land to Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust at Rampur.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed a petition filed by the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, founded by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, challenging the cancellation of the lease deed dated February 4, 2015. The Trust approached the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court's judgment delivered on March 18, 2024, dismissing its plea against the Government's decision taken on March 31, 2023.
However, the bench requested the government authorities to ensure that the students of the school, which was functioning in the land leased to the trust, get admission to alternate suitable institutions.
However Strict PMLA Is, Sick & Infirm Accused Should Be Given Bail: Supreme Court
Case Details: Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 11376/2024
Observing that 'sick and infirm' persons can be granted bail despite the stringency of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court granted interim bail to an accused in a money laundering case.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra granted interim bail to Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, the former Chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank accused of the offence of money laundering.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Restrain J&K LG From Nominating Members To Assembly, Asks Petitioner To Approach HC
Case Details: Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., Diary No. 46862-2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition against the Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor's proposed move to nominate 5 members to the J&K Assembly. The petitioner, however, was granted liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.
"We are not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and give liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits", said the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar.
As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, 90 seats are reserved for Jammu and Kashmir divisions and 5 are those to which the LG can nominate MLAs.
'Because Of Covid Vaccines, We're Able To Deal With Outbreak': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Vaccine Side Effects
Case Details: Priya Mishra and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 22945-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging health side effects to the Covid Vaccines.
The counsel for the petitioners stated that allegedly the vaccines induced side effects like blood clotting. He mentioned that class action suits have been filed in foreign countries like the United Kingdom on the same concerns.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the matter.
At the outset, the CJI stressed that vaccines had globally aided in overcoming the pandemic crisis and that filing such petitions now would not be appropriate.
CJI said that if the petitioners were really aggrieved, then they should file class action suits instead of filing Article 32 petitions.
Lawyer's Statement During Judicial Proceedings Protected By Privilege: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Defamation Suit Against Advocate
Case Details: Pankaj Oswal v. Vikas Pahwa, Diary No. 19381-2024
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a defamation suit filed against Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa over a statement made by him in course of judicial proceedings at Patiala House Courts, Delhi on the briefing counsel's instructions.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, dealing with Indian businessman Pankaj Oswal's challenge to Delhi High Court's dismissal of the defamation suit on a view that Pahwa's statement was protected by doctrine of absolute privilege.
Delhi Liquor Policy Case: Supreme Court Grants Regular Bail To Hyderabad Businessman Abhishek Boinpally
Case Details: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023
The Supreme Court granted regular bail to Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally in the Delhi Liquor Policy case in parity with other accused persons.
Although a plea was raised before the Court by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary to allow Boinpally to travel within the country as against the conditions imposed on travel in the interim bail order, the Court said that the trial Court shall decide the same. But orally clarified that the conditions so far imposed were only for interim bail.
The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing a special leave petition filed by Boinpally against a Delhi High Court judgment of July 2023 denying him bail.
What Legal Authority To Recruit Civic Volunteers In Police? Supreme Court Asks West Bengal Govt In RG Kar Case
Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The Supreme Court while hearing the Suo Motu RG Kar Case directed the State of West Bengal to disclose information on the details of recruitment process for hiring civic volunteers in the State Police force. The Court also expressed apprehension of 'Political patronage' given to unverified civil volunteers.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the suo motu case of the brutal rape and murder of a doctor in RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata that occurred on August 9
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the National Task Force (NTF) - which was constituted by the Court to make recommendations on enhancing the security for medical professionals across the country- has not made substantial progress.
The Court expressed dismay that the NTF, which was constituted by the order passed on August 20, has not held any meeting after September 9.
"Why no meeting after September 9?", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta. The Court directed that the NTF should hold regular meetings and complete its task within a period of three weeks.
The Court directed in the order that the State Government shall ensure that the referral system refers those hospitals which have adequate beds, availability of expertise in the medical field; doctors with specializations.
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi; Calls Security To Drive Out Litigant After Agitated Hearing
Case Details: Arun Ramchandra Hublikar v. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Ors., Diary No. 38245-2023
The Supreme Court declined to hear a man's plea against ex-Chief Justice of India and now Rajya Sabha MP Ranjan Gogoi, alleging that the judge "unwarrantedly" interfered with a judgement passed in his favor over illegal termination from service.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, on hearing petitioner-Arun Hubilkar, who appeared in person. A heated exchange took place between the petitioner (who became an advocate post-filing of his writ petition in 2018) and Justice Trivedi, before the judge finally called upon the security to escort him out and dismissed the plea.
Perplexed At Life Convict Given Remission After 2.5 Years Imprisonment, Supreme Court Seeks UP Authorities' Explanation
Case Details: Surendra @Sunda v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arising out of Diary No. 28783 of 2023
While setting aside an order for the premature release of a life convict having spent only 2 years, 5 months and 12 days of imprisonment, the Supreme Court took a strong view against the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for recommending his name for remission despite the State's remission policy mandating 14 years of imprisonment before a life convict could be considered eligible for remission.
The bench of Justices J.K. Maheswari and Rajesh Bindal has sought a response from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prison) of the State of Uttar Pradesh as to how the jail authorities recommend this case for remission and why the State has not sought custody of the petitioner and other convicts despite the order of the full bench.
Whether Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas By States/UTs Is Mandatory? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019
The Supreme Court expressed that it would consider the question as to whether establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas by States/UTs is mandatory under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 ("2008 Act").
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of the 2008 Act. Upon hearing Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta (acting as Amicus in the matter), it ordered:
"We direct the state governments to give information in the format annexed alongwith the present order. Needless to state that the said information will be given by the states after consulting Registrar Generals of the High Courts...to be furnished to the Court with a copy to the Amicus within a period of 6 weeks from today. The ld. Amicus is requested to prepare a chart giving specifications of the responses of the state governments. The question as to whether it is mandatory for the state governments to establish Gram Nyayalayas or not or as to whether it is optional would be considered separately. However, insofar as the states which are agreed to establishing Gram Nyayalayas, we will examine as to whether the state governments have acted in a positive manner in order to achieve the object of the enactment of providing speedy and affordable and efficient justice to the citizens living in remote areas."
Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former MANUU Chancellor, Asks Him To Pay Rs1 Lac To Complainant & Publish Apology
Case Details: Firoz Bakht Ahmed v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 9236/2024
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation case against former Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Firoz Bakht Ahmed, and directed him to publish an unconditional apology in "bold letters" in first page of local daily newspaper in connection with the “sexual predator” remark he made against Dean of the School of Mass Communication and Journalism of the MANUU, Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan. The Court has ordered Firoz Bakht to pay 1 lac token damages for the "mental agony" caused to Professor Ehtesham on account of "wild allegations" within 4 weeks.
'What Kind Of Petition!': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Re-Election In 20 Haryana Assembly Seats
Case Details: Priya Mishra & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking re-election in 20 assembly seats in Haryana.
"What kind of petitions are these?", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed surprise at the matter before dismissing it.
When the petitioner mentioned the matter for urgent listing this morning, CJI took exception to the prayers sought in the petition. "You want an elected govt to be restrained from taking the oath? We are putting you on guard...we will dismiss the matter with costs," CJI warned the petitioner's counsel. After the counsel insisted that he wanted to argue the matter, CJI said that it would be taken up and asked him to circulate the papers.
Later, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took the matter after the marital rape case hearing, shortly before the bench was about to rise at 4 PM.
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
The Supreme Court 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."
Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka's Plea Against Anticipatory Bail Granted To Bhavani Revanna In Kidnapping Case
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Bhavani Revanna, SLP(Crl) No. 8386/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Karnataka's plea challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna in a case involving allegations of kidnapping of a woman.
Bhavani Revanna is the mother of Janata Dal (United) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of committing sexual offences against several women.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the accused (Bhavani Revanna) is a woman aged 55-56 years and the allegations pertain to abetment of a kidnapping committed by her son. It further observed that the principal accused has been arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.
'Proceedings Can't Be To Malign Institutions': Supreme Court Closes Habeas Corpus Petition Against Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Centre
Case Details: Isha Foundation v. S. Kamaraj and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 13992/2024
The Supreme Court closed the habeas corpus petition filed by a father alleging that his two daughters were being illegally confined at Sadhguru's Isha Yoga Centre at Coimbatore, because of the categorical statements made by the two women, who are presently aged 42 and 39 years, that they are staying at the Ashram out of their free choice.
While closing the matter, the Supreme Court took exception to the Madras High Court passing directions for police enquiry on other allegations against Isha Yoga Centre in the habeas corpus petition. "Since both of them are adults and the purpose of habeas corpus was fulfilled, no further directions were needed from the High Court," the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted in the order.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Which Stopped Trial Of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim In 2015 Sacrilege Cases
Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024
The Supreme Court stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which stayed trial of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the 2015 cases relating to sacrilege of holy book Shri Guru Granth Sahib.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order in Punjab government's plea challenging the stay imposed on Ram Rahim's trial by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Over Alleged Unauthorised Jail Meetings & Threats To Witnesses
Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 10235/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a case involving allegations that his wife made unrestricted visits to him in Chitrakoot jail and he used her mobile phone to threaten witnesses and officials.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Ansari's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order whereby he was denied bail. Notice was issued on the plea on July 25, calling for the UP government's response.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. Directorate of Enforcement, Allahabad, SLP(Crl) No. 10598/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to Abbas Ansari, MLA from Mau from Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party in a Money Laundering case.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal however did not make any observation on merits.
'Frivolous SLP': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Jharkhand, Says Govt Can Enquire Which Officer 'Ill-Advised' Filing
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Rabindra Gope, Diary No. 42056-2024
The Supreme Court imposed an exemplary cost of 1 lac on the State of Jharkhand for filing a frivolous special leave petition and granted the State liberty to initiate an inquiry against the officer responsible for advising the filing of an "ill-advised" SLP to recover the costs.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V Viswanathan recalled that it has repeatedly insisted against the filing of frivolous SLPs by the State Governments in the last six months but the issue continues to persist.
'With These Kind Of PILs, We Don't Get Time To Deal With Genuine PILs': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For OTT Regulation
Case Details: Shashank Shekhar Jha and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 669/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking constitution of a board for regulation of content and release of films on the OTT Platform.
The petitioner mainly contended that there is no regulation for monitoring the OTT Content and the release of the films of OTT.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to entertain the petition stating the matter falls in the domain of public policy.
Krishna River Water Dispute: Justice Sanjay Kumar Recuses, Bench Refers Matter To CJI For Relisting
Case Details: State of Telangana v. Union of India and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 666/2024
The Supreme Court sought the relisting of a writ petition filed by the State of Telangana against the Andhra Pradesh Government and Krishna River Management Board after Justice Sanjay Kumar recused from the hearing.
Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of UP MLA Abbas Ansari Under Gangsters Act, Asks To Approach High Court
Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 380/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari's plea for bail in a case registered under the UP Gangsters Act. It however granted him liberty to approach the High Court for bail, with a request to the High Court that it decide the bail plea within 4 weeks of filing.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Ansari), who submitted that he had information about substances being administered to Ansari in the jail and conveyed an apprehension that Ansari might meet the same fate as his father-Mukhtar Ansari (who allegedly died due to poisoning while in judicial custody).
BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA: Supreme Court Grants Bail
Case Details: Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court granted bail to Badshah Majid Malik, an alleged red sanders smuggler, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the ground that he had served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the offence as per the first proviso to Section 479(1) (Maximum Period for Detention of Undertrial Prisoners) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Steps Taken For Two New Solid Waste Management Projects: Delhi Municipal Corporation Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi told the Supreme Court that it expects two solid waste management projects to go ahead within two weeks which will result in MCD surpassing the required waste management capacity by 3,000 metric tons daily by 2026.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice A.G. Masih directed the MCD to file an affidavit regarding steps taken by the MCD.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Stall Release Of Alia Bhatt's Movie 'Jigra' Over Alleged Trade Mark Infringement
Case Details: Bhallaram Choudhary v. Dharma Production Private Limited SLP(C) No. 24581/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a trade mark infringement plea seeking to injunct the use of term 'Jigra' for the Alia Bhatt starrer film which has been released in theatres.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Rajasthan High Court which lifted a stay imposed by a commercial court, temporarily restraining the release of Alia Bhatt's starer “Jigra”.
'Nothing To Suggest Speeches Were Disturbing Public Order': Supreme Court Quashes Detention Of Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari In Gujarat
Case Details: Salman @Mufti Mohammad Salman Azhari v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11682 of 2024
The Supreme Court directed the release of prominent Muslim cleric and scholar Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari who was detained over alleged hate speech under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (“PASA”).
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale granted relief to Azhari while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order validating the detention order
'Where Is The Money?': Supreme Court Cancels Bail To MD Of Heera Gold On Failure To Raise Rs.580 Crores To Settle Claims
Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. M/S Heera Gold Exim Private Limited and Ors., Crl.A. No. 761-762/2021
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to Nowhera Shaikh, the Managing Director of Heera Gold Exim Private Limited, on the failure to raise 580 crores to settle the claims of investors despite repeated chances given by the Court to do so.
The Court ordered Shaikh to surrender within 2 weeks and all FIRs registered against Shaikh in different States shall now be proceeded in accordance with law. It clarified that the present order shall not come in way of the respondent-accused to apply for bail afresh.
Supreme Court Affirms Uttarakhand HC Judgment On Regularisation Of UNPL Workers
Case Details: State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Kundan Singh & Anr, SLP (C) No. 2388 of 2019
The Supreme Court upheld the 2018 judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which directed that the Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL) workers are employees of the State.
On November 12, 2018, the High Court passed several directions including regularisation of the UPNL employees, who have served for 10 years or more, in a phased manner within 1 year as per various regularisation schemes framed from time to time. It held that the UPNL workers were entitled to get a minimum pay scale with dearness allowance along with arrears to be paid within 6 months.
For context, the present-day UPNL was established by the State Government in 2004 to employ ex-servicemen and their dependents.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale passed the order affirming the rights of UPNL workers.
Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Which Refused To Quash Case Against Person For Calling Congress President Kharge 'Ayogya'
Case Details: Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka Diary No. - 46413/2024
The Supreme stayed the operation of the Karnataka High Court judgment which allowed investigation against a person accused of calling the President of All India Congress Committee (AICC) Mallikarjun Kharge as 'Ayogya'.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petitioner's special leave petiton.
The High Court had in its order quashed the charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act u/s 3(2)(v-a) but dismissed the challenge against offences under Sections S.153-A, 153-B, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court allowed the investigation to continue with respect to these offences.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Replace Term 'Hindutva' With 'Bharatiya Samvidhanatva'(Indian Constitutionalism)
Case Details: Dr SN Kundra v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 567/2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to replace the term 'Hindutva' with Bharatiya Samvidhanatva (or Indian Constitution).
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the petition.
Supreme Court Stays NCPCR's Recommendation To Close Madrassas Not Compliant With RTE Act
Case Details: Jamiat Ulema I Hind v. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 660/2024
The Supreme Court restrained the Union Government and the States from acting upon the communications issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to withdraw the recognition of Madrassas which are not compliant with the Right to Education Act 2009 and to conduct an inspection of all Madrassas.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahcud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the interim order hearing a writ petition filed by Islamic clerics' body Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind challenging the NCPCR's action.
Supreme Court Dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against Gujarat University's Criminal Defamation Case For Comments On PM Modi's Degree
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. Piyush M. Patel |D No. 11230/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging the criminal defamation case filed by the Gujarat University Registrar against him over his remarks about the educational degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
He approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's order dismissing his petition which challenged the summons issued in the defamation case.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition pointing out that the Supreme Court had in April this year dismissed a petition filed by co-accused Sanjay Singh challenging the same proceedings.
'Finance Ministry Can't Treat DRT Officers As Subordinates': Supreme Court Reprimands Centre For Asking DRTs To Collect Data
Case Details: Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court sought the explanation of the Ministry of Finance for asking the Debts Recovery Tribunals to collect data on various aspects, including the amount recovered on the basis of their orders.
The Court orally said that the Ministry cannot treat the judicial staff of the DRT as its subordinates. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih came across this issue while hearing a matter related to lawyers' strike at DRT Vishakhapatnam. Earlier, the DRT Vishakhattanam had informed the Court that certain applications were adjourned since the staff were occupied with the data collection work mandated by the Ministry. Taking serious exception to this, on September 30, the Court had asked the Finance Ministry to file an affidavit.
After Blame Game Between Senior Advocate & AoR On False Statement, Supreme Court Mulls Guidelines On Conduct Of Advocates-on-Record
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
In a case where false statements were found to have been made to seek remission for a client, the Supreme Court decided to lay down guidelines on the conduct of Advocates on Record.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih appointed Dr. S Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, as the amicus curiae in the matter for assistance.
'Intervening Now Would Lead To Chaos': Supreme Court Refuses To Postpone Telangana State Civil Services Exams
Case Details: Pogula Rambabu v. State of Telangana and Ors. Diary No. 48483-2024
The Supreme Court refused to postpone the conduct of the Telangana Civil Services Exams for the Group-1 category. The Court noted that intervening at the present stage would invite 'chaos'.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was informed that the exam is to take place at 2 PM and candidates have already arrived at the examination halls.
Supreme Court Stays Results Declaration Of Half-Yearly Board Exams Of Classes 8-10 In Karnataka
Case Details: Organisation For Unaided Recognised Schools ® (Our Schools) v. State of Karnataka and Ors, SLP(C) No. 8142/2024
The Supreme Court directed the State of Karnataka to file a counter-affidavit clarifying whether they have rescinded the notification for conducting a half-yearly public examination for Class 10th in 24 districts out of the 31 districts. The Court stayed the results declaration across the State for half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10th, if any were conducted.
This development comes after the Court on October 15 was informed by the Karnataka Government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that the Government has withdrawn a notification for conducting half-yearly public exams for Classes 8, 9 and 10 in districts of Kalaburagi, Bidar, Raichur, Ballari, Yadgiri, Koppal of Karnataka, which was alleged to be in defiance of the Court's interim order.
Supreme Court Extends Interim Protection To YSRCP Leaders In Cases Over Alleged Attack Of TDP Office & Naidu's Residence Till December 17
Case Details: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024
The Supreme Court extended interim protection to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash till December 17.
Special Leave Petitions were filed by Avinash and others after the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his anticipatory bail for allegedly ransacking the NTR Bhavan, the central office of ruling Telugu Desam Party, at Mangalagiri during YSRCP regime in October 2021.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah extended interim protection till December after Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul (for Ramesh) informed the Court that he had received a counter filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh last night and he would require some time to file a reply.
State Must Answer Why There Is No Sincere Effort To Pay Dues Of Tea Garden Workers: Supreme Court Summons Assam Chief Secretary
Case Details: International Union of Food Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India
The Supreme Court ordered the Chief Secretary of Assam to appear before the Court on November 14, 2024, to provide an explanation for the lack of sincere effort in settling the long-pending dues of the workmen employed in the state's tea gardens.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the unpaid dues of tea estate workers in Assam and criticized the Assam government and Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL).
Grossest Violation Of Article 21: Supreme Court Pulls Up State of Haryana For Handcuffing & Chaining An Accused To Bed In ICU
Case Details: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.
The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Haryana over an accused in a cheating case being handcuffed and chained to the bed while he was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (MICU) of PGIMS, Rohtak.
“What is your explanation for this? There is the grossest violation of Article 21. Affidavit records that he was handcuffed while he was admitted to the ICU. How do you justify this?”, the Court asked Haryana's Additional Advocate General (AAG), Deepak Thukral.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing an SLP filed by the accused Vihaan Kumar against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the challenge to his arrest.
Supreme Court Permits Teesta Setalvad To Travel To Amsterdam For International Documentary Film Festival
Case Details: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, MA 2121/2024 in Crl.A. No. 2022/2023
The Supreme Court permitted human rights activist Teesta Setalvad to travel to Amsterdam for the upcoming world premier of her documentary "CycleMahesh."
NEET-UG | Supreme Court Extends Time For High-Level Expert Committee's Report On NEET Exam Reforms
Case Details: Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court extended by two weeks the deadline for the submission of a report by the High-Level Committee of Experts constituted by the Union to propose measures to enhance the security for the NEET exam.
The Court extended the time till November 4, 2024.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that while the report is ready and was to be submitted, the committee has requested some more time to submit the same.
Allegations Of Fake Encounters In Assam Are Serious, Human Rights Commission Should Take Proactive Approach: Supreme Court
Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023
While hearing a plea raising the issue of 'fake' encounters in Assam, the Supreme Court expressed that there is a legislative mandate behind establishment of Human Rights Commissions and they are expected to act pro-actively in civil liberty matters.
In the context of Assam, it called on for data regarding enquiry, if any, initiated by the Assam Human Rights Commission into cases where allegations of 'fake' encounter were levelled.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Gauhati High Court order, whereby the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue was dismissed. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that no separate probe into the alleged incidents was required, as state authorities were conducting investigation in each case.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Remission For 89 Yr Old Pakistani National Convicted In Terror Case
Case Details: Ghulam Nabi Guide v. Union Of India and Ors. Diary No. 18738-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 petition filed by an 89-year-old Pakistan national seeking remission for his unconditional release to go back to his home country.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan heard this matter and dismissed the petition as withdrawn not before adding that had the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Government recommended remission, it may have led to a different conclusion.
Supreme Court Directs Independent Investigation In Haryana Village Where Social Boycott Call Against Dalits Was Allegedly Made In 2017
Case Details: Jai Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No . 293/2019
The Supreme Court directed two former DGPs of the State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an independent investigation into the situation prevailing at a village in Haryana's Hisar district, in relation to which allegations of social boycott of Dalit persons were levelled in 2017.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar passed the order, requesting Shri Vikram Chand Goyal, former DGP, 1975 UP and Mr. Kamlendra Prasad, former DGP, 1981 UP to make the investigation and file a status report before the Court within 3 months about the prevailing situation as well as any steps required to be taken.
Section 67 CGST Act | Whether Cash Can Be Seized During GST Search ? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: Commissioner Of CGST Delhi West & Ors. v. Gunjan Bindal & Anr., Diary No(s). 44061/2024
Taking into account conflicting views of the Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue as to whether authorities can seize "cash" under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The development comes as a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on a petition filed by tax authorities assailing Delhi High Court's direction for refund of seized cash to the respondents.
Supreme Court Defers Marital Rape Case Hearing Citing Improbability Of Decision Before CJI Chandrachud's Retirement
Case Details: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 4063-4064/2022 (and connected cases)
The Supreme Court deferred the hearing of the pleas seeking to criminalise marital rape considering the fact that the matter is unlikely to be decided before the retirement of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is presiding the bench which started hearing the matter.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra had started hearing the matter on October 17.
Supreme Court Dismisses Swami Shraddhanand's Challenge To Imposition Of Life Sentence Without Remission For Murder Of Wife
Case Details: Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, R.P.(Crl.) No. 512/ 2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra, seeking reconsideration of a judgment which imposed on him a life sentence (without remission) for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli (granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail).
The 84-yr-old self-styled godman has been in jail since about 30 years and claims that he is suffering from health issues. The trial Court and the High Court had sentenced him to death but the sentence was commuted by the Supreme Court in 2008 to one of imprisonment until death.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan.
No Uprooting/Transplantation Of Trees For Kolkata Metro Rail Without CEC Permission: Supreme Court
Case Details: People United For Better Living In Calcutta (Public) v. State of West Bengal and Ors. SLP(C) No. 20499/2024
The Supreme Court ordered the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India to examine the issue of felling and transplantation of trees for the Kolkata metro construction. Until then, no felling or transplantation of trees shall take place without the permission by CEC.
A three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Prashant Kumar Misra is currently hearing a Special Leave to Appeal filed under Article 136 challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which declined to halt the construction work for a metro station in Kolkata's Maidan area requiring the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.
Environment Protection Act Rendered Toothless Due To Centre's Inaction: Supreme Court
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court observed that the section 15 of the Environment Protection Act has been rendered “toothless” due to the Centre's inaction after the 2023 Jan Vishwas Amendment which replaced punishment for violation of the Act with penalties.
“This provision has been rendered completely ineffective due to inaction on the part of Government of India…In the absence of machinery created by the government of India, Section 15 as amended has become toothless and there is nothing in the hands of law enforcement authorities to strictly enforce the provisions of EPA. Therefore, those who violate the laws are now scot-free as no action can be taken against them. Learned ASG assures the court that within two weeks, entire machinery will be in existence”, the Court observed in its order.
The Court also criticised the Commissioner of Air Quality Management (CAQM) for merely sending show cause notices to officers that have violated its orders regarding stubble burning instead of prosecuting them under section 14 of the CAQM Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR, specifically focusing on stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.
The Supreme Court emphasized that stubble burning is not merely an issue of breach of law but it constitutes violation of citizens' fundamental right to live in a pollution-free environment, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Allows ED Officer Accused In Bribery Case To Travel Outside Tamil Nadu
Case Details: Ankit Tiwari v. Inspector of Police | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3342-3343 of 2024
The Supreme Court allowed Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Ankit Tiwari, who was arrested by Tamil Nadu authorities in a bribery case but later granted interim bail, to travel to Madhya Pradesh in order to meet his relatives.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on an application moved by Tiwari seeking the court's permission to travel outside Tamil Nadu. The same was filed as, while granting Tiwari interim bail, the Court had imposed a condition that he shall not leave Tamil Nadu without its permission.
'Casting Aspersions On Judge': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Inquiry Into Reasons For HC Judge's Recusal
Case Details: Chandraprabhav. Union of India
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking an inquiry into the recusal of Justice M Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court after reserving an order in a case, observing that the petition cast aspersions on the judge.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih however granted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition restricting itself to the prayer seeking guidelines on the recusal of judges.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Journalist In UP Police FIRs Over Article On Caste Discrimination
Case Details: Mamta Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 441 / 2024
The Supreme Court granted interim protection to another journalist booked over her article(s) alleging caste discrimination in the administration of the Uttar Pradesh government.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan passed the order in favor of journalist-Mamta Tripathi, against whom 4 FIRs are stated to have been registered. The Court further called for the response of the UP government on Tripathi's plea for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against her.
NCP Dispute: Declare That Clock Symbol Is Sub-Judice In Posters For Maharashtra Elections, Supreme Court Tells Ajit Pawar
Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
The Supreme Court told Ajit Pawar that the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) should use the 'clock' symbol for the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections with a disclaimer that its use is a matter of contest in Court and is subject to the final outcome of the petition filed by Sharad Pawar.
Issuing notice on an application filed by Sharad Pawar alleging violation of the conditions by the Ajit Pawar group, the Court asked the latter to file a reply along with a reiteration of earlier undertaking to the effect that directions in the previous orders "shall be meticulously complied with, even during the process of state assembly elections."
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with the application filed by the Sharad Pawar group seeking to restrain the Ajit Pawar group from using the 'clock' symbol in the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections. Through this application, Sharad Pawar prays that the Court direct Ajit Pawar to apply for a new symbol to contest the Vidhan Sabha elections.
'Let Affected Parties Come': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NGO's Plea Alleging Violation Of Order Staying Demolitions
Case Details: National Federation Of Indian Women v. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Ors., Diary No. 49497-2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation initiated by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging contempt by certain state authorities of the Court's interim order staying demolitions without permission.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan declined to entertain the plea, noting that it was filed by a party not directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts. "We do not wish to open a Pandora's box", orally remarked Justice Gavai.
Mismatch Between Statements On Delhi LG & DDA VC On Tree Felling: Supreme Court Seeks New Affidavits
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024
The Supreme Court observed that there was a discrepancy between the statements of the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Vice Chairperson of the DDA regarding the date on which the former was informed about the illegal felling of the trees in the Delhi's ridge forest.
The Court noted that as per the affidavit filed by the DDA Chairperson, who happens to be the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena, the information about the illegal tree felling was conveyed to him on June 10 by the DDA Vice Chairperson.
However, as per another letter issued by the DDA VC, the information about the tree felling was conveyed to the LG on April 12. Taking note of this mismatch, the Court asked both the Delhi LG and the then DDA VC Subhasish Panda (who was appointed as Additional Secretary in PMO) to file affidavits on the "above discrepancy."
'No Deliberate Low Marking': Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Evaluations In Rajasthan Civil Judges Exam
Case Details: Ms Sonal Gupta and Ors. v. Registrar General Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and Anr. | Diary Number 47205/2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the batch of petitions challenging the evaluations of English essay paper in the Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams 2024. The Court noted that seeing the nature of answers, there appeared no deliberate discrepancies in the markings.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the pleas challenging the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre, 2024 for alleged arbitrary markings in the English Essay Papers.
On the last hearing, the Court had asked the Rajasthan High Court to furnish a tabulated chart indicating the scores of two Law papers obtained by those candidates who got low scores (0-15) in the English essay paper.
Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Blindness To Attend Interview For Civil Judge Selection
Case Details: Siddharth Sharma v. High Court Of Judicature At Rajasthan | Writ Petition (Civil) No.710/2024
The Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing a candidate with blindness to attend the interview for the selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan.
After the Court pronounced the order, the counsel for the Rajasthan High Court raised an apprehension that it might be used as a precedent by other candidates to seek appointments. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked what was the problem in that.
"Let more and more such candidates come to the judiciary," CJI said. CJI also wished the petitioner, who was present in the Court, all the best for the interview.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, referring to its previous decisions, noted that quota for Persons with Disabilities will be treated as under horizontal reservation.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Amandeep Singh Dhall In Delhi Liquor Policy Case; All Accused In Case Get Bail
Case Details: Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 12036/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to Amandeep Singh Dhall, businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, in the corruption case arising out of the alleged Delhi liquor policy 'scam'. With this order, all the accused in the liquor policy case -in which AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and BRS leader K Kavitha, are also accused- have got bail.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while dealing with Dhall's challenge to Delhi High Court's judgment dated June 4, 2024, whereby a Single Judge dismissed his plea for regular bail in the CBI case.
Somnath Lands Where Demolitions Were Carried Out Won't Be Allotted To Third Parties Till Next Hearing: Gujarat Govt Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Auliya-E-Deen Committee v. State of Gujarat | SLP(C) No. 24515/2024
The State of Gujarat undertook before the Supreme Court that the lands in Gir Somnath, where demolition of structures was carried out by the authorities recently, would remain with the government and not be allotted to any third parties till the next date of hearing in the matter before the Court.
The State made this submission while the Court was hearing a petition challenging the Gujarat High Court's order (October 3) which refused to order a status quo on the demolition of Muslim religious structures and houses in Gujarat's Somnath.
'Frivolous Petition': Supreme Court Dismisses CBI's Plea To Restore LOC Against Actor Rhea Chakraborty & Family
Case Details: The Addl. Superintendent Of Police and Anr. v. Showik Indrajit Chakraborty, Diary No. 43258-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the State of Maharashtra and the Bureau of Immigration, challenging Bombay High Court's quashing of Look-out-Circulars (LOCs) issued against actress Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, her father (an army veteran) and her mother (an army school teacher) in the aftermath of the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan orally observed that the petition was "frivolous" and was filed merely because one of the accused persons was "high-profile."
Supreme Court Dismisses Former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda's Plea To Suspend Conviction To Contest Assembly Elections
Case Details: Madhu Koda v. State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation, Diary No. 49236-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda seeking suspension of his conviction and sentence in the coal scam case to contest the upcoming Jharkhand Assembly elections.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar dismissed the Special Leave Petition which was filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which rejected his plea to suspend the conviction.
Delhi HC Expected To Consider Sharjeel Imam's Request For Early Decision On Bail Application In UAPA Case: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sharjeel Imam v. State (NCT Of Delhi), W.P.(Crl.) No. 422/2024
The Supreme Court urged the Delhi High Court to consider the request for expeditious disposal of the petition filed by student activist Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, which has been pending since April 2022.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, considering a writ petition filed by Imam seeking to direct the High Court to decide his bail matter soon, observed that the "petitioner shall be at liberty to request the High Court to hear the bail application as expeditiously as possible on the next date and it is expected that the High Court shall consider the said request." The bench noted that the matter was listed before the High Court on November 25.
Supreme Court Allows Car Owner To File Representation Against Ban On 10-Year-Old Diesel & 15-Yr-Old Petrol Vehicles In Delhi-NCR
Case Details: Nagalakshmi Laxmi Narayanan v. Union of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court allowed an applicant to file a representation before the Delhi Government authority raising grievances against the ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi NCR.
The applicant, who challenged the ban, sought an alternative direction that it should not be given retrospective effect before April 7, 2015, the date on which the National Green Tribunal passed the order which forms the basis for the guidelines.
"Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant seeks to withdraw the applications with liberty to file appropriate representation to the concerned the authorities concerning the guidelines dated 20th February 2024 so far as prospective or retrospective operation is concerned. We therefore dispose of the application by granting liberty to the applicant to make representation which will be decided by appropriate authority in accordance with law", the Court stated.
The Court said that if the authority passes an adverse order, the applicant will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with the law.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing an Interlocutory Application filed in the MC Mehta case challenging the “Guidelines for Handling End of Life Vehicles in Public Places of Delhi, 2024” issued by the Delhi Government in February 2024 providing that diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years are not allowed to ply in Delhi NCR.
Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Muscular Dystrophy To Participate In NEET-UG 2024 Counselling
Case Details: Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21942/2024
The Supreme Court permitted a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024, considering that the expert report opined that the candidate could pursue the MBBS Course with the help of assistive devices.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a plea by a candidate facing 88% muscular dystrophy and was disqualified from pursuing MBBS on the ground that the NMC Guidelines require bringing down the disability to less than 80% for those with petitioner's condition to pursue MBBS.
Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Locomotor Disability To Appear For Rajasthan Civil Judge Interview
Case Details: Tishan Jangid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan & Anr.
The Supreme Court allowed a candidate with locomotor disability to appear for the interviews for Rajasthan Civil Judge.
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the plea of a petitioner who suffers from locomotor disability to the extent of 60% cleared the preliminary and main examinations with 111.5 marks.
Why Video Conferencing Facilities Not Used To Produce Accused? Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Home Secretary To File Affidavit
Case Details: Aftab Anwar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra SLP (CrlP No. 8212/2024)
The Supreme Court asked the State of Maharashtra to explain why Video Conferencing facilities are not being used to produce the accused in Court for trial proceedings.
The Court has sought an affidavit from the Secretary of the Home Department of the Maharashtra Government. A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and R Mahadevan passed this order while noting that the trial in a case was adjourned on 30 occasions as the accused was not produced.
Supreme Court Stays HC's Imposition Of Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Adv Mehmood Pracha, Seeks ECI's Response On Why Remarks Against Him Be Not Expunged
Case Details: Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024
The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order to the extent that it imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for "wasting Court's time" by filing a petition concerning videography during the electoral process.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, issuing notice to the Election Commission for the limited purpose as to why the observations made by the High Court against Pracha be not expunged and why the order imposing cost be not set aside.
Other Developments
'You Can't Seek In-House Inquiry Against Judge For Denying Relief': CJI DY Chandrachud To Litigant
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud took exception to a litigant seeking in-house enquiry against a judge for not granting him relief.
The litigant, a party-in-person, was mentioning a petition in which he had added retired Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent. He said that the petition was filed in May 2018.
Expressing surprise and dismay at the petition, CJI told the party:
"How can you file a PIL with the judge as a respondent? There has to be some dignity. You cannot just say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was a former judge of the Supreme Court. He retired as the Chief Justice of India. You cannot say I want an in-house inquiry against a judge because you did not succeed before the bench. Sorry, we cannot tolerate this."
The litigant said that Justice Gogoi had wrongfully dismissed his petition, challenging his termination from service, relying on an illegal statement and that there were "gross errors of law" in the judgment.
CJI Chandrachud told the party that if he deleted Justice Gogoi's name from the array of respondents, then the Registry would consider processing it. The party agreed to do so.
Telangana MBBS/BDS Admissions: Supreme Court Asks State If Local Quota Criteria Can Be Applied From Next Academic Year
Case Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024
The Supreme Court while hearing the issue pertaining to the Telangana Local Quota Rule for MBBS Admissions, suggested to the State of Telangana to consider if the new criteria (four years continuous study and passing the qualifying exam in Telangana) could be applied from the next academic year.
During the hearing, the State also said that it was considering revoking the earlier concession granted by it for making a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court challenging the criteria.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Compensation To Victims of 1992-93 Communal Riots In Mumbai
Case Details: Shakeel Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay in payment of compensation the victims of the 1992 and 1993 communal riots in Mumbai.
“So much of delay in making payment of compensation to victims of riots”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked after the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority sought time to file a report showing compliance with the Court's earlier order directing payment of compensation.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, perusing the report submitted by the Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, noted that some progress had been made in implementing the Court's directions regarding compensation.
Supreme Court Refuses To Pass Status Quo Order Against Demolitions In Somnath, Seeks Gujarat's Response
Case Details: Summast Patni Musslim Jamat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022
The Supreme Court sought the response of the State of Gujarat on a contempt petition alleging illegal demolition of Muslim religious and residential places by authorities on September 28 at Gir Somnath.
However, the Court refused to pass an interim order of status quo with respect to the demolitions.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Summast Patni Musslim Jamat, a Trust representing the Patni Muslim community of Prabhas Patan.
'My Credibility At Stake': CJI DY Chandrachud Disapproves of Different Lawyers Mentioning Same Case
The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed displeasure at the practice of repeated mentioning of same cases by different advocates.
Bulldozer Actions | 'Will Clarify Demolition Can't Be Done Merely Because Someone Is Accused/Convict': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on petitions against the demolition of houses of persons as a punitive measure, a practice popularly referred to as 'bulldozer justice' or 'bulldozer actions.'
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan elaborately heard the parties on the guidelines which can be issued to ensure that the local laws providing for the demolition of unauthorised constructions are not misused and that due process is followed.
The bench said that it would clarify that demolitions cannot be carried out merely because somebody is an accused or a convict in a crime. At the same time, the bench stated that it would ensure that unauthorized constructions and public encroachments are not protected.
Scammers Fake Supreme Court Hearing & Impersonate CJI, Dupe Industrialist of ₹7 Crore
Textile baron and Chairman of the Vardhman Group, SP Oswal has filed a complaint for being scammed by cyber criminals who orchestrated a fake Supreme Court hearing presided by a person impersonating Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
According to a report by Reuters , the fraudsters swindled Rs 7 crores of Oswal after he was made to attend a fake court proceeding in a purported money laundering case where he was 'directed' to deposit funds in an account.
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Challenge To Centre's Circular Treating OCIs As NRIs For Admissions
Case Details: Aranav Bhargav v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot Through its Registrar| SLP(C) No. 022927 - 022928 / 2024
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the plea by an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) who has challenged government circular treating OCIs to be NRIs for the purposes of admissions in medical and engineering courses.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which dismissed challenge to the impugned circular barring OCIs to be treated under General Category for medical and engineering admissions.
Delhi Police's Prohibitory Orders Affecting Ramlila & Religious Gatherings: Kalkaji Temple Priest Approaches Supreme Court
A Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police banning the assembly of five or more persons, dharnas, protests etc in Delhi from September 30 to October 5 (both days inclusive).
The petitioner is Sunil, a priest of the Kalkaji temple and the Secretary of the Manas Naman Sewa Society, which organises the grand Ramlila fair at the Satpula Ground in Chirag Delhi. The petitioner stated that the Ramlila festivities, which were scheduled to commence on October 3, cannot happen due to the Delhi Police's order.
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas of SHUATS VC & Officials To Quash Cases Under UP Religious Conversion Law
Case Details: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court reserved the judgment in a batch of petitions seeking to quash the criminal cases against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj over alleged forced mass religious conversions of people to Christianity.
'Registry Has Messed Up The Cause List': Justice AS Oka Expresses Dismay
Justice Abhay Oka expressed dismay over the Registry's handling of that day's cause list for his bench, noting that it was confusing.
Justice Oka commented, “Matters which have been listed on top have gone down. There is a complete mistake committed by the Registry.”
The first case on October 1 as per Court order was listed as Item No. 4, and two cases supposed to be taken up on top of the board were listed as Item Nos. 3 and 45. Further, a case supposed to be kept in the first ten matters was listed as Item No. 31, causing confusion regarding the order the cases were to be taken up by the bench.
Responding to a counsel's query whether the Court would have time to hear his matter listed at serial no. 31, Justice Oka remarked, “We don't know. The Registry has messed up the cause list today. They don't know how to prepare a cause list. It was supposed to be in the first 10 matters, but they have kept it at 31.
NCP Dispute: Sharad Pawar Approaches Supreme Court To Restrain Ajit Pawar Group From Using 'Clock' Symbol In Maharashtra Polls
Case Details: Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024
The founder of the Nationalist Congress Party(NCP), Sharad Pawar, has filed an application seeking to restrain the NCP(Ajit Pawar) from using the 'clock' symbol in the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly Elections. It urged the Supreme Court to direct the Ajit Pawar group to apply to the Election Commission of India for a new symbol.
Delhi Police's Prohibitory Order Against Gatherings Withdrawn, Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the order of Delhi Police Commissioner prohibiting public gatherings beyond 5 or more persons from September 30 to October 5 has been withdrawn.
The SG made this statement before the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra in response to an urgent mentioning of a plea challenging the said order.
CJI DY Chandrachud Rebukes Lawyer For Inquiring With Court Master About Contents of Order
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud rebuked a counsel for making enquiries with the Court Master regarding the contents of an order.
The Counsel mentioned before the CJI that in an arbiration matter, few observations which were dictated in the open court were not present in the final draft of the order. When the CJI asked the counsel how he got to know about the contents of the order, the counsel admitted that he made enquiries with the Court Master.
Displeased by the conduct of the advocate, the CJI remarked: "How dare you ask the court master what I dictated in the court? Tomorrow you will come to my house and ask the PS what I am dictating in my chamber? Lawyers have lost all sense of decency or what? The final order is the one which we sign."
'What Happens To Democracy If You Interfere Like This?': Supreme Court Questions Delhi LG In MCD Standing Committee Election Matter
Case Details: Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 649/2024
The Supreme Court orally expressed reservations about the manner in which the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi issued directions for holding the elections for the 6th member of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
The Court asked "what was the tearing hurry" in holding the elections in the absence of the MCD Mayor and questioned the resort to Section 487 of the DMC Act by the LG.
"487 is an executive power. It is not to interfere with legislative functions. It's the election of a member. What happens to democracy if you keep interfering like this?" the Court orally asked.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan issued notice to the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on the petition filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi challenging the election of the 6th member of the MCD standing committee held on September 27, which was won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
WB Universities' VC Appointments | Can Chief Minister Change Order of Preference For Shortlisted Candidates? Supreme Court To Clarify
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023
In the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court expressed an inclination to clarify its earlier order regarding recommendation of candidates' names by the Chief Minister, to say that the order of preference of the names shall be as fixed by the search-cum-selection committees.
The development came as an interim application seeking modification/clarification of judgment dated July 8, 2024 was mentioned before a Justice Surya Kant-led bench by Attorney General of India R Venkataramani.
If Tree Planting Conditions Are Violated, Will Order Demolition Of Constructions & Restore Land: Supreme Court Warns Project Proponents
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court warned that if project proponents do not comply with conditions of compensatory afforestation imposed while granting tree felling permissions, it will impose costs and order restoration of the lands apart from contempt action.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with the issue of enhancing the green cover in Delhi, focusing on compliance with court orders related to compensatory afforestation efforts when permissions for tree felling are granted.
Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Premature Listing Of Bail Plea In PMLA Case
Case Details: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court raised concerns over the listing of a bail plea in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the scheduled date, in violation of its prior order.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih focusing on how the case was listed earlier than directed by the court.
Justice Oka remarked, “Somebody in custody makes an attempt to get matter listed in this manner, we have to be very careful about it.”
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Disability Rights Activist's PIL To Strengthen Right Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016
Case Details: Satendra Singh v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 636/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking the establishment of centres across the states for the assessment of disabilities as well as adequate reforms to strengthen the framework of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) and State Commissioners (SCPDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issues raised in the PIL.
The plea has been filed by Dr. Satendra Singh, a prominent disability rights activist, licensed medical professional, and advisor to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD), New Delhi.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Seeking Monthly Stipend For Foreign Medical Graduates At Govt Colleges In Kerala, AP
Case Details: Association of Doctor and Medical Students v. Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 632/2024 (and connected case)
The Supreme Court issued notice on pleas seeking regular monthly stipend for foreign medical graduates (FMGs) pursuing compulsory internships at different government medical colleges, teaching and non-teaching institutes in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter and tagged it alongwith similar cases pending adjudication.
Notify River Conservation Zones, Prevent Illegal Constructions On River Banks: PIL In Supreme Court
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Raghav v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 621/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed under Article 32 against the illegal constructions and encroachments on flood plains and catchment areas.
The PIL highlights the severe consequences of these illegal constructions, including widespread devastation, loss of lives, and damage to property caused by floods. It also points out the collapse of vital infrastructure such as roads and bridges due to these unauthorized developments.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issue.
Won't Stay Punjab Panchayat Elections, Says Supreme Court While Agreeing To List Plea Challenging Polls
The Supreme Court agreed to list a petition challenging the Punjab Panchayat elections but said that it won't stay the elections, which are taking place.
A petition challenging the elections on the grounds of alleged irregularities was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for an urgent hearing. Though CJI agreed to list the petition, he said that the elections cannot be stayed once the process has commenced
CJI DY Chandrachud was of the view that staying the elections after the polling has commenced will have grave consequences and may lead to chaos.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Three Advocates As Andhra Pradesh High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of the three Advocates for appointment as Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Supreme Court Gives Final Chance To HCs, Centre & States/UTs To Comply With Directions To Prevent Unnecessary Arrests & Remand
Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MA 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021
The Supreme Court has yet again given one last opportunity to the Union, High Courts, States, and Union Territories to report compliance with the directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation within 4 weeks.
The Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing an application, filed in the main matter of Satender Kumar Antil, for compliance with the directions issued.
NTF On Doctors' Safety Has Not Made Substantial Progress: Supreme Court Sets 3-Week Deadline
Case Details: In Re : Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the National Task Force (NTF) - which was constituted by the Court to make recommendations on enhancing the security for medical professionals across the country- has not made substantial progress.
The Court expressed dismay that the NTF, which was constituted by the order passed on August 20, has not held any meeting after September 9.
"Why no meeting after September 9?", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta. The Court directed that the NTF should hold regular meetings and complete its task within a period of three weeks.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the suo motu case taken over the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital on August 9. In the suo motu case, the Court had decided to address the issue of lack of adequate security measures for medical professionals and formed the NTF to make appropriate recommendations to improve the situation.
Do Something As SCBA President To Streamline Filing & Arrangement Of Files: Justice Bela Trivedi To Kapil Sibal
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of streamlining of case records while hearing an insolvency matter.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal in the matter when Justice Bela faced some issues with the case records.
She orally remarked: "Mr Sibal, do something as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association to streamline the filing and arrangement of files and other things. It's really consuming and wasting time like anything."
Jet Airways Insolvency: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On SBI Plea Against Transfer Of Ownership To Jalan KalRock Consortium
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
The Supreme Court reserved its decision on the challenge by lenders of the cash-strapped Jet Airways to the NCLAT Order which allowed the Airlines' ownership transfer to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter.
CJI DY Chandrachud Recommends Justice Sanjiv Khanna As Next Chief Justice Of India
As per convention, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is on the verge of retirement, has recommended the name of the second senior judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as the next Chief Justice of India.
PMLA Review | Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing At Request Of Parties, Lists Matter On Nov 27
Case Details: Karti P Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement | RP(Crl) 219/2022
The Supreme Court adjourned the review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which upheld various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Next date given in the matter is November 27.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, CT Ravikumar and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, at a request made by the parties. While the petitioners submitted that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was on his legs in a part-heard, ED counsel Zoheb Hossain responded that ED was not opposing the request.
Application Seeking Statehood For Jammu & Kashmir Mentioned In Supreme Court For Listing:
An application seeking directions to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner within two months was mentioned in the Supreme Court for listing.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud seeking a listing of the application. "There is an MA in the Article 370 matter, the implementation for conferring statehood...it has to be time-bound," Sankaranarayanan said. CJI agreed to consider the request.
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Whether Alimony Can Be Granted Under Hindu Marriage Act If Marriage Was Void
Case Details: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of whether alimony can be granted under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) when a marriage has been declared void.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih heard arguments on this question.
During the hearing, the bench criticised the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar v. Leelabai W/o Bhausaheb Magar, which used the term "illegitimate wife" in the context of void marriages. Justice Oka criticized this terminology, saying that it is against the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA Ought To Have One Judicial Member? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: The Joint Director v. Eastern Institute For Integrated Learning In Management University, SLP(Crl) No. 265/ 2024
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court passed an order directing that 6 cases, raising the issue whether Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) ought to have one Judicial Member, be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that they can be listed before one Bench.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih in a special leave petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, assailing an order of the Sikkim High Court whereby modification of a direction to the Union of India to take steps for appointment of a Judicial Member to the AA was declined.
Trust Not Disqualified From Filing Consumer Complaint: Centre To Supreme Court
Case Details: Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
The Union of India submitted before the Supreme Court that merely being a trust does not disqualify a legal entity from filing a consumer complaint if it meets other conditions of being a consumer.
Bar Association Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Validity Of 4 BNSS Provisions
Case Details: Mannargudi Bar Association v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 625/2024
The Mannargudi Bar Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging 4 provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These include: Sections 43(3) [Handcuffing], 107 [attachment, forfeiture of property], 223 [non-taking of cognizance in a complaint case without opportunity of hearing to accused] and 356 [trial in absence of accused].
The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which heard arguments restricted to Section 43(3) and noted that it is limited in scope to only very serious offenders and though a possibility of misuse of the provision may need to be addressed, the whole provision can't be said to be bad.
Supreme Court Issues Notices To Union & FRRO On Plea Against Detention Of Nigerian National In Tamil Nadu
Case Details: Yoti Tobi Jones v. The Additional Secretary To The Government and Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 12912/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of Indian and Foreigners Registration Office in a special leave petition filed by the Indian wife on behalf of a Nigerian national detained in Special Camp (Foreigners), Tiruchirappalli for allegedly committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
Service As Fast Track Judge Not Counted For Pension: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Of Deceased Judicial Officer's Wife
Case Details: Purnima Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea preferred by the wife of a deceased judicial officer who was denied his pensionary and retiral benefits despite over 10 years of total service as a Judicial Officer.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Punjab Panchayat Polls Over Alleged Irregularities
Case Details: Sunita Rani and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., Diary No. 47900-2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea alleging irregularities in the conduct of the Panchayat Elections in Punjab, held on October 15.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order, seeking response from the Punjab government and State Election Commission. The matter is tentatively listed on November 19.
Plea Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Urgent Relief Against Demolitions Proposed Following Bahraich Violence
Case Details: Swaliha & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.
Three persons alleged to be related to the incident of violence that took place at Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh on 13.10.2024 have approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief against demolition action proposed to be taken against their houses on 20.10.2024.
The development comes in the form of an intervention application filed in the "bulldozer matter", during the hearing of which the Court expressed that house of a person cannot be demolished merely because he is an accused.
Secularism Always Part Of Constitution, Says Supreme Court While Hearing Plea Against Amendment To Preamble
Case Details: 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
Secularism has always been held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, orally said the Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter.
Stockpile Of Evidence Against Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case: Kerala Police To Supreme Court
A status report was filed by the Kerala Police opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
It is claimed in the report that the petitioner is an extremely influential person in the Malayalam film industry, and the ongoing investigation reveals the "ill-intent" of the petitioner's attempt to destroy evidence and threaten witnesses.
'Deprives Right To Choose NOTA': RP Act Provision Allowing Election Of Uncontested Candidate Challenged In Supreme Court
Case Details: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union Of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act ("RP Act"), which provides for direct election of candidates in uncontested elections ie without conduct of a poll.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who appeared and argued on behalf of petitioner-Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
'Will Take ED Officers To Task': Supreme Court Frowns Upon ED's Overnight Questioning; Terms It 'Unpardonable'
Case Details: Anil Tuteja v. Union of India
The Supreme Court questioned the manner in which retired IAS Officer Anil Tuteja was interrogated by the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged liquor scam case in Chhattisgarh.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing petition filed by Tuteja challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal to quash corruption and money laundering charges against him in connection with the alleged liquor scam in the state.
UP Madarsa Education Act | Law Regulating Institution Of A Community Not Per Se Against Secularism :Supreme Court
Case Details: Anjum Kadari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 14432-2024
The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge to the striking down of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004'. orally observed that laws regulating the educational institutions of a religious community cannot by that fact alone be considered a violation of secularism.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the challenge to Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional.
Coaching Centres Should Be A Safe Place, Can Have Tie-Ups With Nearby Hospitals: Supreme Court Mulls Need For Detailed Guidelines
Case Details: Coaching Federation Of India v. Government Of NCT Of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 30149-2024
While hearing the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Delhi's Old Rajinder Nagar, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court called for an examination of the need for comprehensive guidelines/policy to ensure safe working of coaching centres.
"Learned Union/state counsels may also give their inputs to the learned Amicus, who shall meanwhile examine the desirability of comprehensive regulations/policy dealing with all necessary aspects for running of a safe coaching centre, initially [with respect to] NCR", said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Seeking Virtual Hearings In Family Courts
Case Details: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union Of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 667/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in PIL seeking hybrid hearings in Family Courts to ease the litigation process for the parties and their family members.
The petition was heard by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra. The petition is filed by Advocate Kishan Chan Jain.
'Striking Down Madarsa Act Like Throwing Baby With Baby Water; Let's Preserve India As Melting Pot Of Religions': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Case Details: Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on a batch of petitions filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's March 22 judgment which struck down the UP Board of Madarsa Education, 2004 on the ground that it violated the principles of secularism. The Supreme Court had in April stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment.
SCBA And SCAORA Object To Proposed Workstations For New Lawyers In SC Building Expansion Plan
In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have objected to the allocation of 1600 workstations for new lawyers in the upcoming Supreme Court expansion building.
The letter, signed by SCBA President Kapil Sibal and SCAORA President Vipin Nair urges reconsideration of the proposed space utilization to meet requirement of chambers for lawyers who have been waiting for years for chamber allotment.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Another Plea Challenging Punjab Panchayat Polls Over Alleged Prevention Of Candidates From Filing Nomination
Case Details: Sumandeep Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., SLP(C) No. 25243/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on another plea challenging the Panchayat elections held in Punjab over alleged prevention of candidates from filing nomination papers.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan passed the order. The matter has been listed next on 18.11.2024.
SCBA Executive Committee Objects To Changing Supreme Court Emblem, Lady Justice Statue Without Consulting Bar
The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution objecting to the 'unilateral' changes made to the emblem of the Supreme Court and the statute of lady justice without consulting the members of the Bar.
"We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are totally clueless on the rationale behind these changes," the resolution read.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against HC Order To Register FIRs On Statements Of Malayalam Cinema Actors To Justice Hema Committee
Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala SLP(c) 25250-25251/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the Kerala High Court's direction to the police to register FIRs on statements made by women actors to Justice Hema Committee regarding the abuses faced by them in the Malayalam cinema industry.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale issued notice on a special leave petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil against the direction issued by the Kerala High Court on October 14.
'We Are Discontinuing This Practice': Supreme Court Says Won't Record Appearances Of Advocates Who Didn't Argue/Appear
The Supreme Court refused to mark the presence of an advocate in the order saying that she did not argue/appear though the Senior Advocate who argued the matter was engaged by her.
The counsel, a young woman, tried to reason why she wanted her appearance to be marked before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. She said: "I engaged a senior advocate. It's a common practice [asking to be marked for appearance]. Client would think, I did not appear."
However, Justice Bela refused and added: "We will discontinue this practice [marking names of counsels who did not argue]."
Zakir Naik Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Seeking Clubbing Of Hate Speech FIRs
Case Details: Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed Islamic preacher Zakir Naik to withdraw his write petition seeking to club multiple FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Karnataka for hate speech under Section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.).
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the 2013 petition after Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for Naik sought permission to withdraw with liberty to approach the concerned High Courts.
Centre Notifies Appointment Of Justice Sanjiv Khanna As Next Chief Justice Of India
The Union Government notified the appointment of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next Chief Justice of India.
"In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, Hon'ble President, after consultation with Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as Chief Justice of India with effect from 11th November, 2024," said Arjun Ram Meghwal, Union Minister for Law & Justice.
Plea Filed In Supreme Court Against ECI Decision To Increase Number Of Electors Per Polling Station From 1200 To 1500
Case Details: Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission Of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024
A public interest litigation has been initiated before the Supreme Court, challenging Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station have been increased from 1200 to 1500.
The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan which, without issuing notice, directed that an advance copy of the petition be served upon the nominated/standing counsel for ECI, so they may obtain instructions on the factual position and appear in Court on the next date.
The matter has been listed in the week commencing 02.12.2024.
Only Parliament Can Decide If Indian Succession Act 1925 Can Be Extended To Muslims Who Are Non-Believers: Union Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Sufiya PM v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024
The Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it was only within the Parliament's domain to decide if Indian Succession Act, 1925 would extend to Muslims who are non-believers.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud ,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a plea by the petitioner Safiya PM who sought the inclusion of those Muslims who had renounced their faith into the Act of 1925 instead of the Muslim personal law in matters relating to succession and inheritance.
Final Year Law Students Now Allowed To Register For AIBE XIX: BCI Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Case Details: Nilay Rai & Ors v. Bar Council of India| W.P.(C) No. 577 of 2024
The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that as per its recent notification dated September 25, it has allowed final year law students to appear for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE XIX). The Court also noted that fresh guidelines for next year's AIBE will soon be placed before the concerned stakeholders.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwal and Manoj Misra, was hearing the plea challenging the earlier BCI (Bar Council of India) notification which barred final semester law students from registering for the exam.
Senthil Balaji Corruption Case Assigned To District Judge With Reduced Caseload: Madras High Court Informs Supreme Court
Case Details: Y. Balaji v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch (Job Racketing) and Anr.
The Madras High Court informed the Supreme Court that the corruption and cheating cases arising out of the cash-for-jobs scam in which Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji is the prime accused have now been assigned to a district judge with a reduced caseload, who will only handle these specific cases.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih On September 30 had directed the Madras High Court to appoint another sessions judge to manage the trial due to the heavy workload of the judge overseeing cases involving MPs and MLAs. The Court had emphasized that the trial should be assigned to a judge who would not be overburdened, noting the large scale of this case, which involves over 2,000 accused persons and 600 prosecution witnesses.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Contempt Petition Filed Against Rajasthan Authorities Over Lack Of Steps To Tackle Air & Noise Pollution
Case Details: Bhagyashree Pancholy v. Ms. Aparna Arora & Ors., CONMT. PET. (C) No. 480/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition filed against Rajasthan authorities over an alleged lack of steps to tackle air and noise pollution in the state, particularly in Udaipur, despite the Court's directives of November, 2023.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, dispensing with the appearance of the alleged contemnors - including Additional Chief Secretary, Dept. of Environment, State of Rajasthan. The matter is tentatively listed on December 10.