With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week and also the...
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week and also the updates of the Constitution bench hearing in Aligarh Muslim University's minority status matter, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Title: Vinoj v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 3390 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Tamil Nadu Government told the Supreme Court that there is no ban on organizing the live screenings of the Pran Pratishta ceremony of Lord Ram at Ayodhya and on performing special poojas, bhajans, or annadhanams to mark the occasion. The Division bench recorded the statement made on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government and observed "We believe and trust that the authorities will act in accordance with the law and not on the basis of any oral instructions.”
Case Title: Amit Chakraborty v. State | Diary No. 43226 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court allowed NewsClick human resources head and recently-turned approver Amit Chakraborty to withdraw his plea challenging his arrest by the Delhi police. He was arrested along with Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor-in-chief of the news portal in October last year.
Case : Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde SLP(C) No. 1644-1662/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging the refusal of the Maharashtra Speaker to disqualify the MLAs of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a matter relating to electoral reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association, the top Court today asked the Association to consider the desirability of taking up all issues in its General Body Meeting. The arguments addressed emanated in response to an application filed by a member of the SCBA through Advocate-on-Record Pravir Choudhary seeking a relaxation of the norms for determining voter eligibility.
Coram: Justices J K Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case Title: VYJYANTI MEHRA vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 51
The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 4 lakhs on the Himachal Pradesh University for re-evaluating subjects, which the student/ appellant neither applied for nor paid the revaluation fee. “Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appellant has applied only for two subjects, but under the terms of Clause 10 of the Revaluation Form, without deposit of the revaluation fee, the revaluation of other subjects has been made….,” the Court said.
Supreme Court Directs Trial To Commence In Cattle Smuggling Case Against TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal @ Kesto v. Central Bureau of Investigation., Diary No. 33558 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal seeking bail in connection with alleged cross-border cattle smuggling scam, ordered the commencement of the trial. The central agency arrested Mondal, currently lodged in Delhi's Tihar jail, in August last year.
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because the accused is willing to pay an interim compensation.
In the instant case, a case was registered against the accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Information Technology Act.
Before the High Court, inter-alia, the respondent submitted that he was ready to cooperate with the case investigation and also undertook to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant. In its two-page order, the Court asked the accused to deposit the said amount while granting bail. Imperatively, there were no reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Direct Centre To Notify Part 3 Of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code
Case Details: Seemab Qayyum v Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 1427/2023 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Writ Petition seeking the issuance of mandamus to the Union Government to notify Part 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The bench dismissed the matter observing that the issue is settled in the Supreme Court decision of AK Roy v. Union of India that such a direction cannot be issued by the Court.
Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION vs. U.O.I., Diary No.- 2844 – 1998
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The Supreme Court, in a writ petition pertaining to the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, has directed the States/UTs who have not filed compliance affidavits to file the same within eight weeks.
Case Title: AV Parmar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Diary No. 1671 of 2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings against four police officers who were sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court in October last year for their involvement in the public flogging of Muslim men in Gujarat's Kheda. A bench admitted the statutory appeal preferred by police officers A V Parmar, D B Kumavat, Laxmansinh Kanaksinh Dabhi, and Rajubhai Dabhi under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against October 19 order of the Gujarat High Court.
Case Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court held that while prosecuting a person for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be seen whether the deceitful act of cheating was coupled with an inducement leading to the parting of any property by the complainant.
MBBS : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Foreign Medical Graduates' Plea Seeking Payment Of Stipend
Case Title: SAJITH S L vs. ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, VIDISHA., Diary No.- 53064 – 2023
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
In a writ petition filed by the foreign medical graduates (FMGs) challenging non-payment of stipend to them, the Supreme Court issued notice.
The petition is tagged with Abhishek Yadav & Ors. vs. Army Medical College & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 730/2022). This case pertains to a plea in which 70 percent of medical colleges do not pay any stipend or are not paying the minimum set stipend to doctors doing MBBS internships.
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Title: The State of Nagaland and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors., SLP(C) Diary No. 21222/2022 (and connected matter)
The Supreme Court granted leave in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Nagaland challenging Kerala High Court's order which upheld the power of the State Government to regulate lotteries from other states.
Case Title: P.I. BABU vs. C.B.I., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 56
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and KV Vishwanathan
The Supreme Court opined that acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) cannot be based solely on invalid Sanction. “The Sessions Court could not have acquitted the accused only on the ground of alleged invalid sanction, without recording its findings on all the issues involved.,” the Court said.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. The State of Karnataka and Anr., Original Suit No. 1 of 2018
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In a dispute between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over sharing of Pennaiyar river water resources, the Supreme Court today directed that a new Negotiation Committee be constituted to re-explore the possibility of settlement by negotiations between the States. The Bench ordered that the Committee submit its report over the outcome to the Union government within 3 months of its constitution and the matter be listed thereafter.
Case Details: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VERSUS KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court set aside the default bail granted to DHFL promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan in the case related to the alleged multi-crore loan scam. Setting aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench noted that Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan cannot claim the statutory right of default bail on the ground that the investigation is pending against other accused.
CASE TITLE: M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8580-8582 OF 2011 (AND CONNECTED MATTERS)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 55
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
While deciding the question as to whether reopening of a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (Act) was legally sustainable or not, the Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of tax assessment, an assessee's obligation is limited to making a "full and true" disclosure of all "material" or primary facts, and thereafter, the burden shifts on the assessing officer. If a return is defective, it is upto the officer that he intimate the assessee in order that defects may be cured. But if the officer fails to do so, the return cannot be called defective.
Case Details: PRAMILA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 57
Coram: Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court acquitted a woman who was sentenced to suffer life-imprisonment for committing an offence of murder, after finding that she was a juvenile in 2000 when the offence took place. Setting-aside the concurring finding of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench noted that at the time of occurrence of the offence, the accused was juvenile, and therefore, no punishment could be imposed on the accused in view of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
Case Title: Vishal Noble Singh V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. (SLP(Crl) No. 2389/2023) And Vinod Bihari Lal Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case over alleged forgery and cheating against Dr.Vishal Noble Singh, the Principal of Bishop Johnson School and College, Prayagraj. A division bench observed that no offence was made out against the appellant on a reading of the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet.
Case Title: Halal India Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 690 of 2023 and connected matters.
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued notice in Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust's plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of halal-certified products. It also protected Jamiat chief Mahmood Madani and other office-bearers of the trust from any coercive action.
Case Title: Swami Prasad Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. | Diary No. 50823 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued notice in Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya's plea for quashing of criminal proceedings over his alleged remark about Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed Maurya's plea to quash legal proceedings in a Pratapgarh district court related to the controversial remarks about the epic poem based on Ramayanan.
The bench not only issued notice in his petition but also stayed the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
Case Title: Vishwa Hindu Parishad Kerala v. State of Kerala Diary No. 1752-2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad seeking permission to operate vehicles offering free transport for Sabarimala pilgrims in Nilakkal to Pampa route. The Court sought the responses of the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
Case Title: Icon Films Limited v. Ravindra N Redkar & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1460 of 2024
The Supreme Court asked the Karnataka High Court to defer the contempt proceedings against streaming platform Netflix over the airing of “Wild Karnataka” documentary. At the same time, the bench orally asked Netflix to contribute to the 'Tiger Protection Fund' and put an end to the dispute. CJI said that the bench will ask other parties also, BBC, Discovery India and the Producers also to contribute to the Fund and will fix an amount.
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. B. N. MAGON., Diary No(s). 53916/2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment, holding that an advocate's office run from a residential building is not subject to property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as a "business building." While doing so, the Bench affirmed that the "professional activity" of lawyers does not fall within the category of "commercial establishment" or "business activity," and the firm of lawyers is not a "commercial establishment."
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case Title: ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORS v. MANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10846 OF 2018., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The Supreme Court held that as per Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, disqualified members would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members.
Conviction Cannot Be Based On Suspicion : Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 15 Yr Old Murder Case
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Case Title: RAJA NAYKAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60
While deciding the issue whether suspicious sole recovery of blood-stained weapon could form the basis of conviction, the Supreme Court held in negative by holding that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.
Setting-aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench held that an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion unless some corroborated piece of evidence is found proving the guilt of the accused.
Supreme Court Stays Meghalaya HC Order Fixing Compensation Amount For Unnatural Custodial Deaths
Case Title: The State of Meghalaya v. Killing Jana & Ors., SLP(C) Diary No.47683/2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court has issued notice on Meghalaya government's petition challenging an order of the State's High Court, whereby quantum of punitive compensation payable by the government for custodial deaths since 2012 was affixed on the basis of age of the victims. The three-Judge Bench stayed the impugned judgment, subject to a condition that the State shall pay compensation amount determined by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Case Details: Surgical Manufacturers And Traders Association v Union Of India Diary No. 53762-2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court on declined to interfere with Delhi High Court's ruling which upheld the Central Government notifications to include medical devices such as nebulizers, blood pressure monitoring devices, digital thermometers, and glucometers as "drugs”. The bench dismissed the SLP filed by Surgical Manufacturers and Traders Association considering that the order to be reasoned adequately in light of welfare interests.
Case: In Re: Orders Of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and ancillary issues., SWM(C) No 1/2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose
In a special Saturday sitting, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, after taking suo motu cognizance of unusual developments in the Calcutta High Court, stayed all the proceedings before the High Court in the case where a single bench defied a stay order passed by a division bench.
The Court took suo moto cognizance of an order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court which called ignored an order by a division bench, which stayed the single bench's order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities pertaining to admissions to medical colleges in West Bengal.
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Constructions Near Nagpur's Futala Lake
Case Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v The State Of Maharashtra And Ors SLP(C) No. 1420/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices PB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Taking note of the concrete construction of 'temporary structures' in and around the 300 years old Futala Lake in Nagpur, the Supreme Court ordered status quo at the lake site and sought a response from the state of Maharashtra on the status of 'temporariness' of the structures concerned.
Constitution Bench Hearing- on the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Case Details: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SC Sharma
On the 4th day of arguments, the CJI verbally observed that it is now a well-settled proposition that merely seeking financial aid from the state will not deprive a denominational institution of its minority status.
During the submissions from the Union's side, Attorney General for India (AG) R Venkataramani mentioned in his written submissions that Article 30 was an enabling provision.
The bench however asked how Article 30 which grants rights to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, is considered 'enabling'. The CJI explained, “ You see enabling provision is like Article 15 where you have a choice to make a provision. 30 is not enabling so far as the state is concerned. It is an obligation on the state. It cannot be that I as a state can decide to grant or deny you the status.”
During the second half of the fourth day of the hearing of the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Solicitor General of India (SG) Mr Tushar Mehta made submissions on the historical aspects of the AMU Act of 1920 and emphasized the context in which the University came into existence. In one such submission, he argued that while AMU was a pre-constitution institution recognised under the Imperial legislation, there did exist other institutions at the same time which were not recognised under the British Crown. These included Osmania University, Bihar University, Kashi Vidhyalaya, Scottish College, St Stephen's etc.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta (SG), 5th day of hearing, argued that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was established by an imperial legislation passed by the British Crown (AMU Act 1920).
The Chief Justice of India, presiding over the 7 Judges Bench verbally observed that the regulatory frameworks during the British Era had one sole objective, that “nothing should be done to destroy the imperial hegemony of the colonial power”. He further stressed that it is in this context that the establishment of a Pre-Constitution Institution like AMU has to be seen.
The fifth day of the hearing in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case witnessed certain dramatic moments when the Solicitor General of India submitted that he was not supporting the amendment passed by the Parliament in 1981 which had the effect of conferring minority status to the AMU. The bench expressed surprise at this submission of the SG and asked how can the law officer of the Union Government oppose an amendment passed by the Parliament.
News Update
Case Title: TEJASHWI PRASAD YADAV vs. HARESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR MEHTA., Diary No.- 42856 - 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that he has withdrawn the remarks made by him about Gujaratis. Yadav filed the affidavit in a transfer petition filed by him seeking to transfer from Ahmedabad to a neutral venue the criminal defamation case filed against him over his "Gujarati hi thag hai ho sakta hai (only Gujaratis can be cheats)" remark.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday (22.1.24) announced steps to solve the issue of non-tallying of pagination of copies that often occurs during the pleadings.
As per the measures, the scanned copy of paper books with proper pagination will be shared with the Advocates on Record through the mode of email. The paperbooks of each matter will be required to be segregated into 3 PDFs, namely (1) The main PDF which shall contain petitions and relevant documents submitted at the time of filing; (2) Additional Documents' PDF which shall contain interim applications and subsequently filed documents and (3) Records PDF which maintains the record of proceedings and office reports which are submitted time to time.
Inform Steps Taken On Revision Of Electoral Rolls To Remove Duplicate Entries : Supreme Court To ECI
Case Title: Samvidhan Bachao Trust v Election Commission of India W.P.(C) No. 1228/2023 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) concerning the steps it has taken to revise the electoral rolls and tackle the issue of duplication of entries in those instances where either the electors have been deceased or have shifted their place of residence.
Case Title: State Of Punjab v Union Of India Orgnl Suit No. 6/2021
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court framed 7 key issues which are to be decided in the original suit filed by the State of Punjab challenging the Union's notification extending the jurisdiction of Border Security Force (BSF) from 15 to 50 Km in the state.
Supreme Court's Centre for Research and Planning Calls For Internship Applications
The Centre for Research and Planning of the Supreme Court has called for internship applications. The CRP assists the Supreme Court judges in research. It also assists the Collegium in providing inputs about the judgments of candidates under consideration for judgeship.
Case Title: In RE: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In course of hearing of a public interest litigation challenging inaction of governments in appointing President, Members and Staff of District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions across the country, Attorney General R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that a meeting of all State Secretaries (and others) was sought to be planned by the Union to address all aspects of the matter.
Supreme Court Pulls Up Registry For Not Listing Adani Power Case Despite Judicial Order
Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited | Diary No. 21994-2022
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court pulled up its Registry for not listing a matter related to Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd despite a judicial order to post it on January 23.
Taking serious note of this issue, the bench assured Dave that it would investigate the issue, before proceeding to summon a senior Registry official to the court. The official from the Registry reached the Court. The judges then retired to the chambers for a closed-door discussion with the official. After reassembling, the bench directed that the matter should be listed as the first item tomorrow, Wednesday, January 24.
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
Case Details: IN RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST UPENDRA NATH DALAI., SMC (C) No(s).3/2023
The Supreme Court issued a non-bailable warrant against one Upendra Nath Dalai for his repetitive failure to appear before the court in the suo-moto contempt proceedings initiated against him. The contempt proceeding was initiated by the Supreme Court last year when Dalai failed to deposit the cost of Rs 1 lakh Rupees that was imposed on him for filing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition to declare Satsang founder 'Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra' a 'parmatma'.
Justice PB Varale Sworn-In As Supreme Court Judge, Dalit Representation In SC Rises To 3
Justice Prasanna B Varale was sworn-in as a judge of the Supreme Court took oath on January 25. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud administered the oath to Justice Varale, who was previously the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and a judge of the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court heard the National Federation of Indian Women's (NFIW) plea challenging the 'delimitation clause' of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, which proposes to introduce women's reservation in the Lok Sabha, the upper houses of the state legislatures, and the Delhi legislative assembly.
During hearing, the bench summarily directed NFIW's latest plea to also be tagged along with this batch of petitions.
Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
Case: Directore of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024
The Supreme Court expressed the intention to frame guidelines to ensure that investigation of cases involving the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the officials of a State Government take place fairly and transparently. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by the ED seeking to transfer the investigation of the bribery case against ED officer Ankit Tiwari from the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bench issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking its response to the petition and posted the matter after two weeks. The Court directed the TNDVAC to not proceed with the investigation against Tiwari in the meantime.
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file its response to an interim relief application filed by the Kerala government, as part of its plea against alleged interference by the central government in the state's finances. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on February 13.
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu, SLP(Crl) No.978/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Andhra Pradesh government has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the State's High Court order granting anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister and Telegu Desam Party (TDP) President N Chandrababu Naidu in alleged Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam. The matter is listed for consideration before the bench on January 29.
Supreme Court Invites Applications For Law Clerk Cum-Research Associates, Apply By February 15
The Supreme Court invited applications for Law Clerk cum-Research Associates on Short-Term Contractual Assignments. The advertisement says that it is for the preparation of a panel of approximately 90 candidates for engagement as Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates in the Supreme Court of India. The remuneration as per the advertisement is Rs. 80,000/- per month. The age limit prescribed is not below 20 years and above 32 years as of 15.02.2024.
Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited., Diary No. 21994-2022
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Adani Power's application for a payment of Rs. 1376.35 crores as outstanding late payment surcharge (LPS) from Rajasthan DISCOM.