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 the permissibility of sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SC)& Scheduled Tribes (ST), providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Title: MAMTA SHAILESH CHANDRA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that if the charge sheet is filed against the accused during the pendency of the petition for quashing of the FIR, the High Court is not restrained from exercising its inherent jurisdiction and could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., charge sheet,Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up and other documents.
Case Title: MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs. THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI W.P.(C) No. 73/2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court adjourned by two weeks the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member Shelly Oberoi, the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), seeking to allow the Corporation to exercise the functions of the Standing Committee.
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1627 of 2024
Coram: Justice PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court issued notice on the State of Haryana's plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order declaring the 75 percent domicile reservation for locals in the private sector with a monthly salary below Rs 30,000 as unconstitutional.
Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) adjourned until March 5 a plea by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh, challenging his arrest and remand on charges of money laundering over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in Delhi. Singh has been in custody since October, when he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
In the matter pertaining to a Single Judge of Madras High Court taking suo motu revision against the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in a corruption case, the Supreme Court observed that the judge ought to have ideally placed the matter before the Chief Justice of the court prior to the passing of the order.
After hearing submissions addressed on behalf of Ramachandran and seeing the report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Bench left it for the Chief Justice of the High Court to take a call on who shall hear and decide the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Single Judge.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India., 23592 – 2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court sought a detailed status report from the Union Government regarding the future planning of the implementation of the anti-collision 'Kavach' system in the Indian Railways. The Public Interest Litigation filed by an Advocate Vishal Tiwari, raises issues regarding safety/protection measures with respect to the train accidents in India. It is pointed out that the Government of India has approved the Kavach System to prevent train accidents. However, the said Kavach system has yet not been implemented in all trains.
Case Title: Suneetha Narreddy v. YS Avinash Reddy & Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 7449/2023 and other connected matters
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file digital copies of the case diaries related to the murder of former Andhra Pradesh minister YS Vivekananda Reddy.
Supreme Court Sentences Man Who Raped 7 Year Old Girl In Temple To 30 Years Imprisonment
Case Title: BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 87
Coram: Justices C.T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
In a horrifying incident where a 40-year-old man raped a seven-year-old Child (victim), the Supreme Court imposed the sentence of 30 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees One Lakh.
The trial court awarded him the capital punishment under Section 376 AB (rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the Delhi High Court commuted the same to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Top Court.
Case Title: UTTAM KUMAR HALDER vs. ANIRUDHA ALAM., C.A. No. 000932 - / 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court declined to interfere in the civil appeal preferred by an advocate who has registered a complaint against the local bar association member for allegedly beating and assaulting him and restraining him to practice at the local court.
Case Title: HAALESH @ HALESHI @ KURUBARA HALESHI VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1954 OF 2012
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction in a murder case observing that the ocular evidence given by the eye witness can't be discredited merely because the expert opinion supplied by the doctor suggests the use of different weapons in causing injuries.
Setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, the Bench observed that when the ocular piece of evidence is available to sufficiently prove the guilt of the accused, then the conviction can not be set aside just because the expert evidence of the doctor suggests otherwise.
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. WP(Crl) No. 204/2023
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
In a plea challenging the premature release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in a case against mob lynching of a District Magistrate in 1994, the Supreme Court directed that Mohan shall immediately deposit his passport with the local Police Station and report there on a fortnight basis.
Customs Act | Claimant Entitled To Interest On Delayed Return Of The 'Duty Drawback' : Supreme Court
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. B. T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD. CIVIL APPEAL NO.7238 OF 2009., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court observed that if there is a delay in refund of the 'duty drawback' to the claimant under the Customs Act, 1962, then the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback at the rate of interest which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time.
Case Title: ATUL @ ASHUTOSH vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 41305 – 2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 93
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court reiterated that Courts should normally suspend sentences and grant bail in cases where an appeal challenging the conviction is unlikely to be heard before the completion of the entire sentence.
Supreme Court Redirects Applications Seeking Permission For Surrogacy To High Courts
Case Title: Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 756 of 2022 and connected cases
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In a significant development, the Supreme Court this week directed new applicants seeking permission to undergo surrogacy to approach the jurisdictional high courts. The Court clarified that the pendency of the petitions challenging the provisions of the surrogacy law in the Supreme Court will not bar the High Courts from entertaining applications filed by individuals seeking permission to undergo surrogacy.
The applications were filed after the Supreme Court in October 2023 passed an interim order granting permission for a woman diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome to pursue surrogacy utilising a donor egg, staying the implementation of a recent amendment to the Surrogacy Rules, which had barred the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy by intending couples.
Case Title: Veena Gupta and another v. Central Pollution Control Board and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 97
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
Recently, the Supreme Court voiced its discontent with the National Green Tribunal's practice of passing ex parte orders and imposing damages. The judgment, authored by Justice PS Narasimha, has marked that such unilateral decision-making 'has regrettably become a prevailing norm.'
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 13381/1984
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure at private parties seeking permission to fell trees for industrial projects without first approaching the custodian of subject land (ie State) and/or providing a concrete plan for compensatory afforestation.
Case Title: VELTHEPU SRINIVAS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 94
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha
The Supreme Court recently, while affirming the life imprisonment of three accused/appellants for murder, modified the sentence of another accused (A3) to culpable homicide and sentenced him to ten years.
The Division Bench opined that the Trial and the High Court convicted A3 based on Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was present near the scene of offence and had familial relations with the other accused. However, the Court noted that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder. Thus, the Court opined that the inference was drawn mechanically under Section 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused.
Punjab Pre-Emption Act | Supreme Court Explains Difference Between 'Land' & 'Immoveable Property'
Case Title: JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS BADRI NATH AND OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.18612 of 2015)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 95
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
The Supreme Court held that a tenant can claim the right to pre-emption in the 'urban immovable property' under the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1913, and the claim of the tenant cannot be discarded by the subsequent purchaser of the urban immovable property on the ground that the notification issued by the state government bars the tenants right to file a suit for pre-emption for the land situated in the municipal limits.
Case Title: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. SURENDER KUMAR PARMAR., SLP(C) No. 018286 / 2018
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court on dismissed the plea of the Himachal Pradesh Government challenging the grant of two promotions to an employee in the next higher scale of pay upon his completing 12 years and 24 years in service.
The Bench affirmed the decision of the High Court directing the State to provide two promotions to an employee in the absence of any promotion avenues for the post.
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
Case Title: Sutherson v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 422 of 2024
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging a directive issued by the Madras High Court to conduct trial proceedings within prison premises. This case originated from an appeal filed by one Sutherson against the rejection of his bail plea by a Thoothukudi special court. He was arrested for the murder of an advocate over suspected business rivalry and property disputes. Motivated by apprehensions relating to witness safety and the potential for witness intimidation, the Madras High Court not only denied bail to the accused, but also directed the trial proceedings to be conducted in jail.
Case Title: Case Details: VISHAL NOBLE SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 96
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih.
Expressing concerns about the misuse of the criminal justice machinery by certain persons to achieve their oblique motives, the Supreme Court recently urged that the Courts have to be vigilant against such tendencies.
The Supreme Court said that that the High Courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings in such cases where the uncontroverted allegations prima facie don't establish the offence, and the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by the continuation of criminal prosecution.
Case Title: Sunder Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., SLP(Crl) No.10756/2023
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 98
In a dowry death case, the Supreme Court recently allowed a witness cited by prosecution to be examined by the defence, considering that he was discharged by the former without being called to depose.
"...the prosecution has consequentially chosen to discharge the said witness and, therefore, he has not been put in the witness box to depose on behalf of the prosecution. In such view of the matter, there is no bar in the law for examining the said witness as defence witness", said the Division Bench.
Case Title: SUDHIR VIKAS KALEL vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 99
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Vishwanath
The Supreme Court has held that Panchayat members in Maharashtra, who got elected from a seat reserved for SC/OBC, will stand automatically disqualified if they fail to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee regarding their Caste Certificate within 12 months from the date of election.
This is because of the operation of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959.
UAPA | Mere Delay In Trial No Ground To Grant Bail When Grave Offences Are Involved : Supreme Court
Case Title: Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar
While denying bail to a man charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA") for allegedly promoting Khalistani terror movement, the Supreme Court held that mere delay in trial is no ground to grant bail in grave offences.
Notably, the Bench also observed that under the UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail an exception".
Case Title: NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL v. THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Coram: Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court dispelled a challenge to a rule under Chartered Accountants' (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, which allows the Board of Discipline to refer a complaint for misconduct to the Disciplinary Committee despite opinion of the Director (Discipline) that the person/firm accused of misconduct is not guilty, as well as to advise the Director to investigate further.
Case Title: ENFORCEMENT OF DIRECTORATE vs. BHUPINDER SINGH @ HONEY., Diary No.- 33730 - 2022
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court confirmed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order allowing the bail to former Punjab Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi's nephew Bhupinder Singh. Singh had moved the bail application before the High Court in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act arising out of an alleged illegal sand mining case.
Case Title: G Niranjan v. Nitesh Kumar Vyas & Ors., Diary No. 3333 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking contempt action against the Election Commission of India (ECI) for not changing the forms which ask for Aadhaar numbers to enrol new voters. Despite the ECI's assurance last year that Aadhaar numbers were not obligatory for new voter registration, the forms remained unchanged, according to the petitioner.
However, a bench comprising declined to initiate contempt proceedings, noting the ECI's statement that it was addressing the issue.
Case Title: DR. SHEKHAR SESHADRI AND ORS vs SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL AND ORS.CURATIVE PET(C) No. 106/2014 and MR X. vs SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL AND ORS.CURATIVE PET(C) D 26029/2014
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the curative petition filed against the 2013 judgment, which upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (which criminalised homosexuality), has become infructuous in the light of the 2018 judgment which decriminalised homosexuality.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court expressed disinclination to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's request for 'necessary action' against Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, judge of the Calcutta High Court, for 'politically motivated' interviews.
At the same time, it agreed to consider the other relief prayed for by the Trinamool Congress national general secretary in his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, for a transfer of the cases concerning him from the present high court bench to a special bench.
Case Title: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and ors v. State of Telangana and ors., Diary No. 4895-2024
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court issued a notice (returnable after four weeks) in a petition seeking transfer of the impending trial in the 2015 cash-for-votes against the present Chief Minister of Telangana, A Revanth Reddy.
Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. THOTA SURESH BABU., Diary No.- 162 – 2021
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court expunged the controversial observations made in a judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2020 against the Supreme Court collegium's transfer proposals.
The Validity Of Subclassifications Within SC/STs
Case Title: The State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors. C.A. No. 2317/2011
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also comprises Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.
A 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the referred matter on the permissibility of sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SC)& Scheduled Tribes (ST).
The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be reconsidered.
The arguments were opened by Gurminder Singh, the Advocate General of Punjab who engaged the bench in socio-legal nuances of the deeply rooted caste system in India. Highlighting the two perspectives on reservations, firstly of those who think they are entitled and secondly, those who are actually in need, Singh expressed that reservation cannot be seen as an act of benevolence.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench while hearing on the validity of subclassifications within SC/STs deliberated upon the notion of homogeneity of class and what Article 341 of the Constitution meant in light of communities designated as a “Scheduled Caste”.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing from the petitioner's side, argued that there were two key mistakes in the decision of Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that subclassification was not permissible within SC/ST categories. Firstly, it considered the SCs as a homogenous group without any factual data overlooking the inherent heterogeneity within the SCs; secondly, it correlated the Presidential Order with a limited purpose of providing reservation.
While reserving judgment on the validity of subclassification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes(STs) for reservations, the Supreme Court observed that subcategorization could be a measure to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the more backward categories within the reserved classes. The bench observed that if only certain castes are cornering the reservation benefits, it can lead to inequality.
News updates
The Supreme Court agreed to list the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy case.
The Supreme Court agreed to list the 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.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Sunil Prabhu, mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud that the petition has not been listed today, although it was supposed to come up today. Following this, CJI Chandrachud agreed to list the matter.
Supreme Court Schedules Final Hearing Of Pleas Challenging Bihar Govt's Caste Survey In April
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 scheduled in April the final hearing of a clutch of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the constitutionality of the caste-based survey conducted by the State of Bihar.
Case Title : KULDEEP KUMAR vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH SLP(C) No. 002998 - / 2024
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Presiding Officer who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections by orally saying, "It is obvious that he defaced the ballot papers." "Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is a murder of democracy. This man should be prosecuted," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked after seeing the video of the controversial election, in which a BJP candidate was declared the winner after the votes of 8 councillors of the Congress-AAP alliance were declared invalid.
Case Title: MOHD. IQBAL AHANGAR vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR., SLP(C) No. 002748 - / 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the termination of the term of the President Municipal Committee, Dooru-Verinag, Anantnag District by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (“UT”).
How Duplicate Voter Entries Are Determined? Supreme Court Asks Election Commission Of India
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 the response of the Election Commission Of India(ECI) on certain specific queries regarding the deletion of duplicate entries from the electoral rolls.
'BRS MP K Kavitha Avoiding Summonses' : ED Tells Supreme Court
Case Title: Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha has been 'avoiding' the central agency's summonses, at the Supreme Court hearing of the legislator's plea in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The probe agency is currently investigating her role in influencing the now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital and related bribery allegations.
Supreme Court Posts SNC Lavalin Case For Final Hearing On May 1, 2024
Case Title: Kasthuri Ranga Iyer v. State represented by Addl. Superintendent of Police CBI and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7801/2017 (and connected cases)
Coram: Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court posted the appeal filed by Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the discharge of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and certain officials in the SNC Lavalin case for final hearing on May 1. Connected appeals filed by accused officials who seek discharge in the case will also be heard along with the CBI's appeal.
The Attorney General for India has filed a written note in the suit filed by the State of Kerala against the Union of India over the limits imposed on borrowing capacities.
The AG's note stressed that public finance management is a national issue. "Debt of States affects the credit rating of the country. Moreover, default by any State in debt servicing would create reputational issues and will have domino effect endangering the financial stability of the whole of India," stated the note.
In a significant move, Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code Bill was tabled in the State Assembly during its special session. This Bill, presented by Uttarakhand's Chief Minister, Pushkar Singh Dhami, aims to incorporate several changes to establish consistent laws for personal issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and so on.
One of the crucial changes proposed by the instant Bill is the mandatory registration of live-in relationships. The registration is supposed to be made to the registrar within one month from the “date of entering the relationship.” Notably, on failure to do so, the Bill also prescribes punishment of 3 months of maximum imprisonment or a fine up ₹10,000 or both.
ECI Recognizes Ajit Pawar Faction As Nationalist Congress Party, Allots Official Symbol To Them
The Election Commission of India has recognized the Ajit Pawar faction as the official Nationalist Congress Party. The ECI held that the Ajit Pawar faction will be entitled to use the "clock" symbol, which is the reserved symbol for the NCP faction.
The ECI passed the order allowing the application filed by the Ajit Pawar faction under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 seeking to use the official symbol of the NCP.
Case Title: Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4999 of 2023
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih
Former Nagpur University professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen defended her bail plea in the Supreme Court by alleging a lack of evidence connecting her to the case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or establishing her purported links with the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist).
In a public interest litigation filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeking to delete the words "Socialist" & "Secular" from the Preamble to the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court today asked if the Preamble could have been amended while keeping the date intact.
Lawyers Should Have Compulsory Training Program Like Judges : Supreme Court
Case Title: SOUVIK BHATTACHARYA vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOLKATA ZONAL OFFICE II., Diary No.- 45620 - 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court, while hearing a bail application, remarked that lawyers should undergo a compulsory training programme. The Court made this remark after noticing certain lapses on the part of the lawyer in handling the bail application before the trial court.
Case Title: Tushar Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
While hearing a plea concerning the Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident, the Supreme Court today expressed displeasure with the State of Uttar Pradesh for not complying with the suggestions given by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in its Report for counselling of students involved in the act (other than the victim).
Directing the State to immediately implement TISS' suggestions regarding counselling of the other children, who were participants/witnesses of the incident, the Bench orally told UP AAG Garima Prashad that the suggestions have to be implemented in letter and spirit.
Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. GMR Airports Limited & Anr., Curative Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2022
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and JK Maheshwari
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a curative petition filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against the multinational conglomerate GMR Group concerning the operational management of Nagpur's Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Pregnancies In Women's Prisons Across Country
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the alarming number of pregnancies occurring among women inmates in prisons across the country. This development comes one day after a significant plea was brought before the Calcutta High Court, drawing attention to a troubling trend of women prisoners becoming pregnant while in custody within correctional homes across West Bengal.
Stop Referring To 'Trial Courts' As 'Lower Courts': Supreme Court Tells Registry
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court has categorically asked its registry to stop referring to the Trial Courts as 'Lower Courts'.
“Even the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR).,” the Bench added.
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Sandeep Mehta
Recently, the Supreme Court has observed that a mere delay in complying with the order of the court would not amount to committing contempt of court.
“We are of the view that mere delay in complying with the order, unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged contemnors would not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.” the bench observed .