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, providing a...
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, providing a succinct overview of the same.
Judgments
Case Title: ABHISHEK SAXENA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 1996 – 2020., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal seeking quashing of an FIR, opined that while exercising power under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court was legally bound to see if accusations constitute any offence or not.
Case Title: Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. v. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2341/2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 5
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court observed that a bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available.
Case Title: DBS Bank Ltd Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd and another., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 6
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether a dissenting financial creditor is to be paid the minimum value of its security interest as per the Insolvency and the Bankruptcy Code 2016.
The bench differed from the view expressed by a coordinate bench in the 2021 judgment in the case India Resurgence ARC Private Limited v. Amit Metaliks Limited & Another which held that a dissenting secured creditor cannot challenge an approved resolution plan contending that higher amount should have been paid to it based on the security interest held by it over the corporate debtor.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court to take into custody two Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh Government for alleged non-compliance of directions regarding the facilities to retired judges, expressly stated that the High Court Chief Justices acting on the administrative side do not have any powers to usurp the rulemaking responsibility of the executive.
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 7
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court, in the context of Section 364 A (Kidnapping For Ransom) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observed that apart from proving the act of abduction, the prosecution must also prove the demand of ransom along with the threat to the life of the abducted person.
The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there., the Court said.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 162/2023 and connected cases., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations levelled in the Hindenburg Research report regarding stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies.
The Court refused to accept the reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper reports and the report of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to doubt the SEBI probe.
The Court also ordered SEBI and the investigative agencies of the Union government, to probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other entities in taking short position involved any infraction of law.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on summoning of government officials and directed that all High Courts should follow it. All High Courts should consider framing rules to regulate the appearance of officials after taking into account the SOP.
Case Title: Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v Gejo. (D) Th.Lrs & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4
Coram:Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court has held that changes made in a sale deed by one party unilaterally, after the registration of the deed and without the knowledge of the other party, have to be ignored.
In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate., the Court said.
Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 21
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court has observed that an appellate court should give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons if the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken.
Case Title: Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Anr v. Union of India & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1074
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court declined to pass directions to provide proportionate representation for the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of States of West Bengal (WB) and Sikkim, observing that it was a matter requiring amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act.
At the same time, the Court directed the Union Government to decide on invoking the powers under the Delimitation Act to ensure proportionate representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Case Title: UPASANA MISHRA v. TREK TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1075
Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar
Finding the demand raised in a notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be omnibus in nature, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the dishonour of a cheque.
Case Title: Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1/2024., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court allowed plea of a man, aspiring to become a Police Constable, whose candidature was cancelled by the respondent-authorities on account of an inadvertent error made by him while mentioning his date of birth in the application form.
In the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench further directed that in the event of there being no vacancy, an appointment letter ought to be issued to the appellant in special facts of the case.
Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court held that the expression 'custody' used in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not mean formal custody.
It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police., the Court said.
Case Title: BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. V. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court observed that tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords since their possession is permissive in nature.
Case Title: RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs. JAYA WADHWANI., Diary No.- 12162 – 2019., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
In the context of insurance protection, the Supreme Court held that the policy issuance date would be relevant date for all purposes.
The issue before the Court was what would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy, or it would be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or cover note.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan
In an appeal against the stoppage of salaries of 3 teachers employed with a U.P. school, the Supreme Court held in favor of the appellants/teachers, observing that even as per the State, they were not at fault, and, as such, their salaries could not have been abruptly stopped.
Four Conditions To Invoke Section 27 Of Indian Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court (on January 03), in a crucial judgment concerning section 27 of the Evidence Act, reiterated the three conditions to invoke this provision. While doing so, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti relied upon Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra., (1976) 1 SCC 828.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has directed the State Governments to pay the arrears to judges in terms of the payscales enhanced as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) by February 29, 2024. The judgment also contains directions to the High Courts to set up a Committee to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC recommendations.
UAPA| Terrorism Cases Not To Be Taken Lightly: Supreme Court Sets Aside Default Bail
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, SLP(CRL.) No.2503/2021., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 10
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
In a case pertaining to grant of default bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”), the Supreme Court yesterday allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi police, observing that the High Court fell in error in granting default bail and should not have taken the matter so lightly.
The Bench observed that the conditions/reasons given under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA (which grants discretionary power to a court to extend time for investigation upto 180 days on application by Public Prosecutor) stood satisfied in the case.
Case Title: Bharti Airtel Limited and Another V Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 11
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
The Supreme Court has held statutory set off or insolvency set off is not applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
The Bench has also carved out two exceptions to the application of statutory or insolvency set off to CIRP proceedings. First being, when a party is entitled to contractual set-off, on the date which is effective before or on the date of commencement of CIRP. Secondly, in cases of 'equitable set-off' when the claim and counter claim in the form of set-off are linked and connected on account of one or more transactions that can be treated as one.
Case Title: MARY PUSHPAM vs. TELVI CURUSUMARY AND ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 12
Coram: Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of ensuring judicial discipline. The Court went on to observe that when a decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice, it is to be respected and is binding on the bench. However, the same is subject to the right of a co-equal quorum bench to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench.
Case Title: Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 13193/2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)15
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar
While dismissing a challenge to detention on the ground that the detenu/appellant was not informed by authorities of his rights, the Supreme Court observed that if a detenu receives the grounds of detention in a language known to him and the same contain a clear statement over his right to make representation, there is no need for informing him verbally again.
On the aspect of informing the detenu of his right to make representation, the Bench reiterated that such a communication can either be oral or in writing.
Case Title: SATISH P. BHATT vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No.- 29002 – 2019., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 16
Coram: Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court took a strong stand while affirming the suspension of the accused/ present appellant's sentence, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court highlighted that the complainant has been litigating since 2007, i.e., for almost 16 years, but has not been able to receive its due amount. This was irrespective of an undertaking given by the appellant and the intervenor aggreging to pay the major portion of the liability. The Court marked that this is a persistent disregard for judicial directives.
News Updates
PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Inclusion Of CJI In Election Commissioners' Selection Committee
A public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed in the Supreme Court asking for the setting aside of a December 28 gazette notification for the appointment of chief election commissioner and other election commissioners. This was in terms of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. President Droupadi Murmu signed the Act into law following the Winter Session of Parliament.
The petitioners argued for implementing an independent and transparent selection system, constituting a neutral committee for appointing the chief election commissioners and other election commissioners, and including the Chief Justice of India in the selection panel.
The writ petition has been drawn by Advocate Anjale Patel and filed through Advocate-on-Record Sanjeev Malhotra.
Supreme Court Rejects Delhi Police Plea To Construct Temporary Quarters Over Yamuna River Bank
Case Title: Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs UOI, Diary No. 44256 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the order of the National Green Tribunal that denied them permission to construct temporary quarters for personnel over the banks of the Yamuna river. The bench said that construction cannot be allowed over the banks of Yamuna and that Steps should be taken to protect the environment.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Anr. Diary No. 23592/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of train accidents in India, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General for India to apprise the court of protective systems in place to avoid train collisions, or those that are sought to be implemented, including the Union government's 'Kavach' scheme.
This scheme facilitates prevention of accidents by controlling the speed of a train by automatic application of brakes in case the loco pilot fails to do so.
Among others, the PIL also seeks setting up of an enquiry commission to probe into the Odisha Train Accident that took place on June 2, 2023.
Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001405 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Writ Petition filed by a transgender teacher whose appointment was allegedly terminated in two different schools in both Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh upon revelation of her gender identity.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed assailing the signature campaign statedly being organized by Tamil Nadu State ruling party Dravida Munnetra Khazagam (DMK) against National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) exams.
The Bench opined that this is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. During the hearing, it also said that NEET, a competitive examination, has to be held on a pan-India basis and will not be affected by the campaign.
Advocate ML Ravi filed the PIL.
Congress leader Jaya Thakur approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Through this legislative move, the Chief Justice of India was dropped from a committee to appoint the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners.
Petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court's March ruling in Anoop Baranwal. This case mandated the inclusion of the chief justice in the appointment process till the Parliament enacted a law regulating it in view of the need for an independent and unbiased selection panel.
Case Title: Ek Soch Ek Paryas v. Union of India | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16942 of 2023 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
The Supreme Court, while hearing a clutch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the State of Bihar, questioned the extent to which the government could withhold the break-up of the survey data.
The Bench was currently hearing special leave petitions filed by non-governmental organisations Youth for Equality and Ek Soch Ek Prayas and others against a decision of the Patna High Court delivered on August 2 to uphold the Bihar government's decision to undertake caste-based survey.
Supreme Court Issues Notice To IT Department On NewsClick's Plea To Stay Tax Demand
Case Title: PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Delhi-1, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition news portal “NewsClick” challenging High Court of Delhi's rejection of its challenge to demand raised by tax authorities. The petition sought ad-interim ex-parte stay of the High Court order and the tax demand.
The Court while issuing notice also sought response of the IT Department in two weeks.
Case Title: KSR MENON vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001403 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued a notice in a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution which sought guidelines for children with special needs on the attainment of the legal age of majority (18 years) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015).
Case Title: ISHAN GILL vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001249 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court rejected a plea for the appointment of experienced advocates to fill the vacant judicial member positions in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). CJI verbally observed, “But your relief is wrong. You can't say that just appoint advocates to fill up all the empty positions, that can't be done there is a selection process which has to be followed”.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Lok Sabha Secratariat & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1410 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court asked the Secretary General of Lok Sabha to file a reply to the writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra challenging her recent expulsion from the Lok Sabha over allegations of unethical conduct.
The bench also turned down a prayer made by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the petitioner to allow Moitra to attend Lok Sabha proceedings in the meantime as an interim measure.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Removing Himachal Pradesh DGP Sanjay Kundu
Case Title: SANJAY KUNDU v. REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 54019/2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court stayed order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court which removed him from the post of Himachal Pradesh's Director General of Police. The Court also stayed the consequent order issued by the State government transferring Kundu as the DGP and posting him as the Principal Secretary of the Ayush Department.
The bench also granted liberty to Kundu to approach the High Court seeking recall of the order. The stay order will be in effect till the recall application is disposed.
Case Title: SUKANYA SHANTHA vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001404 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government and thirteen State Governments on a Public Interest Litigation highlighting caste-based segregation in prisons in various states.
The Bench was apprised of the state of affairs in several prisons across the nation where prison manuals reinforce caste-based discrimination through caste hierarchy in the division of labour and segregation of barracks.
Bhima Koregaon Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice To NIA On Professor Hany Babu's Bail Plea
Case Title: Hany Babu v. National Investigation Agency., Diary No. 35415 of 2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court issued notice in the bail plea of Delhi University professor Hany Babu, who was arrested by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case.
Hany Babu had preferred special leave petition against a September 2022 decision of the Bombay High Court to reject his bail application in this case. Babu has been lodged in jail since July 2020 after being arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune.
Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. SAIFURREHMAN ANSARI., Diary No.- 26084 – 2023
Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has recused from hearing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of accused persons in the 2008 Jaipur bomb blasts case.
Rajasthan High Court is the parent High Court of Justice Mehta, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in November last year.
Case Title: Mr X v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Indian citizen Nikhil Gupta, who is detained in the Czech Republic in connection with the plot to assassinate Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Sigh Pannun in the United States of America.
However, accepting the request of the petitioner to treat the petition as a representation to the Government of India, the bench said that it is for the Union Government to decide whether to intervene in the matter or not.
Case Title: Pawan Khera v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13143 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera for quashing criminal proceedings against him over his alleged 'Narendra Gautam Das Modi' comment made at a press conference in Mumbai.
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent., SMW (Civil) No. 3 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court criticised a Calcutta High Court judgment which made news in December last year for cautioning girls in their adolescence to 'control their sexual urges' to prevent being deemed a 'loser' in the eyes of society “when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes”. Not only did the top court find the observations 'problematic', but also questioned the legal principles invoked in the ruling.
Supreme Court Asks High Court To Not Unnecessarily Summon Officials Of J&K Administration
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. v. Honble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, SLP(C) No. 25417/2023
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court asked the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh not to “unnecessarily” insist on the personal presence of the officials of the J&K Union Territory in connection with the creation of posts in the High Court.
The Bench allowed the continuation of the proceedings before the High Court but asked the HC to not insist on personal presence unnecessarily.
Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Diary No.- 30701 – 2009., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13
Coram: Justices B. R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, reiterated the well-established law that the statement recorded under Section 313 (Power to examine the accused) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court underscored that such a statement of an accused is not evidence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is not on oath, and secondly, the other party, i.e., the prosecution, does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused.
Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26271 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea against an Allahabad High Court order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) for the recognition of Mathura's Shahi Eidgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque. However, it was clarified that the petitioner could move a separate petition challenging the vires of any legislation.
The petition not only assailed the high court's verdict but also questioned the constitutionality of sections of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Halal India Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 690 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued a notice in two pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products.
The writ petitions were filed by Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra challenging the ban imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on the "manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products."
Case Title: M L RAVI V. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 026738 - 026739 / 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Supreme Court concurred with a judgment of the Madras High Court which refused to direct the removal of Senthil Balaji as a Minister of the Tamil Nadu Government due to his implication in a money laundering case.
The Special Leave Petition was filed by ML Ravi, assailing a judgment of the Madras High Court which left it to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to take a call on Balaji's continuation in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet as a Minister without portfolio.
Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
While deciding on a plea whether there is a scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5333 of 2021
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy's plea challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to try a cash-for-vote scam case. This matter is now expected to come up after four weeks.
Case Details : AJAI LALL vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 016122 - / 2023
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court ordered a stay of criminal proceedings pending in a trial court in Madhya Pradesh against Christian missionary Ajai Lall in a case for alleged forced conversion of two foster children and their parents to Christianity.
The Bench passed the stay order, which will remain in force till the matter is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Extends Bombay HC's Stay On Bail Granted To Gautam Navlakha In Bhima Koregaon Case
Case Title: The National Investigation Agency v. Gautam P. Navlakha and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 167/2024
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
In the National Investigation Agency's petition challenging the grant of bail to journalist Gautam P Navlakha in the Bhima Koregaon case over alleged Maoist links, the Supreme Court today extended the stay granted by the Bombay High Court on the order granting bail.
A Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti ordered for the matter to be listed before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, to take a call on listing of the same with other connected petitions filed by co-accused, or for clubbing of all the matters to enable hearing by a single Bench.
Narendra Dabholkar Murder : Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Accused Vikram Bhave's Bail
Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Invesigation and Ors., SLP(Crl) No.6209-6210/2021
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment granting bail to accused-Vikram Bhave in the 2013 Dabholkar Murder case.
The Bench found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision on the matter, saying adequate reasons had been given in the judgment. Accordingly, the petition filed by Mukta Dabholkar, daughter of Narendra Dabholkar, was dismissed.
Case Title: M/s PPK NewsClick Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 679 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court sought the response of investigating agencies like Delhi police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to NewsClick's plea seeking guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices.
The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by digital media platform NewsClick and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha.
Claiming arbitrariness, an absence of due process, and excessive abuse of power by the investigating agencies, NewsClick and Purkayastha have insisted that the raids aimed to stifle free speech and undermine their fundamental rights.
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi v. Office Of The Lieutenant Governor Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1352 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
While hearing the Delhi government's plea for the immediate disbursement of funds for its flagship 'Farishtey Dilli Ke' scheme, the Supreme Court was told by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena that he is not involved in the scheme extending cashless medical treatment for road accident victims. The government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has however alleged that the funds were stopped after the Centre's new law on the control of services in the national capital.
Responding to these conflicting narratives, the top court sought a response from the lieutenant governor, cautioning the government that it would impose exemplary costs if it is found out that the Health Minister had taken the court for a ride.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Delhi & Anr. v. Centre for Policy Research, SLP(C) Diary No(s). 44698/2023
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against stay granted in favour of public policy think tank Centre for Policy Research in respect of cancellation of its registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The Organization had moved the High Court of Delhi against the Revenue's order, which sought to cancel its registration under Section 12A with retrospective effect, thereby taking away its tax exemption status.