Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: December 16, 2024 To December 22, 2024

Index

Citations

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 998

Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Irfan Akbani & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| SLP(C) No. 26511/2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC)1002

Jyoti Limited v. BSE Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat| Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Athar Parwez v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

Deepti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s Madhan Agro Industries (Pvt) Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Anr v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Hyder v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Vivek v. Gawde Etc. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1904 of 2015 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Noida Toll Bridge Company v. Federation of Noida RWA, SLP(C) No. 33403/2016 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (Das) and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

China Development Bank v. Doha Bank OPSC and others 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Amutha v. AR Subramanian 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, SLP(Crl) No. 12120/2024 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Hongkong Andshanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Awaz . and Ors., C.A. No. 5273/2008 & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Orders

Tsunami On Roads (Registered NGO) Through Dr Sanjay Kulshrestha v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 39633-2024

Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024

Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 43648-2024

V. Shrinivasan v. THG Publishing Private Limited |D No. 58560/2024

Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

Vinod Kumar M.P. & Ors. v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29188/2024

V. Venu and Others v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024

Sanjay Badaya v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 15953/ 2024

State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Pandit Varun Mehta v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 17846/2024

Thiruvambady Devaswom and Anr v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 30389-30390/2024

Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)

Aruna Roy & Ors v. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors. | Diary no. 58833/2024

Pravin Jivan Walodra v. Bhushan Gagrani Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Ors., Diary No. 58625-2024

MC Mehta v. Union of India

MC Mehta v. Union of India

MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

Arun Baburao Phalke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP(C) No.7278/2020

National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019

MC Mehta v. Union of India

Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo., SLP(Crl) No.15189/2024

Madhu Koda v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1340/2019

K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.

Surya Prakash v. Union of India, Diary No. 23982/2023

Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India with connected cases

State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava

Era Lucknow Medical College and Hospital v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833/2024

Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Other Developments

Reports/Judgments

Mere Delay In FIR Registration No Ground To Reject Motor Accident Claim; But Delay Can Become Relevant Depending On Evidence: Supreme Court

Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 998

The Supreme Court observed that although the delay in lodging an FIR would not be a ground to reject a Motor Accident Compensation claim, it gains relevance in cases where other evidence does not support the claimant's allegations.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the Madras High Court's decision setting aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to reject the respondent claimant's claim against the injuries sustained to the claimant due to skid and fall from the scooter.

Supreme Court Flags Expanding Drug Trade, Urges Youth To Resist Peer Pressure & Stop Emulating Addicts

Case Details: Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 999

The Supreme Court held that the National Investigation Agency while investigating a scheduled offence can also investigate a non-scheduled offence or a person involved in a non-scheduled offence provided there is a nexus with the scheduled offence. In the judgment, the Court made certain observations on the ripple effect of illicit drug trade and drug abuse.

It held that the arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India while laying down some suggestions for parents and other stakeholders to ensure that drug abuse is no longer treated as a taboo and that rehabilitation should be the centre of focus.

While upholding the rejection of bail of a person accused of cross-border drug trade,b ench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh observed that despite the best efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of coordination and profit-seeking has sustained the menace of drug trade and abuse, so hard-hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting across age groups, communities, and regions.

'Dearth Of Super-Specialty Doctors In Dental Science Field': Supreme Court Regularises MDS Admissions

Case Details: Irfan Akbani & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| SLP(C) No. 26511/2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

The Supreme Court while directing the issuance of pending degrees to graduates of MDS(Master of Dental Surgery), observed the 'dearth of Super-Specialty Doctors' in the field of dentistry.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed by MDS graduates, the batch of 2016-19 in the dental colleges of Madhya Pradesh who challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelling their admissions taken in 2016.

'Nobody Can Be Condemned Unheard': Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks Made By HC Against Advocate Without Opportunity Of Hearing

Case Details: DUSHYANT MAINALI v. DIWAN SINGH BORA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

The Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks against an advocate recorded by the Uttarakhand High Court without providing opportunity of hearing.

Also, the Court set aside the High Court's direction to the State Bar Council to initiate misconduct proceedings against the advocate without affording him an opportunity of hearing to respond to the allegations labeled against him.

“We are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal filed by Dushyant Mainali, a practicing lawyer. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital made adverse observations against him in a civil case. The appellant was neither a party to the case nor representing any litigant in the matter.

Mandatory To Hear Informant/Victim Before Granting Bail In Rape Offences, SC/ST Act Cases: Supreme Court

Case Details: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC)1002

Affirming the importance of victim participation in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a person accused of serious offences where the bail proceedings were conducted in the absence of the victim.

The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the criminal appeal filed by a victim against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the accused who neither impleaded the victim in the bail application, nor the public prosecutor informed the victim or her representative about the proceedings before the High Court.

Companies Act | Approval Of Shareholders Mandatory For Listing Shares On Stock Exchange: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jyoti Limited v. BSE Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1003

The Supreme Court ruled that, without in-principle approval from the company's shareholders, debt-to-equity converted shares issued in favor of any person cannot be listed on the stock market.

In other words, the Court stated that obtaining in-principle approval from the company's shareholders, as required under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, is mandatory before allotting shares to any person. Without this approval, the allotted shares cannot be listed on the stock market.

Moreover, the Court stated that even if the company's shareholder approves the allotment of the company's share to a person, the shares would not automatically become eligible for listing unless the listing is approved by the recognized stock exchange as per Regulation 28 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal filed by Jyoti Ltd.

'Possibility Of Reformation Can't Be Ruled Out': Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Murder & Sexual Assault Of 4 Year Old

Case Details: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat| Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, considering the possibility of reformation as per behavioural and mental assessment reports, converted the death penalty of a convict guilty of sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child, to an imprisonment sentence.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge to the Gujarat High Court's order confirming the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

While the Court upheld the conviction, it referred to (1) the 'Mitigation Investigation Report' by Project 39A; (2) a report of the Superintendent of Vadodara Central Jail and (3) a Report by the Hospital for Mental Health to consider social, psychological and behavioural aspects of the accused.

The court reduced the death sentence of the accused to a sentence of imprisonment for 25 years as “the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.”

High Court Cannot Seek Explanation From Judicial Officer By Judicial Order: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

A higher court cannot seek an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order, stated the Supreme Court, while expugning the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a District & Sessions Judge.

The explanation can be sought only on the administrative side, the Supreme Court stated.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by a judicial officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against him.

The expressed disapproval of the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court that the Trial Courts should incorporate in a tabular chart the criminal antecedents of the accused while deciding bail applications. The Court observed that High Cours cannot direct the Trial Courts to write bail orders in a particular manner.

'Allegations Not Prima Facie Correct, Long Pre-Trial Custody': Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused In Case Over PFI-Links

Case Details: Athar Parwez v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked for alleged involvement with the Popular Front of India (“PFI”) in causing disturbance during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to Patna in 2022.

The Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of the accused in draconian statutes like the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) would make him eligible for a grant of bail despite the rigours of Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA.

The Court also observed that there were no materials indicating that the allegations were prima facie correct, which would attract the UAPA.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih heard the bail application filed by one Athar Parwez against the Patna High Court's decision denying bail to him on the allegation of involving in terrorist activities to cause disturbances in PM's Patna visit in 2022.

'A Synopsis Can't Run Into 128 Pages!': Supreme Court Asks Registry To Ensure Synopsis Is Trimmed Down

Case Details: Deepti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at a synopsis of a petition running into 128 pages. Since the petition was filed by a party-in-person, the Court said that the Registry should have advised the litigant to trim down the synopsis.

“The appellant, who has appeared in person, has filed a synopsis running into 128 pages, loaded with details much of which is not relevant for our purposes. We understand that the appellant is not a trained lawyer, but it is for the Registry to have asked the appellant to trim down the synopsis. A synopsis cannot run into 128 pages!,” observed a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Right To Protect Private Property Can't Be Brushed Away Merely Due To Delay & Laches: Supreme Court Condones 21-Year Delay In Land Acquisition Case

Case Details: Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

The Supreme Court observed that while delay in approaching the court is a significant factor, the right to property of an individual cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay and laches.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra condoned of delay of 21 years by original landowners (respondents) in challenging land acquisition proceedings on the ground that significant illegalities were alleged in the acquisition process.

“The decisions of this Court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A. The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches”, the Court observed.

Illegal Constructions Can't Be Regularised Irrespective of Long Occupancy & Investments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.

“we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.”, the Court said.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to demolish structures purchased by the appellants.

The Supreme Court has issued a set of guidelines to curb unauthorised constructions. The Court said that these directions are in addition to the directions issued in an earlier case regarding the demolition of structures.

The Court directed that it would be mandatory for the builder to display the approved plan during the period of construction, and no building completion certificate be issued unless the officer inspecting the building is satisfied that the building is constructed as per the building planning permission. Moreover, the Court directs departmental actions against the erring officials who grants wrongful building permission in violation of the law.

S. 33 Arbitration Act | Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio: Supreme Court

Case Details: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether post-award interest under Section 31(7)(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be calculated on the principal amount plus pre-award interest.

UP Amendment To S.106 TP Act Inoperative After Parliamentary Amendment Of 2003: Supreme Court

Case Details: Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

The Supreme Court has held that if the Parliament amends a law which is on a subject in the Concurrent List, then an earlier State amendment to the same provision would become inoperative.

Holding so, the Court held that the Uttar Pradesh amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which was carried out in 1954, would become inoperative after the Parliament amended Section 106 in the year 2003.

Writ Court Cannot Make Out A Third Case, Not Pleaded By Parties, Based On Arguments Made During Hearing: Supreme Court

Case Details: Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the Writ Courts should be based on the case pleaded and evidence adduced by the parties.

“Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court's enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that it was not open for the High Court to adjudicate on that issues which was never averred or pleaded by the party in its pleadings.

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Protect 'Sacred Groves', Lauds Rajasthan's Piplantri Village Initiative To Plant 111 Trees For Every Girl Child Born

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

While pronouncing judgment on an application in the TN Godavarman case, the Supreme Court lauded Rajasthan's Piplantri village for its initiative to plant 111 trees for every girl child born.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, SVN Bhatti and Sandeep Mehta, conveying its appreciation for the initiative, which was led by the village's “visionary” Sarpanch Shyam Sunder Paliwal, said,

“This initiative transformed environmental damage not only of the village but also of nearby areas. This phenomenal effort also gave positive impetus to the efforts for reducing societal biases against women. The Piplantri model has had many positive effects. Environmentally, over 40 lakh trees have been planted, which has helped raise the water table by about 800-900 feet and cooled the climate by 3-4 degrees. These efforts have improved the local biodiversity and protected the land from soil erosion and desertification. Economically, the planting of indigenous species...has created sustainable jobs...providing work especially for women...Socially, the model has helped eliminate harmful practices like female foeticide. The village now has rare distinction of a higher female population ratio ie 52% and ensures that all girls receive education. Financial support through Kiran Nidhi Yojana has empowered girls and their families in creating a community that celebrates and rejoices the birth of a girl child rather than resenting it.”

The application on which the judgment was rendered related to “sacred groves” in Rajasthan. Pursuant to orders passed by the Court, Rajasthan government started notifying sacred groves as forests through district-wise notifications, but there was a delay in the process.

The Court directed the state's Forest Department to carry out detailed on-ground and satellite mapping of each sacred grove. The process of surveying and notification was directed to be completed in all districts, after which the same shall be classified as forests (as recommended in the Centrally Empowered Committee report of 2005), regardless of the size and extent of the groves.

Coconut Oil Classifiable As 'Edible Oil' For Central Excise Tariff; If Sold As Cosmetic, Taxable As 'Hair Oil': Supreme Court

Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s Madhan Agro Industries (Pvt) Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1014

The Supreme Court has held that pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as 'Edible oil' for the purposes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It will be classifiable as “hair oil” if it is packaged and sold as a cosmetic.

“we are of the opinion that pure coconut oil sold in small quantities as 'edible oil' would be classifiable under Heading 1513 in Section III-Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, unless the packaging thereof satisfies all the requirements set out in Chapter Note 3 in Section VI-Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, read with the General/Explanatory Notes under the corresponding Chapter Note 3 in Chapter 33 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, whereupon it would be classifiable as 'hair oil' under Heading 3305 in Section VI- Chapter 33 thereof,” the Court held.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the legal issue of whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as 'Edible oil' or as 'Hair Oil' in terms of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

When Defendant Can Be Asked To Begin Evidence In Suit? Supreme Court Explains Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC

Case Details: Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Anr v. Tarini Prasad Nayak and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

The Supreme Court explained the circumstances under which a defendant gets the right to begin in a suit hearing as per Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

As per the CPC, the plaintiff has the right to begin. However, if the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and argues that plaintiff is no entitled to relief due to certain additional fact or any point of law, then the defendant gets the right to begin.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by a plaintiff in a specific performance sought who sought that the defendant should begin, since he admitted the existence of the agreement. The High Court and the Trial Court had rejected the plaintiff's prayer by holding that the defendant, though admitted the agreement, took the plea that it was a sham transaction. Hence, the Courts were of the view that the defendant's stand cannot be construed as an admission as such.

While agreeing with the view of the High Court, the Supreme Court expounded the law on the subject.

Subsequent Change Of Law By Itself Not A Ground To Reverse Acquittal: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hyder v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

The Supreme Court ruled that a delay condonation application with an appeal against an acquittal cannot be allowed because the prosecution's case is supported by a subsequent change of law. According to the court, a change of law would not justify re-opening a case that has already been decided.

“Change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal judgment,” the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the criminal appeal filed against the Kerala High Court's decision allowing the State's plea against the appellant's acquittal because a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court favored the prosecution's case.

Eviction Proceedings Of Unauthorized Occupants Of 'Public Premises' Should Be Conducted Under Statutory Provisions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Vivek v. Gawde Etc. Etc.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

The Supreme Court observed that the eviction proceedings of unauthorized occupants of 'public premises' ought to be carried out under the statutory provisions.

The Court added that the eviction proceedings initiated under the statute must continue without any interference unless the proceedings violate principles of natural justice.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against the High Court's interference in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers of the Inquiry Officer who is authorized to conduct an inquiry into the eviction proceedings under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (“Act”).

While Acquitting, Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation Against Acquitted Accused For Same Offence: Supreme Court

Case Details: P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

The Supreme Court ruled that a Court, while acquitting the accused, cannot order that he must be subjected to re-investigation for the same offence.

The Court set aside the Madras High Court decision which directed a de-novo investigation against the accused for offences in which he was already acquitted, stating that it would amount to a violation of the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Madras High Court decision refusing to quash the fresh case registered and re-investigation carried by the CBI upon the direction of the High Court to conduct a de-novo investigation against the appellant for the offences in which he was acquitted.

'Blot On Constitutional Spirit': Supreme Court Aghast At Attack & Disrobing Of Woman Over Witchcraft Allegations

Case Details: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1019

The Supreme Court expressed its shock at a case where a woman was physically abused and disrobed in public over allegations of witchcraft. “The reality that such acts are still a part of 21st century life is a fact that has shaken the conscience of this Court,” the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing a petition challenging the Patna High Court's order staying the investigation in the case.

Although the quashing petition filed in the High Court was withdrawn making the stay order inoperative, the Supreme Court decided to pursue the matter, given the seriousness of the allegations.

Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Woman's Inheritance Rights; Urges Parliament To Extend Hindu Succession Act To Scheduled Tribes

Case Details: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

The Supreme Court again urged the Parliament to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female Tribals by making necessary amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”).

The Court referred to the Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) judgment where it was noted that ”it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.”

A bench consisting of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which granted property rights to the respondents (tribal women) from the 'Sawara Tribe', a notified scheduled tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution.

Ex-Husband Can't Be Expected To Maintain Ex-Wife As Per His Present Status All Life; Alimony Not To Equalise Wealth: Supreme Court

Case Details: Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

The Supreme Court has observed that a divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony just to attain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. The Court expressed reservtions with tendency in matrimonial proceedings to seek maintenance or alimony as an “equilisation of wealth with the other party.”

While the wife is entitled to be maintained, as far as possible, to the same standards of life to which she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, the husband can't be expected to maintain her as per his present status in life. Merely becasue the husband has moved on and attained better financial status after separation, the divorced wife cannot seek a higher alimony.

“We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?” the Court asked.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal cautioned women not to abuse the laws which are meant for their protection..

Full Refund Of Court Fee On Mediation Settlement Not Possible Unlike Lok Adalat Without State Law: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1904 of 2015

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

The Supreme Court on December 19 held that a dispute amicably settled by mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should not be confused with the settlement of a dispute through Lok Adalat in terms of the repayment of Court fees where the latter provides 100% refund in the administration of justice. This is so because in the settlement of disputes by alternative dispute mechanisms, the refund of Court fees, if any, is incidental.

In this case, a dispute was settled through mediation and the appellant was refunded 50% of Court fees in accordance with the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. However, this was challenged on grounds that it went against the Central Court Fees Act, 1870 which stated that matters referred to Lok Adalat and settled shall be refunded with 100% Court fees.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar held that Court fees are specifically governed by Entry 3, List II (State List). Therefore, it is not a matter of incongruency between the Centre and the State legislations.

Partition Of Property During Owner's Lifetime Impermissible In Mohammedan Law: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

The Supreme Court reiterated that the partition of a property via gift deed during an owner's lifetime cannot be validated under Mohammedan Law.

The Court stated that the concept of partition is not recognized under Mohammedan Law, and thus, a 'partition of property' through a gift deed cannot be upheld as valid due to the absence of a clear and unequivocal 'declaration' by the donor of the intention to make a gift.

A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision that affirmed the trial court's decision to not recognize the partition done by one Sultan Saheb during his lifespan in their favour.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the registration of gifts (Hiba) is not required under Mohammedan Law.

Employee Cannot Remain Absent From Work Citing Pending VRS Application: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

The Supreme Court observed that an employee cannot remain absent from service merely because its Voluntary Retirement Service (“VRS”) application is pending.

The bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing the State of U.P.'s appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision directing the reinstatement of the respondent employees who were terminated from the service because of their absenteeism from the service under the garb of pending VRS application.

Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Filed By Wife Against Parents-in-Law 'With Ulterior Motive' To Force Husband To Consent For Divorce

Case Details: Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

The Supreme Court quashed a domestic cruelty case under Section 498A IPC against the husband's parents which was registered with an ulterior motive by the daughter-in-law to force their son to consent to divorce.

“These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the Appellant's challenge to the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench decision which refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants.

'Ensure Trials Aren't Delayed Due To Non-Production Of Accused': Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt & Bombay HC

Case Details: Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

The Supreme Court granted bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial due to the State's failure to produce the accused on most dates out of 102 dates in the last six years.

Noting that this was not a solitary case and was happening in many cases, the Court issued a general direction.

The Court directed ”the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra to sit together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons.”

Taking note of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement's decision, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that it would be a travesty of justice if the accused is being forced to remain in jail without getting the trial started, as prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence without undergoing the trial.

'Defrauding Public, NOIDA's Agreement Arbitrary': Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Levy Toll On Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway Commuters

Case Details: Noida Toll Bridge Company v. Federation of Noida RWA, SLP(C) No. 33403/2016

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. to impose tolls on the commuters of Delhi Noida Direct (DND) flyway.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the company's appeal against Allahabad High Court's judgment of 2016 which struck down the concessionaire agreement in its favor, on the ground that it had recovered its costs and made sufficient profits. The High Court's ruling came in a PIL filed by Federation of Noida Resident Welfare Association.

Concurring with the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court ruled that ”NOIDA overstepped its authority by delegating the power to levy fee to NTBCL through the concession agreement and regulations, exceeding the scope of its power” and that there was ”unjust enrichment of NTBCL at the cost of public suffering”.

The Court observed that no entity can be allowed to profit unjustly at the cost of public suffering.

S.20 Specific Relief Act | Defendant Can Raise Plea Of Hardship Only If It Was Unforeseeable At Contract Formation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (Das) and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

The Supreme Court observed that a defendant could raise the ground of 'hardship' in performing the contract only if it is established by cogent evidence that she was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract.

The Court further stated that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) would not apply if the defendant/seller failed to provide evidence showing that the hardship was unforeseeable when entering into the contract.

Before the 2018 amendment to SRA, the Courts had the discretion to grant or not to grant specific performance of a contract, however, the amendment had made specific performance as the rule, and refusal is an exception, provided the contract meets the enforceability criteria under the law.

The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal challenging the Tripura High Court's decision, which had overturned the trial court's ruling that decreed specific performance in favor of the appellant-plaintiff. The trial court had directed the respondents to execute the sale deed, rejecting their claim of hardship due to the suit property being their sole residence, as evidence showed they were not residing there during the seller's lifetime but elsewhere.

IBC | Financial Creditor Can Submit Claim Even If There Is No Default Of Debt: Supreme Court

Case Details: China Development Bank v. Doha Bank OPSC and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

The Supreme Court has observed a default is not necessary for a debt to become a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held that under Section 5(7) of the IBC, any person to whom financial debt is owed becomes a Financial Creditor even if there is no default in payment of debt. “Therefore, for submitting the claim by a Financial Creditor, there is no requirement of actual default,” the Court held.

The Court was deciding the matter China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors and the connected appeals where the question was whether the appellants could be regarded as financial creditors.

The Supreme Court has held that a moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will not extinguish a claim.

Marriage Built On Mutual Trust, Companionship; When These Missing, Marital Bond Becomes Mere Legal Formality: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amutha v. AR Subramanian

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

The Supreme Court has observed that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcline, can be a relevant factor to decide matrimonial disputes, when marriage has become a mere legal formality dovid of mutual trust and companionship.

“Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes,” observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The Court made these remarks while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a High Court's judgment granting a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

The Court observed that maintenance can be granted despite the financial independence of a party if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post- divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.

“The financial independence of a party does not preclude the High Court from granting maintenance if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.”

In Suit For Declaration Of Title With Further Relief Of Possession, Limitation Period Of 12 Years Applies; Not 3 Years: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

The Supreme Court held that while the limitation period in a suit typically follows the main relief, this does not apply when the main relief is a declaration of title, as there is no limitation for such declarations. Instead, the limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief sought.

Therefore, the Court said that when along with a relief for declaration of title, a relief for possession is also claimed, then the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the possession of immovable property based on title.

“In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist,” the Court observed.

The Court followed the decision in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa reported in AIR 1961 SC 808, where it was been laid down that in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.

The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court decision that affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to allow the Respondent-plaintiff to make an amendment to the original suit (plaint) to claim possession of the suit property along with the declaration of title of the property.

Govts Engaging Temporary Workers For Long Periods Unfair; 'Uma Devi' Judgment Being Misapplied Against Long-Serving Workers: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jaggo v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

The Supreme Court has criticised the practice of government institutions engaging workers on a temporary basis for a prolonged period, which results in the infringement of various labour rights. The Court reminded that government entities must indulge in fair and just practices and refrain from exploitative employment practices.

While allowing the regularisation of certain workers who were employed on a temporary basis for about 14-20 years by the Central Water Commission (CWC), a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed:

“..it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.”

The rise of the gig economy in the private sector has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, observed the Supreme Court while advising the government departments from misusing the practice of engaging temporary workers.

The Court appealed to the Government departments from adopting the detrimental practices found in the gig economy.

Non-Compliance Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Ground For Bail; Irregular Seizure Won't Make Evidence Inadmissible: Supreme Court

Case Details: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, SLP(Crl) No. 12120/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that the procedure mandated under Section 52A is mandatory. The Court held that the purpose of the insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances was to ensure the early disposal of seized contraband and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and give effect to the international Conventions.

The Court stated: “Sub-section 2 of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section 1. Therefore any lapse or delay would merely be a procedural irregularity. Any procedural irregularity found to be in conducting search or seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter would not by itself make the entire evidence inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all circumstances...Any prima facie delay or lapse in compliance of Section 52A by itself would not be a ground to release the accused on bail unless the conditions mandated under Section 37(1)(b) have been found to have been satisfied.”

It also held that while granting bail to the accused, the Court must consider the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, which are mandatory in nature.

“Recording of findings as mandatory in Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involving in the offences under the Act,” the Court said.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment in an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the May 18 order of the Delhi High Court.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Judgment Barring Banks From Charging More Than 30% Interest On Credit Card Dues

Case Details: Hongkong Andshanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Awaz . and Ors., C.A. No. 5273/2008 & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

The Supreme Court set aside an order dated July 7, 2008, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Awaz & Ors v. RBI, whereby it held that charging of interest between 36% per annum to 50% per annum from the credit card holders is usurious/excessive rate of interest. The Commission set up a cap of 30% as the rate of interest on credit cards.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the 2008 order, and allowed the present batch of civil appeals preferred by Hong Kong Shanghai Corporation, Citibank, American Express Banking Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank, along with the Intervenor, Housing Development Finance Corporation. The Appellants argued that determining the reasonability and 'fixing of the maximum or the minimum rates of interest', is the exclusive function of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

S.138 NI Act | Director Who Signed Cheque Not Liable For Dishonour When Company Hasn't Been Added As Accused: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

The Supreme Court reiterated that the authorised signatory of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque drawn on the company's account unless the company is arraigned as the principal accused.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of a man convicted for dishonoured cheque on the ground that the cheque was issued on behalf of a company, which was not arraigned as an accused. The Court rejected the argument that there was no occasion to implead the company as the cheque was drawn in discharge of personal debt of the accused, who signed the cheque as the company's director.

No Registration Or Stamp Duty Required For Compromise Decree Acquiring Property With Pre-Existing Right: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

The Supreme Court ruled that if a person already has a right to a property and acquires it through a compromise decree, they don't need to register it under the Registration Act of 1908. The Court also clarified that no stamp duty would be charged on such a decree, as it doesn't create any new rights and therefore doesn't qualify as a 'conveyance' under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed against the MP High Court's Indore Bench decision upholding the Collector of Stamps decision determining stamp duty at Rs.6,67,500/- payable by the Appellant for acquiring the subject matter property in the compromise proceedings in which he had pre-existing rights.

Not Necessary To File Separate Application For Delay Condonation Along With Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

The Supreme Court ruled that a separate application seeking condonation of delay is not necessary to be filed along with an application seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the application sufficiently explains the delay.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision, which upheld the First Appellate Court's ruling that overturned the trial court's order allowing the restoration application filed by the Appellant-Defendant for restoration of the ex-parte decree passed against him. The First Appellate Court overturned the trial court's decision citing that a separate application as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed along with the Order IX Rule 13 application.

Orders

Plea To Use CSR Funds Of Oil Companies On Public Transport: Supreme Court Allows Petitioner To Make Representations

Case Details: Tsunami On Roads (Registered NGO) Through Dr Sanjay Kulshrestha v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 39633-2024

The Supreme Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for the public and private sector oil companies to contribute under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the Indian Companies Act, 2013 to public transport services for a few heavily polluted cities to restore and compensate environmental damages occurring due to these companies' fossil fuels.

The writ petition was filed by Dr. Sanjay Kulshretha, who also appeared as petitioner-in-person before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh. The petition states that the plea has been raised to reduce health hazards due to severe air pollution in Delhi and other polluted cities.

Stating that the Court cannot direct how companies need to utilise their CSR funds, the Court rather than dismissing the writ petition, disposed it of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation(s) or endeavour to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities including EPCA vis-a-vis the prayers sought by the petitioner herein.

NIA Can Investigate Unscheduled Offences Connected With Scheduled Offences: Supreme Courts

Case Details: Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024

The Supreme Court held that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has the power to investigate an offence, which is not included in the schedule of the NIA Act, if it is connected with an offence which is included in the schedule of the NIA Act.

The Court clarified this legal position while upholding the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which cancelled the bail of a man accused in a case involving 500 kgs of heroin smuggling from Pakistan, observing that his custodial interrogation would be required to know the “hawala channels.”

Advocate Cannot Do Full-Time Journalism: Bar Council Of India Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that a practicing advocate cannot work simultaneously as a full-time journalist. This is due to the bar under Rule 49 of the BCI Rules of Conduct, which provides an advocate must not engage in full-time salaried employment while practicing law.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan was told by Advocate Radhika Gautam appearing for BCI that an advocate cannot simultaneously be an accredited journalist.

'Ban Free Online Pornography, Castrate Rapists': PIL Seeks Measures For Women Safety; Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & States

Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 43648-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and States on a public interest litigation seeking pan-India guidelines for safety of women. The PIL prays inter-alia for regulation of social behavior in public transport, ban on free online pornographic material and castration of persons convicted for sex offenses (against women and children).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, noting at the outset that some of the prayers sought are ”barbaric” and might not get indulgence from the court. In response, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for the petitioner) conceded that the prayers may be restricted, as deemed fit by the Court.

TM Krishna Shall Not Be Recognized As Recipient Of Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award: Supreme Court's Interim Order

Case Details: V. Shrinivasan v. THG Publishing Private Limited |D No. 58560/2024

The Supreme Court passed an interim order that Carnatic musician TM Krishna should not be recognized as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award given by the Music Academy at Chennai yesterday.

The Court's interim order also restrained TM Krishna from projecting himself as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi award in the name of MS Subbulakshmi.

A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the interim order in a petition filed by the grandson of Bharat Ratna MS Subbulakshmi challenging the Madras High Court's division bench's interim order which allowed the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi award, sponsored by the Hindu Group and chosen by The Music Academy, to TM Krishna.

Supreme Court Indicates Transfer Of Amazon, Flipkart Sellers' Petitions Against CCI Probe To Karnataka HC; Stays HC Proceedings Until Jan 6

Case Details: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

The Supreme Court indicated that it may transfer writ petitions filed in various High Courts by Amazon and Flipkart-associated sellers against Competition Commission of India's (CCI) probe into alleged anti-competitive practices to the Karnataka High Court.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan issued notice returnable on January 6 and stayed the proceedings in the petitions before the Karnataka HC in the meantime.

“Notices are made returnable on 6th of January. In the meanwhile, the writ petitions which are being heard by Karnataka High Court which are subject matter of this petition shall not proceed. Prima facie we are of the view that all cases pending in various High Courts could be transferred to Karnataka High Court for hearing”, the Court stated in the order.

The Court was hearing CCI's plea to transfer 24 writ petitions filed in various High Courts by sellers associated with Amazon and Flipkart, challenging a probe by the CCI into alleged anti-competitive practices.

'Race, Religion, Caste & Language Human Constructs': Supreme Court Says Caste No Bar For Appointment Of Non-Hereditary Temple Trustee

Case Details: Vinod Kumar M.P. & Ors. v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29188/2024

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the selection to positions of non-hereditary trustee of temples cannot be caste-based.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Kerala High Court order which set aside previous appointments of non-hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB). The High Court also laid down directions for fresh appointments as per the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act.

The High Court judgment was challenged by the previously appointed trustees in the present plea.

While refusing to interfere in the said decision of the High Court, the bench clarified that the direction laid down in the impugned judgment “will not have any bearing on the eligibility of the petitioner(s) for being considered for future appointments”.

Malankara Orthodox-Jacobite Church Dispute: Supreme Court Directs Status Quo; Seeks Data On Population & Assets Of Both Denominations

Case Details: V. Venu and Others v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024

After a long hearing which went on for over one and a half hours, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing in the dispute between the Malankara Orthodox and Jacobite Churches, directing that the status quo with respect to the management and the administration of the churches, as they exist today, should be maintained till the next date of hearing.

In the event of any untoward incident, the State can intervene, the Court clarified.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posted the matters for detailed hearing on January 29 and 30, 2025. The bench also asked the State of Kerala to furnish the data regarding the population( preferably sub-region/gram panchayat-wise) of both Orthodox and Jacobite denominations; the list of churches under the complete administrative control of both the sections; the list of churches where the management is under dispute and their current status of administrative control.

The bench also granted liberty to both parties to place on record their respective parish registers.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Rajasthan Jal Jeevan Mission Scam Accused Sanjay Badaya In Money Laundering Case

Case Details: Sanjay Badaya v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 15953/ 2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Sanjay Badaya in a money laundering case arising out of Rajasthan's Jal Jeevan Mission scam, in which he is alleged to have acted as a middleman for a Minister.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, taking into account the fact that co-accused Piyush Jain (against whom similar allegations were levelled) has already been granted bail, that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and that charges are yet to be framed.

Farmers Protest | Saving Life Of Fasting Leader Dallewal Priority, It Shouldn't Be Dependent On Fulfilling Farmers' Demands: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

In the matter related to farmers' protest at the border between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court asked Punjab authorities to swiftly tackle the health situation of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal who is on fast-unto-death (at Khanauri border) since 20 days and clarified that the farmers can directly place their demands before the court instead of making representation to the High Powered Committee.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, after Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh informed that pursuant to the last order, meetings were held between Punjab authorities, Union's representative and Mr Dallewal (and other farmers/leaders) and the court's concerns were brought to the latter's notice. However, Mr Dallewal refused to undergo medical tests/receive aid and the farmers declined to interact with the High Powered Committee (constituted by the Court).

No Explanation For Reinvestigation After 3 Years Without Court Permission: Supreme Court Quashes 1998 Booth Capturing Case

Case Details: Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court quashed the case against a man accused of booth capturing in Alwar during 1998 Rajasthan Assembly elections.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan noted that the case was reinvestigated without permission from the magistrate three years after a closure report was filed despite.

“At this stage we may also note that the first final report under section 173(2) was filed on 25.06.1999. 3 years thereafter, at the instance of the Additional SP this exercise of reinvestigation/further investigation has commenced. There is no explanation forthcoming why such an action was taken after lapse of 3 years and that also without seeking permission from the court of the magistrate. Therefore, the appeal succeeds, and the impugned order is set aside”, the Court held.

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Astrologer Accused Of Helping Woman To Poison Husband & Mother-in-Law

Case Details: Pandit Varun Mehta v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 17846/2024

The Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to an astrologer Pandit Varun Mehta accused of conniving with a woman, who allegedly administered poison to her husband and her mother-in-law.

Reportedly, both victims were given slow poison and before death, they were given lemonade. Their health continued to deteriorate and eventually, they succumbed to death. It is alleged that the astrologer gave the poisonous substance to the wife to administer it to her husband and mother-in-law.

While denying bail, the Court said: “Not a case for anticipatory bail.”

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC's Directions On Use Of Elephants For Temple Festivals

Case Details: Thiruvambady Devaswom and Anr v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 30389-30390/2024

The Supreme Court effectively stayed the restrictions imposed by the Kerala High Court for the use of elephants in temple festivals.

The Court ordered that any direction issued by the High Court contrary to the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 would remain stayed.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh passed the order in an appeal filed by the Thiruvambady and Paramekkavu devaswoms, which hold the iconic Thrissur Pooram (festival) in Kerala.

The Court while staying the restrictions imposed by the Kerala High Court dated November 13, including that a minimum distance of 3 meters should be there between elephants during processions in temple festivals, remarked that the High Court should not have exercised suo moto powers and issued directions in “vacuum”.

Supreme Court Reserves 3 Posts For Women Lawyers In Upcoming DHCBA Elections; Treasurer Plus 30% Of Other EC Posts Reserved In District Bars

Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)

In a significant development, the Supreme Court directed reservation of 3 posts for women lawyers in the upcoming Delhi High Court Bar Association elections. Further, in the district bar associations, the Court directed that the post of Treasurer plus 30% of other Executive Committee posts shall stand reserved for women lawyers (including those already reserved for women).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.

Reportedly, out of the 3 posts reserved in DHCBA, first is of Treasurer, second is of 'Designated Senior Member Executive' and third is for a member from the senior designation category.

The reservations have been directed on an experimental basis for the upcoming elections only and the elections directed to be held on the scheduled date (whatever may be fixed).

Ensure No Hate Speech In Yati Narsinghanand's 'Dharam Sansad': Supreme Court Tells UP Authorities, Refuses To Entertain Contempt Petition

Case Details: Aruna Roy & Ors v. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors. | Diary no. 58833/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a contempt petition filed against the Uttar Pradesh administration and police for allegedly failing to take steps to prevent the 'Dharam Sansad' which is being organised between December 17 to 21 at Ghaziabad by Yati Narasinghanand, who has a history of making communal statements targeting the Muslim community.

At the same time, the Court asked the Uttar Pradesh district authorities to take all precautionary measures to ensure that there are no hate speeches.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the Uttar Pradesh administration to ensure that the Supreme Court's directions to prevent hate speeches are complied with.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To BMC Commissioner On Contempt Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Mumbai Gurudwara, Directs Status Quo

Case Details: Pravin Jivan Walodra v. Bhushan Gagrani Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Ors., Diary No. 58625-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on a contempt petition filed against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, alleging illegal demolition of a Gurudwara in violation of the Court's stay order on demolitions in the 'bulldozer matter'.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, directing that till the next date, status quo be maintained.

Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs UP And Haryana To Impose Complete Ban On Firecrackers Similar To Delhi

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to implement complete bans on firecrackers similar to that imposed in Delhi.

“We are of the view that this ban will be effective only when other states forming part of NCR region impose similar measures. Even the state of Rajasthan has imposed similar ban in that part of State of Rajasthan which falls in NCR regions. For the time being we direct the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to impose similar ban which is imposed by the state of Delhi under order dated 19 December 2024”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the Delhi air pollution matter, continuing its review of measures to tackle pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR) as part of an ongoing MC Mehta case.

Dehi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Directs NCR States To Form Teams For Monitoring GRAP Compliance

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court directed NCR states to form multiple teams of officials to monitor compliance with measures of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), imposed due to the worsening air quality in Delhi-NCR.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the states to constitute multiple teams comprising officials of the police, revenue, and other departments to visit entry points to Delhi and generally monitor compliance with GRAP IV measures. It added –

“Considering the magnitude of the task, all NCR states shall create multiple teams. We also make it clear that the members of the teams so constituted will work as officers of this court and not officers of any government. So long as GRAP III and GRAP IV measures are in force, they shall regularly submit reports regarding compliance as well as breaches to the respective governments and stakeholders and give copies to the CAQM so that immediate action can be taken.”

The Court said that the member of the teams would oversee compliance at entry points of Delhi and within NCR regions and would act as commissioners of the Court.

Delhi Preservation Of Trees Act | Supreme Court Stops Felling Of More Than 50 Trees Without CEC Approval, Orders Tree Census In Delhi

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court directed that whenever Tree Officers grant permission to fell 50 or more trees under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 the permission must be approved by the CEC before it is acted upon.

“We therefore direct that whenever permission is granted by the tree officer for felling of 50 or more trees in accordance with Section 8 read with section 9 of 1994 Act the said permission shall not be acted upon unless the same is approved by the CEC…CEC will consider the application and all other aspects thereof and will decide whether the permission deserved to be granted or whether any modification is required in the permission or terms and conditions imposed under the permission”, the Court directed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih also directed the appointment of Forest Research Institute Dehradun to conduct tree census in Delhi under the guidance of three experts.

The Court passed a slew of directions to regulate tree felling permissions, conduct tree census and ensure compliance with compensatory afforestation obligations.

'How Temple Ownership Can Be Changed By Minister?': Supreme Court Proposes To Cancel Sale Deed Of Temple Land

Case Details: Arun Baburao Phalke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP(C) No.7278/2020

Surprised at the change in ownership of a temple property facilitated by a Maharashtra Minister in September 2014, the Supreme Court directed a Collector to take possession of the subject land and submit a plan for temporary utilization thereof for the benefit of the temple and village community.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, noting that the ownership of the temple was changed without providing opportunity of hearing to the temple management and/or affected persons.

Establishment Of Gram Nyayalayas: SC Again Seeks Affidavits From States/UTs, Warns Chief Secretaries Of Action In Case Of Failure To Furnish Data

Case Details: National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1067/2019

In a PIL seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country, the Supreme Court again called on states/Union Territories to furnish affidavits and warned that if the same are not filed, the Court would be constrained to take serious view of the matter as well as take action (as deemed appropriate) against the concerned Chief Secretaries.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, directing the Chief Secretaries of all states/Union Territories to file the affidavits (supplying information as sought in the order) within 12 weeks. The states which had not filed affidavits in response to the court's last order shall also include information which was sought earlier, the order said.

In National Capital, 3000 Tons Of Solid Waste Remains Untreated Daily: Supreme Court Highlights Disastrous Situation In Delhi

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Delhi government for the lack of progress in implementation of solid waste management, highlighting a gap of 3,000 metric tons per day between the waste generated (11,000 tons) and the waste treated in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area.

“With some degree of sadness we are recording that in the capital city everyday 3000 tons of solid waste is being generated which is not capable of being treated and therefore there is illegal dumping. Perhaps someday this court will have to take a call on stopping some kind of development activities in the city so that the generation of solid waste can be controlled”, the Court observed.

“See this is a very disastrous situation in capital city. Therefore no point in having heated debates in court. This is actually to say the least is shameful, in capital city this happens”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih expressed disappointment over the authorities' failure to implement innovative solutions to bridge the waste treatment gap and to implement Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Summons Under PMLA Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Accused Was Discharged In Predicate Offence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. Vilelie Khamo., SLP(Crl) No.15189/2024

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court which quashed summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) to investigate proceeds of crime involved money laundering on grounds that the Respondent was discharged in scheduled offence (offences related to property in this case).

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated January 3, whereby the summons issued under Sections 50(2) & (3) of the PMLA for money laundering were quashed against the present Respondent after it was found that a Special Court discharged the Respondent in connection with the scheduled offence.

Supreme Court Permits Ex-Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda To Withdraw Plea Challenging His 3-Yr Disqualification By ECI In 2017

Case Details: Madhu Koda v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1340/2019

The Supreme Court allowed former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda to withdraw the plea challenging his 3-yr disqualification by the Election Commission of India in 2017.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Koda's counsel, who submitted that the matter has become infructuous as the 3-yr period has lapsed.

Supreme Court Issues Notice To Tamil Nadu In Plea To Recall Senthil Balaji's Bail, Seeks Details Of Cases & Witnesses Against Him

Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu in a plea seeking to recall its judgment granting bail to Minister Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case linked to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the State of Tamil Nadu to give details of the cases pending against Balaji and the number of witnesses against him, distinguishing between public servants and other victims.

“We direct the added respondent to place on record the details about the criminal cases pending against respondent no. 2 (Balaji). The state will also place on record the number of witnesses which are required to be examined in the cases. They will also state how many victims of the offences are witnesses and how many of the public servants who are witnesses”, the Court ordered.

The Court set the matter for further hearing on January 15, 2025.

'Entire Credit Score Outsourced To A Private Entity': Amicus To Supreme Court In Plea Alleging Data Privacy Violation By Foreign Companies

Case Details: Surya Prakash v. Union of India, Diary No. 23982/2023

In a PIL alleging data privacy violations by foreign credit information companies, Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (Amicus Curiae) assailed before the Supreme Court the outsourcing of ”entire credit score” of persons to foreign private organization(s) and lack of statutory framework to regulate the duties of the organization(s).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned the matter, upon being informed that a copy of the Ministry of Home Affairs' affidavit did not reach the Amicus. It also gave 4 weeks' time to respondents, including Transunion CIBIL Ltd., Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt. Ltd., Equifax Credit Information Services, CRIF High Mark Credit Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Bank Bazaar, Paisa Bazaar and My Loan Care, to file their affidavits.

Registry Cannot Refuse Listing Of Case Citing Procedural Defects When There Is A Judicial Order To List: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saddam Hussain MK v. Union of India with connected cases

The Supreme Court held that the Registry cannot defy specific order of the Court and refuse to list a case on the ground of procedural non-compliance.

“When there is order of the court directing listing of the cases specifically assigned to this bench the registry cannot defy the order and refuse to list the case on the ground that there was non-compliance with procedural aspects”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a batch of petitions related to the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan in Kerala.

Farmers' Protest | Supreme Court Asks Punjab Authorities To Take Call On Shifting Jagjit Singh Dallewal To Temporary Hospital Amid Hunger Strike

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

In the matter related to farmers' protest at the border between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court said in categorical terms that it is Punjab authorities' responsibility to ensure stable health condition of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a fast-unto-death since last 24 days at the Khanauri border.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and called for an affidavit from Chief Secretary, Punjab and Chairperson of the Medical Board (constituted to monitor health of Dallewal) by the next date on the health situation of Dallewal as well as the steps taken to ensure that no harm comes to him.

Punjab & Haryana HC Bar Association Undertakes Before Supreme Court To Abide By SC Judgment On Lawyers' Strikes

Case Details: M/S M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court concluded proceedings against the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association after a fresh undertaking was filed by its acting president, Shri Jasdev Singh Brar that the Association will abide by the Supreme Court's judgment in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India regarding lawyers' strikes.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih took note of the new resolution passed unanimously in a meeting of the Bar Association's executive committee on December 19, 2024.

On December 13, the Court had reprimanded members of the executive committee who opposed a resolution to tender an unconditional undertaking to refrain from strikes.

The bench observed that all members of the executive committee had agreed to the undertaking filed earlier by the acting president

After Supreme Court Summoned DoPT Secretary, Centre Gives Appointment To Blind Civil Services Candidate

Case Details: Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea concerning the non-compliance of its earlier judgment directing the appointment of Pankaj Srivastava, a 100 percent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 2008.

The court had previously issued a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for failing to implement its order.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that the order of appointment had been issued to Srivastava, placing him in the Indian Information Service (IIS), Group A.

Supreme Court Extends NEET-UG Admission Deadline Till Dec 30

Case Details: Era Lucknow Medical College and Hospital v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833/2024

Taking into consideration the number of medical seats remaining vacant despite 5 rounds of counselling, the Supreme Court extended till December 30 the period for NEET UG admissions as a special measure.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, taking into account the submission of Senior Advocate Gaurav Sharma (for National Medical Council) that in view of the number of vacant seats, extension may be granted as a one time measure without it being treated as a precedent.

'Contrary To Statute': Supreme Court Pulls Up ED For Arguing That Stringent PMLA Bail Rigours Will Apply To Women

Case Details: Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court pulled up the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for contending that rigorous bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will apply to women.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition challenging the denial of bail to woman accused of money laundering.

“If submissions are going to be made by Union of India contrary to express statute, we will ask Attorney General to come...We will not countenance such submissions from the Union of India”, Justice Oka said.

Other Developments

'How Is Shouting 'Jai Sriram' Inside Mosque An Offence?': Supreme Court Asks Complainant, Seeks Karnataka Police's Stand

Case Details: Sri. Haydharali Cm v. Sri Keerthan Kumar & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 17009 of 2024

The Supreme Court sought the stand of the State of Karnataka in a petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's view that shouting 'Jai Sriram' inside a mosque would not amount to an offence.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition filed by the complainant in the case against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated September 13 whereby, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings two persons accused of trespassing in Badriya Juma Masjid and shouting the slogan “Jai Sriram”. The High Court observed in the judgment “it is un-understandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class”.

Supreme Court Expresses Disinclination To Stay Karnataka Lokayukta Investigation In DK Shivakumar Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Details: Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka And Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12282/2024 (and connected matter)

In pleas challenging withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court expressed disinclination to pass any interim order regarding ongoing investigation by Karnataka Lokayukta.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter, arising out of two petitions filed by BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal and CBI assailing Karnataka High Court's judgment which dismissed their pleas questioning withdrawal of CBI consent.

Wrong Practice Of Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases Rampant In Many States: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP(Crl) No. 008592 - / 2024

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the 'wrong and rampant practice' of converting civil disputes into criminal cases in several states.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a plea seeking the quashing of charges under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. filed against the petitioner by the complainant who alleged foul play in the transfer of the sale deed of certain property.

Supreme Court Displeased That Woman Advocate Engaged Male Lawyer To Argue Plea For Female Reservation In Bar Council

Case Details: Meena A. Jagtap v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 819/2024

While hearing a plea seeking 33% reservation for women lawyers in Gujarat's Bar Council, the Supreme Court called out the petitioner, a lady advocate, for engaging a male advocate to argue the case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed disappointment over the petitioner's engaging of a male advocate, when her plea was for reservation for women lawyers.

'After Taking Money, Client Isn't Told If Case Filed Or Not': Supreme Court Pulls Up Senior Advocate, Laments 'Sorry State'

Case Details: Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court highlighted a sorry state of affairs that a Senior Advocate is indulging in suppression of facts in pleas filed before the Court.

The Court was dealing with a remission related plea in which the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, simultaneously approached the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court seeking identical reliefs and failed to disclose this fact before the Supreme Court.

Justice Oka remarked, “After the lawyer is designated as Senior Advocate, this is happening. The litigant is not told after taking money, the case is filed or not. This is very sorry state of affairs.”

Congress MLA Chanda Singh Gaur Moves Supreme Court Against HC's Refusal To Dismiss Election Petition Filed By BJP MP Rahul Singh Lodhi

Case Details: Chanda Singh Gaur v. Rahul Singh Lodhi, SLP(C) No. 29490/2024

Congress MLA Chanda Singh Gaur has approached the Supreme Court challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's rejection of her plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to dismiss an election petition filed by BJP MP Rahul Singh Lodhi.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, before whom the case was listed today, has posted it to January, 2025. The order was passed after briefly hearing Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for Chanda Singh Gaur) and Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni (for Rahul Singh Lodhi), noting that the court is only required to see as to what is the prescribed format for an affidavit under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and what kind of affidavit was filed in the instant case.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Bail Plea Of Azam Khan & Son In Stolen Machine Case

Case Details: Mohammad Azam Khan And Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 17240/2024 & Azhar Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 17426/2024

The Supreme Court issued notices in Special Leave Petitions filed by Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Azam Khan, former member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Rampur and his son Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan, former member of the Legislative Assembly from Suar constituency challenging January 29 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to grant them bail in a stolen machinery case.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar issued notice to the State Government and sought its reply. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for them.

Can Graduates Of 3-Year LLB Correspondence Course Enrol As Advocates? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: STS Gladies v. BCI and Another | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30217/2024

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether a law graduate of a 3-year LLB Course be allowed to enrol with the State Bar Council if s/he obtained an undergraduate degree through correspondence.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale was hearing a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court which refused to allow Bar enrollment of a law graduate with a correspondence degree in Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)The bench issued notice in the matter .

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Against Dismissal Of 2 Women Judicial Officers By Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Details: Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024 & Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the case concerning the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to terminate two lady judicial officers from service.

In this case, six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On the direction of the Court, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh Court agreed to reinstate 4 female judicial officers. Therefore, 2 lady officers were before the Court seeking a remedy against termination.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh heard submissions from Senior Counsels Indira Jaising (for Aditi) and R Basant (for Sarita).

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Victim Protection Protocol For Victims Of Sex Trafficking

Case Details: Prajwala v. Union of India, MA 530/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 56/2004

The Supreme Court reserved the judgment seeking comprehensive victim protection protocol for victims of sex trafficking, orally remarking that they will treat the matter “very seriously”.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the organisation Prajwala working in the areas of sex trafficking, in the main writ petition filed in 2004, for compliance with an order passed on December 9, 2015. Although the main petition was disposed of, an MA was filed by the organisation alleging that the order also suggested implementing the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, which lapsed in 2018 and was redrafted in 2021.

To summarise, the petitioner through Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat has argued: “Today, there is no institutional framework to comprehensively deal with human trafficking.” Therefore, the existing framework should be strengthened.

Supreme Court Seeks BRS MLA Kova Laxmi's Response On Congress Candidate's Plea Challenging Her Election In Telangana Assembly Polls

Case Details: Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi And Ors., C.A. No. 13015/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on Congress leader Ajmera Shyam's plea challenging dismissal of his election petition against BRS leader Kova Laxmi, who was the returned candidate in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on a statutory appeal preferred by Ajmera Shyam under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, against Telangana High Court's dismissal of his election petition.

Is Bribe-Giver Liable For Abetment Under S.12 Prevention Of Corruption Act Before 2018 Amendment? Supreme Court To Settle

Case Details: K. Rabindra Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.9315/2024

The Supreme Court is set to consider whether a person who, despite the public servant's refusal, voluntarily offers a bribe to a public servant, should be held liable for abetment for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the bribe amount is recovered from the officer's desk.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a challenge to the Orissa High Court order dismissing a criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the trial court order which refused to discharge him of offence under S. 12 of the PCA.

The issue framed by the Court reads: Whether an alleged voluntary offer of bribe made by the complainant without a demand by the accused public servant and discovery of the bribe amount on the desk of the latter, prior to 26th July, 2018, would amount to an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended).

Deoghar Airport Case: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Jharkhand's Plea Against MPs Nishikant Dubey & Manoj Tiwari

Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the plea filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and others in the 2022 Deoghar Airport case.

The FIR, lodged in September 2022, alleged that the respondents threatened and coerced Air Traffic Control (ATC) officials to permit the take-off of a private aircraft in violation of safety regulations. The FIR invoked Sections 336 (endangering life or personal safety), 447 (criminal trespass), and 448 (house trespass) of the IPC along with Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934.

The High Court had quashed the FIR on the grounds that it was filed without the requisite complaint or sanction under the Aircraft Act. It held that when a special law provides for specific punishments, IPC provisions could not be invoked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan indicated that the court would modify the High Court's judgment to allow the material collected during the investigation to be submitted to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). It noted that the DGCA could consider the material and determine if a complaint under the Aircraft Act could be filed.

Does Oral Pronouncement Of Judgement Amount To Case Disposal?: Supreme Court To Decide

Case Details: MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Supreme Court questioned the legal implications of oral pronouncement of judgments in court and whether such oral pronouncement itself amounts to a final disposal of the case.

“Whether such oral pronouncement that petition is allowed, whether it will really amount to disposal or not, that issue we have doubt whether you will be able to argue that, but it has to be gone into”, Justice Oka said to Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who said that he will address the Court on this issue.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan raised this question while hearing the plea of former Director General of Police (DGP) Jaffar Sait, challenging the Madras High Court's decision to rehear his petition for quashing a money laundering case, despite having earlier allowed the petition.

Luthra argued that the pronouncement by the Court constituted a judgment, while Justice Oka said that the Court will consider that issue.

'Farmers Have Never Entered Into Physical Confrontation': Supreme Court Asks Punjab Govt To Ensure Health Of Dallewal Amid Hunger Strike

Case Details: State of Haryana v. Uday Pratap Singh, SLP(C) No. 15407-15410/2024

In the matter related to farmers' protest at the border between Punjab and Haryana, the Supreme Court pulled up Punjab authorities over their insufficient efforts to tackle the health situation of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a fast-unto-death since last 21 days at the Khanauri border.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan re-emphasized that Punjab authorities shall ensure immediate medical assistance for Dallewal, without forcing him to break his fast. The matter is again listed tomorrow at 12:30 PM, when Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh will furnish medical test reports of Dallewal.

West Bengal SSC Recruitment Scam | Supreme Court Questions Reliability Of Scanned OMR Sheets; State Claims Tainted Candidates Can Be Segregated

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP(C) No. 009586/2024

During the hearing of the West Bengal SSC Teachers' Recruitment Case, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to examine the authenticity of the electronic data stored in database of the School Service Commission (SSC) in order to understand whether there can be a distinction made between 'tainted' and 'untainted' candidates.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's order setting aside the appointments by the WB School Selection Commission to over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Upcoming Punjab Municipal Corporation Elections, Issues Notice To SEC On Opposition Candidates' Plea

Case Details: Kailash Purohit And Ors. v. State of Punjab And Ors., SLP(C) No. 30666/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Punjab State Election Commission in an intervention application filed by the prospective candidates of opposition parties including Bharatiya Janata Party, Shiromani Akali Dal, and Indian National Congress, alleging that they were systematically prevented from filing nominations for the Municipal Corporation elections in Patiala by the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, in a Special Leave Petition challenging the December 13 order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Through the IA, the candidates have sought a stay on the upcoming Municipal elections scheduled for December 21 on the grounds that they were thwarted from filing nominations the last date of which was December 12.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PS Varale refused to interfere in the upcoming elections.