JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Goan Personal Law - Portugese Civil Code| Right To Property Of Highest Bidder Is Heritable And Not A Personal Right - Supreme Court A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed that an heir's right to participate in licitation and claim a specific item of property, "at the appropriate stage – when owelty was to be demanded", was not merely...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed that an heir's right to participate in licitation and claim a specific item of property, "at the appropriate stage – when owelty was to be demanded", was not merely a personal right which would extinguish upon the heir's death under the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code. Since a bid is offered by the heir in their capacity as a member of the family, an item of property for which they had bid successfully, but for which no owelty was demanded by the other heirs, would be heritable, the apex court clarified.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, directed that the FIRs registered Times Now anchor, Navika Kumar, over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed on a channel debate, be transferred to the IFSO unit of the Delhi Police.
The FIR registered by the Delhi Police IFSO Unit shall be taken as the lead case. The direction will be applicable to future FIRs which may be registered with respect to the same telecast. Investigation of any subsequent complaint on the same News hour debate shall be transferred to IFSO Unit.
Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Of Watchman Who Was Illegally Dismissed 20 Years Ago
The Supreme Court recently granted relief to a watchman who was wrongfully terminated from service in 2002, by ordering his reinstatement within 6 weeks. The Court further directed that the man should be paid backwages for the period from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2022 .
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat passed the judgment in a petition filed by one Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja, who was appointed in 1992 as a watchman by the Kutch district panchayat. He was terminated from the services on 30.12.2002 for no cause, without notice and without following the procedure prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Employee Can Be Terminated For Suppression Or False Information Regarding Suitability: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an employee can be terminated from service if it is found that he had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post.
The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court observed that, while considering an application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets.
Once all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets, the bench of Justices MR Shah and observed.
The Supreme Court observed that a relief of permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell.
A plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for for specific performance, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed.
Leave Encashment Benefit Is Part Of Salary : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that leave encashment is part of salary.
The Court held that the condition in Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 that barred carry forward of balance privilege leave is an arbitrary and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced.
Suit Is Liable To Be Dismissed If A "Necessary Party" Is Not Impleaded : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a suit is liable to be dismissed if a "necessary party" is not impleaded.
For being a necessary party, according to the court, the twin test has to be satisfied (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party.
The Supreme Court has once again stressed on the need to immediately deliver judgments by observing that a litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for a Court Order.
In this case, a party to election petition filed an an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the High Court for Telangana. An order was pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application and and rejecting the election petition.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for alleged rape and murder of a six year old girl. The Court noted that there are seriously inherent contradictions in the statements made by prosecution witnesses and both the Trial Court and the High Court have overlooked it completely.
"Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian remarked.
The Supreme Court observed that an able-bodied husband is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child.
The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Judgment Or Decree Obtained By Fraud Is To Be Treated As A Nullity : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad cancelling the fair price shop licence of the writ petitioner. It was found that the cancellation was done without following the full-fledged inquiry process.
The Supreme Court observed that time limit(s) specified in the agreement cannot be ignored altogether by the Court while excercising its discretition to grant specific performance.
In this case, the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property. The agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission from the ULC Authorities was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser shall be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances. The defendant terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating that since the permission could not be obtained, she had cancelled the agreement of sale. After ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984 and thereafter filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Later, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the decree by allowing defendant's appeal.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday held that under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him.
The Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala was considering a set of appeals by then four JD(U) MLAs – Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Rabindra Rai, Neeraj Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar, who were not only disqualified but also denied pensionary benefits on November 11, 2014 by the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly Speaker.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday declared that unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship.
The Court ruled that exclusion of unmarried women who conceive out of live-in relationship from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules is unconstitutional.
"All women are entitled to safe and legal abortion", the Court said noting that the 2021 amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not make a distinction between married and unmarried women.
The Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud, on Thursday, held that the meaning of rape must be held to include "marital rape" for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules.
The Court held that wives, who conceived out of forced sex by their husbands, will also come within the ambit of "survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest" mentioned in Rule 3B(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. For context, Rule 3B(a) mentions the categories of women who can seek termination of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks.
The Supreme Court observed that a woman who seeks legal abortion cannot be required to seek consent from her family.
It is only the woman's consent (or her guardian's consent if she is a minor or mentally ill) which is material, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday read down the mandatory police reporting requirement under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to hold that a doctor need not disclose the name and identity of the minor girl in the the information given to police.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala called for a harmonious reading of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the POCSO Act and held that a registered medical practitioner was exempt from disclosing the identity and other personal details of a minor in the information provided under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar prima facie observed that the Jayantilal Mistry case did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The bench also noted that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right under Article 21 in a subsequent judgment delivered by a 9-judge bench in 2017 in the Puttaswamy case.
The Supreme Court observed that unreasonable and unexplained delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal can vitiate the detention order.
While setting aside concurrent conviction in a murder case, the Supreme Court observed that videography containing confession made before police is inadmissible as evidence.
Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence, the bench comprising CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
The Supreme Court observed that an issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.
Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averments, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.
Employee Can Be Terminated For Suppression Or False Information Regarding Suitability: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an employee can be terminated from service if it is found that he had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post.
The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
NEWS THIS WEEK
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi Declines To Be The Next Attorney General For India
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi has told LiveLaw that he has declined the Union Government's offer to be the next Attorney General for India. He said that he thought about the offer again and decided to decline it.
The term of the incumbent Attorney General for India KK Venugopal is ending on September 30. There were reports that Rohatgi was going to take the AG's mantle after Venugopal from October 1.
Case Title : Shaji Paulose versus Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Case Title: Foundation of media professionals & anr v UOI
A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and J.B. Pardiwala listed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for 18th October 2022.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the petitioners, Foundation of Media Professionals in the matter. CJI Lalit remarked that–
"List these matters on 18th October 2022. The counsel appearing in the connected matters sent intimation accordingly."
Case Title : Shraddha Tripathi vs Election Commission of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition which sought a direction that political parties cannot use election symbols allotted to them as party symbols beyond the period of elections.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka observed that the relief claimed was "disruptive of the election process" and imposed a cosy of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner for "complete wastage of judicial time".
Case Title: All India Transporters Welfare Association & Anr. v Union Of India & Ors
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the All India Transporters Welfare Association alleging illegal seizure of properties by police.
The petition had prayed for making a uniform procedure on a pan-India basis regarding the release of consignments and trucks illegally seized by police, by subordinate courts of India, in line of the uniform procedure established by Chief Justice Retd. NV Ramana during his tenure as the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. According to the Petitioner Association, the said uniform procedure in Delhi had been working well since 2013.
Case Title : R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Its Chief Secretary & Ors.
The Prime Minister's Office has told the Supreme Court that Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi's application, alleging non-compliance of the order on disclosure of information about action taken on corruption complaints against central government ministers, is arm-twisting and a pressure tactic.
"It is bonafide assumption of the respondent that the petitioner in guise of the present proceedings is seeking to achieve something indirectly what it cannot achieve directly," Parveen Kumar, who is Deputy Secretary in the PMO, said in a written reply to Chaturvedi's petition against the orders of Delhi High Court and Central Information Commission.
Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response To Suo Motu PIL On Drug Mafia, Appoints Amicus
Case Title: In The Re Menace Of Drug Mafia Network Operating In The Country
Case Title: Indian Professional Nurses Association v. Quality Council of India & Ors
The Supreme Court of India bench comprising of Justices A. S. Bopanna and P. S. Narasimha issued notice in a plea seeking formulation of a fresh national accreditation policy for ensuring adherence of best patient to doctor and patient to nurse ratio in all the NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers) hospitals.
The plea also seeks directions on the Quality Council of India and National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers, to place on record the documents which it scrutinizes before granting accreditation to hospitals.
Case Title: Ashutosh Ashokrao Kale vs State of Maharahstra
Case Title: Arun Muthuvel vs Union of India
The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Women and Child Development and the Indian Council of Medical Research in a petition challenging certain provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and related rules.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar issued notice in the matter.
Plea To Regulate Govt Advertisements: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Common Cause's PIL
Case Title: Common cause v. UOI
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a petition seeking directions to restrain Union and State Governments from using public funds on Government advertisements in violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 1.
After hearing Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan representing the petitioner in some details, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli thought it fit to issue notice in the matter.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v UOI & Ors
Supreme Court, refused to entertain a petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a direction that a Minister should be temporarily debarred from holding office, if the said person has spent 2 days in judicial custody.
The matter was heard by bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Historic Move By Supreme Court: Constitution Bench Hearings To Be Live-Streamed From Tomorrow
In a historic move, the Constitution Bench hearings in the Supreme Court will be live-streamed from tomorrow.
The proceedings can be watched in the Supreme Court's own platform webcast.gov.in/scindia/
There are three constitution benches sitting tomorrow, presided by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul respectively.
Case Title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra
Case Title : Eega Soumya vs M Mahender Reddy and others
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and J.B. Pardiwala heard a matter where the statement made under Section 164 of CrPC was provided to private parties by the court.
Right at the outset, CJI Lalit remarked–
"We don't understand how can 164 copy be given? How can they get the copy? First of all, how can the court actually release that? These copies, 164 statements are supposed to be kept in a sealed cover. They must be opened only at appropriate stages. In stage of investigation, it is just not permissible. Secondly, to be given the copies in hands of a private party is something which just cannot be accepted."
Supreme Court Orders Removal Of Business Activities In 500 Meter Radius Of Taj Mahal
Case Title. : M. C. Mehta vs Union of India
The Supreme Court issued a direction to the Agra Development Authority to immediately halt all commercial activities which come within the radius of 500 m from the peripheral wall of the Taj Mahal.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka issued the following directions in order to protect the iconic landmark site, "We allow the prayer and thus prayer 'A' of IA No. 91272/2022 reads as under: 'direct the Agra Development Authority to remove all business activities within 500 meters from the boundary/peripheral wall of the monument Taj Mahal which shall be in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution of India'."
Supreme Court Upholds HC Order Quashing Complaint Against Shah Rukh Khan In 2017 Stampede Case
Case Title : Jitendra Madhubhai Solanki Versus Shah Rukh Khan And Anr.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea assailing the order and judgment of the High Court of Gujarat which quashed a criminal case filed against the Bollywood Actor Shah Rukh Khan. A case was registered against the actor regarding a stampede which ensued at the Vadodara Railway Station in January 2017.
The top court bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C. T. Ravikumar passed the order refusing to interfere with the decision taken by the High Court quashing the complaint filed by Jitendra Madhubai Solanki.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Speedy Adoption, Foster Care And Sponsorship
Case Title: Srisabarirajan v. UOI & Ors
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a petition, inter alia, seeking guidelines for timely and speedy action by stakeholders under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) to secure rights of children in need of care and protection, primarily, in relation to adoption, foster care and sponsorship.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli tagged the present petition with another similar matter seeking simplification of the process of adoption.
Case Title: Delhi commission for protection of child rights v UOI
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a plea filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) challenging the 2021 amendment made to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 (JJ Act), which came into force on 1st September, 2022, whereby certain categories of offences against children have been made non-cognizable.
Appearing for DCPCR before a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Preteek K Chadha argued that the amendment sets out a less stringent standard than the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the unamended JJ Act.
Case Title: Vibhushita Sharma v UOI & Ors
The Supreme Court, issued notice in a petition challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to the extent it precludes candidates with speech and language benchmark disability (quantified at 40% or above) from availing reservation and taking admission in MBBS courses.
Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, apprised a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli that the impugned regulation takes away the statutory right of a person with benchmark disability who is, in essence, prohibited from pursuing a medical course.
Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Come Back With "Structured Reliefs" In Plea Relating To Assam-NRC
Case Title: Tarek Aktar Ansari v UOI & Ors
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli deferred the hearing of the plea, inter alia, seeking Court's indulgence to stop the alleged harassment of people belonging to religious and linguistic minority communities in Assam in the guise of detection and deportation of alleged foreigners.
The petition also seeks direction to authorities to not delete/exclude names from the 'final draft' of the NRC published on 31.08.2019; stop further identification of 'Doubtful' voters without proper verification; finalise the draft NRC only after providing opportunity to the person whose name are not there in the 2019 list to prefer appeal against the rejection of their applications.
SC Collegium Recommends To Elevate Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta As Judge of Supreme Court
Supreme Court Collegium has recommended to elevate Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Born in February 1965, Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late (J) Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, former Supreme Court Judge.
Allow Euthanasia Or Culling Of Violent And Rabid Stray Dogs : Kerala Govt Requests Supreme Court
The Kerala government has requested the Supreme Court to permit euthanasia or culling of violent and vicious stray dogs, particularly those dogs suspected of having contracted rabies.
The Court was told that the state Government had issued an order on September 15 in consonance with the high-level meeting chaired by the Minister for Local Self Government Department to deal with various aspects relating to the human-animal conflict in the backdrop of the increasing number of stray dog attack cases.
4th Constitution Bench Of Supreme Court Formed, Pleas Challenging Demonetisation Listed Tomorrow
One more Constitution Bench has been constituted in the Supreme Court to hear matters pending before 5-judge benches.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
The 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala held hearing for seven days. On the final day, the petitioners' lawyers made rejoinder to the arguments made by the Union Government.
Case Title: Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Ors.
"We direct that there would be no stay of the proceedings before the Election Commission of India. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed", the bench dictated the order.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency And Anr
The Supreme Court of India bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy sought the responses of the National Investigation Agency and State of Maharashtra in a petition moved by Gautam Navalkha seeking to be placed in house arrest instead of Taloja jail in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.
Supreme Court's Live Streaming Gets Huge Public Response, Over 8 Lakh Views So Far
The live-streaming of the three Constitution Bench hearings of the Supreme Court today received wide public viewership on the first day. As per YouTube statistics, the three videos have crossed 8 lakh views as on 7.45 PM.
Many social media users shared their happiness and excitement at witnessing the Supreme Court proceedings for the first time.
Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma vs Union of India
The Supreme Court of India will hear an SLP moved by Gujarat IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma, challenging an order of the Delhi High Court refusing to stay his dismissal, tomorrow. (September 28).
"We are not inclined to stay or interdict the order of dismissal dated 30.08.2022 at this stage," said the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court observed in its order.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.
Delhi Govt vs Centre : Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Start Hearing From 9th Nov, 2022
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, to commence with the hearing of the dispute between the Delhi Government and the Union Government regarding the control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi on 9th November, 2022.
A 5-judge Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, on Tuesday, stated that the hearing would proceed on a day-to-day basis.
In a joint statement expressing their shock and sadness at Gujarat government's decision to remit the sentences of convicts in the Bilkis Bano Case, a total of 157 alumni of India's premier law school, National Law School of India University (NLSIU), have called upon the Supreme Court "to do justice in the matter and send the convicts back to prison."
The release of the convicts "is abhorrent and prima facie in contravention of settled law on the matter," reads the statement.
Payment Of Stipend To Junior Lawyers A Real Issue, Observes Supreme Court During AIBE Hearing
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the All-India Bar Examination, considered the issue of fairly remunerating junior advocates.
The five-judge Bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari. The Court is being assisted by the Attorney-General of India and Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal as well as Senior Advocate K.V. Vishwanathan.
The Central Government has banned the Popular Front of India and associated entities for a period of five years. In exercise of the powers under Sec 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Central Government declared the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates or affiliates or fronts as "unlawful associations" with immediate effect.
PFI affiliates Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women's Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala are also declared "unlawful association".
Case Title : The Secretary to Government and another vs PG Venugopal
The Supreme Court recently imposed an exemplary cost of Rupees 5 lakhs on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing an unnecessary Special Leave Petition.
"At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the State ought not to have filed the present Special Leave Petition. Despite the fact that the issue with respect to entitlement of pension by the respondent was concluded up to this Court, still thereafter, the State had an audacity to contend that the respondent was not entitled to pension", a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari held.
Has Challenge To Demonetisation Become Academic? Does Issue Survive? Supreme Court Asks
The Supreme Court said that it will first examine whether the petitions challenging demonetisation have become academic and posted the matter to October 12.
A Constitution Bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna was considering 58 petitions which challenge the decision taken by the Central Government to demonetise the currency notes of Rupees 500 and 100.
The Union of India has informed the Supreme Court that additional seats have been approved in central educational institutions to ensure that there is no adverse impact due to the implementation of the reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
The Centre said that 2,14,766 additional seats have been approved in that regard.
Case Title: Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP
The Supreme Court, decided to commence with the hearing of pleas pertaining to the limits of right to freedom of speech and expression for public functionaries, on 15th November, 2022.
While briefly hearing the substratum of the matter, a 5-Judge Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna indicated that restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950, is to be determined on a case to case basis.
Case Title: Balwant Singh v Union of India and Ors
The Supreme Court of India bench comprising of Chief Justice U. U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice J. B. Pardiwala took exception to the lackadaisical attitude of the Central government in not considering the mercy petition filed by death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana, in the Chief Minister Beant Singh assassination case.
On May 2, the Supreme Court had directed the Central Government to decide the mercy plea of death row convict Balwant Singh Rajoana within 2 months, without being influenced by the fact that the appeals filed by other convicts in the Chief Minister Beant Singh assassination case are pending.
Case Title: Sita Soren v. Union of India
The Supreme Court, decided to commence with the hearing of the plea pertaining to the issue whether Article 194(1)/105 of the Constitution of India grants immunity to MLAs /MPs from being prosecuted for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe to cast vote in the legislature on 15th November, 2022.
A 5-Judge Bench comprising Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna noted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State. Though the Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta agreed, he submitted that the said judgment was passed by a Constitution Bench, in a 3:2 split.
Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Petition Challenging Provisions Of J&K Reservation Act 2005
Case Title: Munilal And Ors Versus The State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Anr
The Supreme Court of India allowed to withdraw a petition seeking to declare certain provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005 and related rules as illegal and unconstitutional.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala was prompted to do so after the Court was told of the developments which took place subsequent to the filing of the plea.
Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma versus Union of India
The Supreme Court refused to stay the Union Government's order dismissing Gujarat cadre IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma from service.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph an Hrishikesh Roy observed that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order refusing to stay the dismissal order, as it was an interim order.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD)
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Versus Union Of India And Ors
The Supreme Court of India bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy sought the responses from the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Election Commission of India (ECI), in a petition moved by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking to debar those persons against whom charges have been framed in serious offences, from contesting in elections.
As an alternative, the plea seeks to direct the ECI to amend the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order 1968 and insert an additional condition for the State or National Party to debar candidates if there are charges registered against them in serious offences.
Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided to commence with the hearing of the plea which raises the broad issue, whether Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked after judgment is reserved, on 15th November, 2022.
Appearing before a 5-Judge Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, Senior Advocate, Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia representing the petitioner, submitted that in his opinion his case is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab which sets out circumstances under which power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised. Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta submitted that interpretation of the same would be required.
Case Title: Dr. A. Packia Raj & Ors. vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed assailing the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras which rejected a challenge to the scheme of reservation being adopted in the Post Graduate Medical Courses in Tamil Nadu.
The apex court bench comprising of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli took up the matter filed by the petitioners who even though, were not party before the proceedings in the High Court, had moved the top court challenging the order in view of the effect it had on their rights.
Case Title: In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India And Ors.
Recently, the Supreme Court has clarified that the one kilometer wide Eco-Sensitive Zone around protected forests, set out by its order dated 03.06.2022, does not apply to Sanjay Gandhi National Park and the Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary.
A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala passed the order while deciding an application filed seeking clarification of its judgment dated 03.06.2022, which directs that each protected forest, National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary must have one kilometre wide No Development Zone.
AIBE Challenge: Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgement
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.
Supreme Court To List 300 Old Pending Matters From October 11, Oldest One Dates Back To 1979
The Supreme Court notified that 300 oldest after notice pending matters will be listed on non-miscellaneous days from October 11.
The oldest matter listed among the 300 cases is a civil appeal of 1979. There are about 20 matters which were filed between 1993 and 2000.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing a batch of petitions raising common questions of law, namely, whether it could exercise its powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage, what were the broad parameters to exercise such power, and whether the invocation of such extraordinary powers was allowed in the absence of the mutual consent of the parties.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
Case Title: Gyanendra Kumar Singh And Ors. Versus Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna And Ors
The Supreme Court of India held that under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him.
The Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala was considering a set of appeals by then four JD(U) MLAs – Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Rabindra Rai, Neeraj Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar, who were not only disqualified but also denied pensionary benefits on November 11, 2014 by the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly Speaker.
Case Title: X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi
The Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud, on Thursday, held that the meaning of rape must be held to include "marital rape" for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules.
The Court held that wives, who conceived out of forced sex by their husbands, will also come within the ambit of "survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest" mentioned in Rule 3B(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. For context, Rule 3B(a) mentions the categories of women who can seek termination of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, Justice S. Muralidhar, as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Justice S Muralidhar had succeeded Justice Mohammad Rafiq as the 32nd Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. Justice Muralidhar was born on August 8, 1961. He enrolled as an advocate on September 12, 1984 and practiced in civil courts in Chennai, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Delhi High Court on May 29, 2006 and as Permanent Judge on August 29, 2007. Later, he was transferred to Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 6, 2020.
Case Title : Joseph Shine vs Union of India
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union Government if there is anything specifically in the 2018 judgment in the Joseph Shine case which precludes disciplinary proceedings on the ground of misconduct against army officers for adultery.
The Joseph Shine case had decriminalised the offence of adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional.
Case Title: X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi
The Supreme Court read down the mandatory police reporting requirement under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to hold that a doctor need not disclose the name and identity of the minor girl in the the information given to police.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala called for a harmonious reading of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the POCSO Act and held that a registered medical practitioner was exempt from disclosing the identity and other personal details of a minor in the information provided under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency And Anr
While considering the petition filed by Bhima Koregaon case accused Gautam Navlakha seeking transfer to house arrest, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed that he be taken to a hospital of his choice immediately for a thorough medical check-up.
The Court will consider his plea next on October 21. The hospital has been asked to submit a report to the Court based on the check-up.
Adultery Tears Apart Families; Should Not Be Taken Lightly: Justice KM Joseph
Case Title: Joseph Shine vs Union Of India
Supreme Court judge Justice KM Joseph observed that adultery creates deep pain and tears apart families, therefore, matters concerning it should not be taken lightly.
Justice KM Joseph orally observed, "All of you counsel are aware of the pain, deep pain that adultery creates in a family. We have held so many sessions as judges in the High Courts, habeas corpus jurisdiction, we have seen how families are torn apart because of adultery. We thought of keeping this to ourselves but we are just telling you, don't treat it in a light hearted manner. If you have experience as to what happens in a family when adultery takes place."
CSR-Funded Private Jails : Supreme Court Gives Suggestions To Centre On Prison Reforms
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency And Anr
Noting the questionable conditions of jails in the country, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday gave an innovative suggestion, with a view to make the lives of prisoners better.
A Bench headed by Justice KM Joseph suggested the idea of private jails and recommended to have large corporates, as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility, to build jails.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the right to enter a marriage, and as an extension, the right to exit the union, would be covered under the right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) read with the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Case Title: Karmanya Singh Sareen and another versus Union of India and others
Considering the Centre's statement that a bill relating to personal data protection is being prepared, the Supreme Court adjourned to January 2023 the hearing of petitions challenging messaging platform WhatsApp's privacy policy.
A Constitution Bench bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar was hearing the petitions which were filed challenging the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp. The case was referred to the Constitution Bench in 2017.
Case Title: The Animal Welfare Board of India And Anr. v. UoI And Anr.
A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court will commence hearing pleas challenging Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka laws that allow bull-taming sport 'Jallikattu' and bullock cart races on 23rd November, 2022.
On Tuesday, the matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar.
Senior Advocates, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Anand Grover apprised the Bench that they are appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Grover apprised the Bench that the petitioners are assailing the laws that permit Jallikattu, while the respondents are defending them.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Case Title: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
Case Title: Common Cause v. UoI
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided to hear the Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the guidelines for Living Will/Advance Medical Directive that was issued by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.03.2021, on 23rd November, 2022.
Appearing before a Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, at the outset Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar elucidated on the concept of Living Will. Living Will is a written document that allows a patient to give explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when he or she is terminally ill or no longer able to express informed consent
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended elevation of Bombay High Court Judge, Justice Prasanna B. Varale as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court.
The Collegium also recommended to elevate of Orissa High Court Judge, Justice Jaswant Singh, as its Chief Justice.
J&K High Court's Judge, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, has also been recommended to take charge as the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh Justice Pankaj Mithal as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Mithal took the oath as the CJ of J&K&L High Court on January 1, 2021. His parent High Court is Allahabad High Court.
The post of Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court fell vacant with the retirement of previous CJ Justice SS Shinde on July 31.
SC Collegium Recommends Transfer of 3 Judges to Bombay, Jharkhand & Tripura High Courts
he Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 28th September, 2022 has recommended transfer of three Judges in the following manner:
Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra from Uttarakhand High Court to Jharkhand High Court;
Justice K. Vinod Chandran from Kerala High Court to Bombay High Court; and
Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh from Jharkhand High Court to Tripura High Court.
Case Title: M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors.
Lion Statue Atop New Parliament Building Does Not Violate State Emblem Act : Supreme Court
Case Title : Aldanish Rein and another versus Union of India
The Supreme Court held that the lion sculpture installed atop the new Parliament building under construction as part of the Central Vista project does not violate the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari dismissed a PIL filed by two lawyers who claimed that the new sculpture is contrary to the design of the national emblem approved under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
Case Title :Dr. Rajneesh Singh vs Union of India and Ors.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of a fact finding committee to study the "real history of Taj Mahal and to put to rest the controversy and clarify its history".
According to petitioner Dr.Rajneesh Singh, though it has been stated that the Taj Mahal was built by Mughal emperor Shahjahan for his wife Mumtaz Mahal for over a period of 22 years from 1631 to 1653, there is no scientific evidence to prove the same.
Prompt Listing, Live Streaming: CJI UU Lalit Completes One Month Tenure, CJAR Lauds Efforts
The NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has issued a statement lauding the "positive and constructive steps" taken by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit to enable a more efficient and transparent functioning of the Supreme Court.
On the occasion of his completing one month tenure as the 49th CJI, the organization congratulated Justice Lalit for onsetting the live streaming of Constitution Bench hearings in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Thiru O. Panneerselvam Versus Thiru K. Palaniswamy And Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by AIADMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Paneerselvam challenging the Madras High Court's direction which allowed Edappadi Palaniswami to continue as the interim General Secretary.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari posted the petition for hearing on November 21.
Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Palaniswamy, undertook that no election for General Secretary will be held till the matter is finally decided.
Case Title : Asaduddin Owaisi versus State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court issued limited notice on the petition filed by Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi challenging the order of Allahabad High Court granting bail to two persons accused of firing at his vehicle on February 3 this year.
The limited notice is issued to consider whether the High Court should be asked to reconsider the matter. The Hyderabad MP has taken an argument that the High Court passed the order without hearing him as the victim of the crime. Reference has been made to the recent order passed by the Supreme Court which set aside the bail granted to Asish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri case on the ground that the victims were not heard.
Case Title: Ramji Lal Bairwa And Anr. v. State of Rajasthan And Anr.
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Case Title: Anoop Baranwal And Anr. v. UoI And Anr.
Supreme Court Bench Holds Sitting Way Past Regular Working Hours, Sits Till 6.40 PM
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna sat till 6.40 pm today, which is way past the regular court sitting hours.
The regular court hours at the Supreme Court are 10.30 am to 4pm. Today, the bench was hearing certain hearing matters, which went beyond the regular hours.
Breaking with its usual working hours, a Supreme Court Division Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, on Friday heard cases till 9:10 PM, for a total of approximately 10 hours and 40 minutes, barring the lunch recess. The apex court usually sits from 10:30 AM to 4:00 PM on weekdays.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare And Anr.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala refused to issue notice to States in a petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a policy for population control in India. The bench, while questioning the enforceability of the "two-child policy" across the nation remarked that it would only issue notice to States after it is satisfied by the petition itself. The matter is now listed for 11th October.
Case Title: Golam Gazi v. State of WB And Ors.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice J.B. Pardiwala transferred a petition concerning diversion of the flow of a river in West Bengal to the Calcutta High Court and directed the Calcutta High court registry to list the matter before an appropriate bench.
The petitioner in the case was a public spirited citizen who stated that the respondent, by cutting the embankment of a river was trying to divert the flow of the river for private gain and in the process, putting the entirety of the population from the surrounding villages to prejudice.
Case Title: Bohatti Devi V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at how, at the instance of the accused in a murder case, after the chargesheet was filed, further investigation was transferred to another agency by the UP state home secretary.
The Apex Court also expressed displeasure that the Allahabad High Court, without application of mind to the seriousness of the charge, granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: Charanjeet Singh Chnderpal V. Vasant D. Salunkhe And Ors.
Case Title: AHSI Association Of Health Sciences Institutes v. Union of India
Case Status: Asok Chaturvedi And Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition filed by a Government servant seeking directions to the State of Chhattisgarh to stop the continuous search and surveillance carried out at his residence in violation of his right to privacy.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi, granted the petitioner, who was allegedly hounded by the State of Chhattisgarh, protection from any coercive steps, till the next date of hearing.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Recusal Of Justice KM Joseph, Stops Short Of Imposing Cost
Case Title: Manubhai Hargovandas Patel v. Learned Registrar (J-V) Shri H.K. Juneja
Case Title: T.R. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu And Anr.
The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea alleging deputation of Government employees for administration of Hindu Temples in Tamil Nadu, in derogation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the act of deputing government servants 'wipes out the separation of State and religion'. As per Section 55(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, trustees of respective temples are the sole authorities to appoint employees for the administration of the temples. The petition highlights that in 19,000 non-hereditary temples in the State of Tamil Nadu no trustees have been appointed by the concerned authorities in the past 11 years.