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 on whether “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution include privately owned resources, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case: Sufiya PM v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking a declaration that a person who was born a Muslim, but ceased to be believer, would not be governed by the Shariat law.
The petition was filed by a Kerala-based woman named Safiya PM, who stated that she was not a believer and hence should be governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 with respect to inheritance instead of the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioner is the General Secretary of an organization of named "Ex-Muslims of Kerala."
Case: VARAD BALWANT VASANT AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 255/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court rejected a petition to postpone the CA exams held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) in view of Lok Sabha elections.
The Court noted that the Chartered Accountant exams for intermediate and final level are scheduled on the 8th and the 14th May, whereas the elections are on the 7th and 13th of May 2024. The Court said that postponing the exams one day after the phase-wise polling, as suggested by the petitioners, will cause severe hardship to several students.
Case Title: K Annamalai v. V Piyush | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2323 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court today extended till September the stay on trial against Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K Annamalai over his alleged remarks against a Christian missionary non-profit.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 210/2024
The Supreme Court, while hearing the petition filed by the Karnataka government against the Union of India for drought relief funds, asked the Union to submit the report of the Inter-Ministerial Central Team (IMCT). The team visited drought-hit districts of Karnataka to assess the drought situation across the State.
NEET-PG : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Extension Of Internship Cut-Off Date For NEET PG 2024
Case Details : RIDDHESH vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000263 - / 2024
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking an extension of internship cut-off for the upcoming NEET PG 2024 examinations.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners stressed that non-extension may lead to him losing out on the time and efforts which were put in as a candidate.
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan Versus The Commissioner Of Police, Delhi And Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 5719/2023
Coram: Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging the opening of a history sheet against him by Delhi Police in the year 2022, declaring him a 'bad character.' While doing so, the Court directed that the amended Standing order issued last month by the Commissioner of Delhi will be applicable in this case.
Case Title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 6339-6340/2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court orally observed that asking the accused to share his Google PIN to enable access to his live location to the investigation officer couldn't be a condition for the grant of bail.
Case Title: Pooja Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 11971/2022
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to ex-IAS officer Pooja Singhal in a money laundering case pending against her over alleged embezzlement of MNREGA funds in Khunti district. The decision came as ED informed the court that 12 out of 17 witnesses sought to be examined had already deposed.
Case Title: David Hangshing and Anr. v. National Investigation Agency and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 671/2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court transferred from Manipur to Assam the trial of arms theft case against Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) Chief David Hangshing and United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF) leader Lhunkhoson Haokip.
Case Details : THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Diary No.- 17447 – 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for continuing criminal contempt proceedings against the Chairman and members of the State's Bar Council and several District Bar Associations. The petitioners contended that the High Court continued the contempt proceedings against them despite tendering an unconditional apology.
Case Title: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
In the contempt case proceedings pending against Patanjali, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements in breach of a court undertaking, the Supreme Court today observed that there was a "marked improvement" in the nature of apology published by Patanjali in newspapers but the original copies of the same, as asked, had still not been filed.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
While hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, the Supreme Court asked ED counsel Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to come prepared on next date with an answer to five queries, one being related to the timing of Kejriwal's arrest.4
Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 121/2024 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court reserved the Judgment on the issue whether an accused in a money laundering case is required to fulfil the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when he executes a bond for appearance before the Special Court in pursuance of a summons issued to him.
Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State., Diary No, 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court questioned the Delhi Police for its "hot haste" in producing Prabir Purkayastha, editor of digital portal NewsClick, before the Magistrate after his arrest without informing his lawyer.
Raising a volley of questions at the manner in which the arrest was carried out, the bench reserved judgment on Purkayastha's petition challening his arrest and remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
Case Title : Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the legal requirements and sanctity of Hindu marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
The Court emphasized that for a Hindu marriage to be valid, it must be performed with the appropriate rites and ceremonies, such as saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire) if included, and proof of these ceremonies is essential in case of disputes.
Case : Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. v. Meher K. Patel & Ors.
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, commented about the peculiar practice of advocates filing "Minutes of Order" in the Bombay High Court. "Minutes of Order" are notes filed by advocates on both sides which mention the points which are to be included in the judgment to be passed by the Court.
Case Title: RAJ REDDY KALLEM Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
Coram: Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the Courts cannot compel the complainant in a cheque dishonour case to give consent for the compounding of the complaint merely because the accused has compensated the complainant.
Case Title: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3391 OF 2011
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) against the demand of stamp duty of approximately Rs 1.19 crores raised by the State of Rajasthan. The Court upheld the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies executed within the State subject to the rates determined by the Central legislation.
The Supreme Court's Registrar refused to receive the application filed by the Union Government seeking clarification of the 2012 judgment in the 2G Spectrum case. The Government sought a clarification that the verdict does not bar the allocation of spectrum through means other than public auction in certain situations.
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
Taking note of the importance of the submission of a charge sheet to take cognizance of an offence by a magistrate, the Supreme Court observed that the charge sheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on May 1, cautioned against the routine issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Court said that non-bailalble warrants not be issued unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.
Case Title: FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. M/S. COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5366-5367 OF 2024
Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta
If the recovery proceedings against the Sick Company do not pose a threat to its properties or have adversely impacted the scheme of the revival of the Sick Company, then there wouldn't be a bar for filing a suit for the recovery of the dues against the Sick Company, observed the Supreme Court.
Case : Munish Kumar Gupta v. M/s Mittal Trading Company
The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the High Court which allowed a complainant in a cheque dishonour case to amend the date of the cheque mentioned in the complaint.
The Supreme Court noted that the amendment application was moved after the evidence stage was over. Here, the date of the cheque was mentioned as 22.07.2010 in the complaint. The same date was mentioned in the legal notice which was issued after the dishonour of the cheque. Also, in the evidence as well, the very same date was mentioned.
S.205 CrPC | Court Can Exempt Accused From Personal Appearance Before Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court observed that even before the grant of bail, the accused can be exempted from showing his personal appearance before the court.
Case : Sanuj Bansal v State of UP
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court has expressed prima facie disapproval of the inclusion of statements of the accused, which are recorded during the investigation, in the chargesheet. Some of those statements are in the nature of alleged confessional statements, the Court noted.
JJ Act | Plea Of Juvenility Can Be Raised At Any Stage Even After Disposal Of Case : Supreme Court
Case Title: RAHUL KUMAR YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Observing that the plea of juvenility of the accused may be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, the Supreme Court held that such a plea of juvenility couldn't be rejected without conducting a proper inquiry.
Case Title : The State of Kerala v. Shyam Balakrishnan and others |Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20765/2019
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging a 2019 judgment of the Kerala High Court which directed the State to grant Rs.1 lakh compensation to a man who was illegally detained by the police on suspicion of being a Maoist.
Bhima Koregaon Case| Hany Babu Withdraws Bail Petition In Supreme Court
Case Title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency | Diary No. 35415 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
Hany Babu, a former Delhi University Professor, on Friday (May 3) withdrew his petition in the Supreme Court seeking bail in the Bhima Koregaon case over alleged Maoist links.
Case Title: The State of Punjab v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 19643-2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court stayed the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the opening of the road to Punjab Chief Minister's house on experimental basis from May 1. The road in front of the CM's residence was blocked for security purposes during the Khalistani terrorism of the 1980s.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Bar Namesake Candidates From Elections
Case Details: SABU STEEPHEN v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA., W.P.(C) No. 275/2024 PIL-W
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to bar namesake/duplicate candidates who deliberately contest elections as independent candidates to ruin the chances of other candidates.
Case : Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd vs Sanjay Gopinath, C.A. No. 2764-2771/2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court issued contempt notice to two members of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for issuing non-bailable warrants ignoring an interim order passed by the Supreme Court.
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Sandeep Mehta
Case Status: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Versus ARRIVE SAFE SOCEITY AND ORS., 2 SLP(C) No. 10429/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition filed by the State of Punjab against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's recent order which asked the State and the Union Territory of the Chandigarh to clear the protesters blocking the Mohali -Chandigarh road demanding the release of Sikh political prisoners.
Case Title: Deependra Yadav and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court observed that if the meritorious candidates from the reserved category had not availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, then such reserved category candidates would be treated at par with unreserved/general category candidates on the strength of their marks.
Case Details : STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Versus ANISUR RAHMAN SLP(C) No. 9563/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Rajasthan High Court order directing grant of enhanced superannuation for Ayurvedic Doctors at parity with Allopathic ones.
The Court was of the view that while Ayurvedic Doctors were contributing immensely to society, the directions of reinstating retired doctors may impinge upon matters of policy.
Case Title: ACHIN GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Raising serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code proceedings against the husband and in-laws by the wife, the Supreme Court requested the Parliament to bring out necessary changes to the new IPC i.e., Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) which contained provisions such Section 85 and 86 akin to Section 498A of IPC.
Case Title : Anees v. The State Govt of NCT
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has elucidated the principles relating to the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court stated that Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of their duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”.
Case Title : Anees v. The State Govt of NCT
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has noted a lack of thorough cross-examination by Public Prosecutors in criminal appeals, specifically with hostile witnesses.
The prosecutors often only confront them with their police statement, aiming to highlight contradictions but not fully explore the witness's testimony, the Court said.
Challenge To Surrogacy Law : Supreme Court Frames Issues To Consider, Hearing In July 2024
Case Title: Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India | W.P. (Civil) No. 756 of 2022 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih
The Supreme Court on May 3 elucidated the issues it would be considering in a batch of pleas challenging provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.\
Case Title: SHANKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 345
The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted.
Nine Judge Constitution Bench Hearing
Case Details: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
The Supreme Court commenced the hearing of the 9-judge constitution bench which is set to examine whether 'material resources of the community' includes privately owned resources in its ambit under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court Constitution bench, on its 4th day of hearing the issue of whether private resources form part of the 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, analysed the present and changing economic dynamics of the nation in the background of increased globalisation and how the provision shold be interpreted keeping in mind the contemporary needs of the society.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench reserved its judgement on the issue of whether private resources form part of the 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The Court concluded the hearing after 5 days of arguments raised on the issues of what constitutes a community, the subjective under tones of 'material resource' as well as the fate of Article 31C post the decision in Minerva Mills v. Union of India.
News Update
Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 5769/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Bench posted the matter in the week commencing from May 6 stating that, in the meantime, it shall be open to the Jharkhand High Court to pronounce the judgment which was reserved on February 28, 2024. It may be noted that Soren has filed the present Special Leave Petition citing the delay by the High Court in pronouncing the verdict on his petition challenging ED arrest.
Case Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL., Diary No.- 18313 – 2024
The Supreme Court adjourned until July 2024 a Special Leave Petition, filed by the State of West Bengal against the Calcutta High Court's judgment, directing the CBI to investigate the allegations of land-grabbing and sexual assault in Sandeshkhali.
Case Details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court asked if it was possible to segregate untainted appointments out of the over 25,000 appointments made by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WB SSC)to teaching and non-teaching posts in 2016, which the Calcutta High Court has directed to be set aside entirely on the ground of fraud.
Supreme Court Adjourns Pleas Seeking Enumeration Of OBCs In Census Till September
Case Title: Tinku Saini v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) 901/2020 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned until September public interest litigations (PILs) seeking enumeration of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the national Census.
The Bench directed that the same be listed in the week commencing September 9.
Case Title: ALL INDIA OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA., Diary No.- 15181 - 2024
The Supreme Court asked how could the Government fix a uniform rate for the medical services provided by private hospitals and doctors.
The Court was considering petitions that raised issues regarding the provisions of the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and the Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules, 2012.
The manufacturing licenses of 14 products of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its sister concern Divya Pharmacy were suspended on April 15, stated the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on Monday (April 29).
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
While arguing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi alleged before the Supreme Court today that the AAP leader's arrest was consequent to Model Code of Conduct (with respect to Lok Sabha elections) being put in place, even though there was no "reason to believe" or "new" material with the agency to take the action.
Case Title: Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9216 of 2022
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti.
The Supreme Court, while hearing National Investigative Agency's challenge against the Bombay High Court order granting bail to Bhima Koregaon-accused Gautam Navlakha, orally said that the trial “may not be over for another ten years.”
After reports of pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca admitting that its Covishield vaccine can cause rare side-effects, a lawyer has moved the Supreme Court seeking constitution of a Medical Expert Panel to examine side-effects and risk factors of the said vaccine as well as compensation of those who were severely disable or died due to the vaccination drive.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi.
The Supreme Court started hearing a batch of 281 petitions challenging penal provisions of various laws such as the Customs Act, Excise Act and GST Act as non-compatible with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Constitution.
Case Details : IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTS SMW(C) No. 000003 - / 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 2) heard the suo motu case taken by it over a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in which certain remarks were made regarding the sexual conduct of adolescents, particularly teenage girls.
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Union of India | Original Suit No. 4 of 2021
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court heard the Union's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the original suit filed by the State of West Bengal in 2021 alleging that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) continued to register and investigate cases despite its revocation of the general consent.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi
While hearing a batch of petitions challenging penal provisions of GST Act, Customs Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution, the Supreme Court on Thursday (May 2) expressed concerns about the ambiguity in Section 69 of the GST Act (dealing with power with arrest) and conveyed that it would interpret the law to "strengthen" liberty, if need be, but not allow citizens to be harassed.
Case : Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation (KITCO v. Welfare Association of KITCO Employees | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9327/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the question whether a company in which the shares are held by various Public Sector Undertakings, would be an instrumentality of the State, under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
While hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, the Supreme Court expressed that it might consider the question of interim bail for the purposes of Lok Sabha Elections if the hearing gets delayed.